Pyroflash

This is good news, though I really hope that the harrier doesn't get stuck in the mud when it comes to taxiing around on unimproved surfaces like the A-10C and Su-25T do.

Good video. What do you use for video capture FRAPS?

I wonder if the Harrier will be able to use the Ka-50 FARPS.. or boats for that matter.. Does FSX have any guided missile destroyers or landing craft that we can get used to landing on with the Harrier? Also, it might be useful for RAZBAM to also develop an LHD for use with the Harrier.

It's not, the CCIP reticule is pretty much around where the bombs hit. Did you try to input correct wind/temps in the LASTE page? I think it only affects CCRP, but I could be wrong.

Most likely not. There are bound to be kinks in any project of this size, whether they are revealed during testing or not is a completely different issue. Plus LHM is fixing the problem, but warranty or not, someone has to pay for it.

First off, what is Vision avionics? Secondly, test pilots for what things? The X-51 has no pilot (or the pilot is a really tiny midget).

Proper "military protocol" is what is causing them issues to begin with, so I hardly think that this case can be handled like most problems. And the point I was trying to make is that what any of us feel is pretty irrelevant. The pilots did what they did, and without being able to read minds, I can no more speculate on what they did or for what reasons than I can stop the energy death of the universe between now and the next three seconds. So, that being said, I do not disagree with you, I am simply pointing out that you don't have a lot of the facts needed to make an impartial decision on whether or not the pilots were right or wrong in their decisions. And as far as the whole Chinese thing goes, the Chinese (and the rest of the world) knew that the F-22A was having issues long before these pilots said anything. Public knowledge of the fleet's grounding was almost immediate, that was last year. The pilots came out because they felt like their safety was threatened, and released no private knowledge of anything when they did it. So that being said, I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that their statements threatened our national security. Also, China is hardly hostile. They might be a threat, but then again so is India, Russia, etc. Openly hostile countries are to my knowledge limited to the DPRK for the moment.

Never took jet pilots for the "Save The Whales" type. :D

American weapons have no DLZ limit like the Russian planes do. You can fire the missiles at any time by pressing and holding the weapons release key (different from the fire gun key) for more than two seconds (please don't Mad Dog AIM-120's (firing them without a valid lock, or breaking the lock before they go pitbull (the point where the missile is tracking the target with its own RADAR)) though. I understand that it happens if you lose lock, etc., but try not to fire them without a valid lock, or release lock before they go pitbull. Tip: In HOJ, you can get a target's slant range by knowing two things, how far away you are from a landmark, and how high the target is, assuming you can do a little big of trig (it isn't hard). 1. Gather target's approximate height (this will be your height when you cross the enemy through the horizon bar on your HUD). 2. Climb to a set altitude (the higher you are, the easier it will be to do this at longer ranges). 3. When bandit is over a landmark, estimate horizontal range (distance along the ground) from you to that landmark (this range MUST be in the same units as you used to determine your current altitude). 4. Now think of this as building two triangles in the air, one big one that slants from you to the landmark, and one smaller one that slants from you to the bandit. Since these triangles are the EXACT same, but just scaled differently, we can apply the same angles to both triangles. The first thing that needs to be found is the slant range of you to the landmark. The Pythagorean theorem (A^2+B^2=C^2) comes in handy here. ex. I am at 30,000 feet, while the landmark is ten kts from me. 30,000'^2+60,000'^2=67,082'^2 So the landmark has a slant range of 67,082' from me. 5. Now divide your altitude by the bandit's altitude. ex. bandit is at 15,000'. 30,000'/15,000'=2. 6. The last step is to divide the slant range of the town by the number in step 5. This will leave you with the approximate slant range of the enemy aircraft. ex. 67,082'/2=33,541'. And now you know how to kill jamming aircraft without ever turning letting it know that you fired on him. :smartass:Join me next time for another great episode of "Blowing Stuff Up (With Math)" :D P.S. Every A-A missile that the Eagle can fire in FC2 except for the AIM-9 is HOJ capable, although TBH the AIM-7M is too short range to be of much use here (you are in burn through before DLZ limits). NONE of these missiles are anti-radiation though, they cannot be locked onto a target's radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTARS :D

Regardless of what the wiki says, I don't think this is the issue as the weapons tables list all of the bombs as having the same mass (894 (no units given, but probably in Kg)), except for the GBU-10 which is listed as 900 mass. In the table though it is listed differently than the data file. Makes me wonder, though I am guessing that it is the table that defines it whilst the data simply describes it. If that is the case then the Mk-84 gets bumped up to 900 Kg, and the GBU-10 hits up a little above that. Can't speculate at all as to the state of the GBU-31 however, as it is non-existent in that table. Err.. This is probably as far as my knowledge can help, sorry that I couldn't do more to solve the problem.

Doesn't make much sense (It seems like a really weird bug). Did you retry the tests with the bombs ensuring they hit in the same places, or did you just try the GBU-31's once? Similarly with the Russian bombs. Can you post a track illustrating your issue? I'm looking into it right now, you meant the ammunition depot right? Yeah, definitely able to reproduce this issue 100% of the time. GBU-31's are a little underpowered, or something else is in the works behind the scenes. ------------------------------- Well, I think I figured out the Russian part of the problem. In \\Config\Weapons\warheads.lua, the KAB-500Kr and FAB-500M62 both have different explosive values for different warheads despite them being based off of the same bomb. The American bombs still have an issue however. The bombs reference the same warhead (Mk-84) as they should, but somehow produce differing results. Just shooting in the dark here, but by some coincidence the GBU-31 (or any GPS guided munitions for that matter) are the only ones not referenced in \\Config\Weapons\bombs_table.lua maybe this could be a contributing factor?

Read my earlier post, I already admitted that I have no idea what I am talking about since when looking into this stuff I skipped a bunch of rather important ideas related to specific impulse and thrust values. :D Though I did learn one thing. I always thought that the Concorde was similar to the SR-71 in that it needed afterburners to sustain supersonic speeds, however it appears as though a lot of the reasons that the Concorde's engines WERE rather efficient when compared to conventional turbojet designs is that the Concorde could take advantage of supercruise. In fact, the Concorde was most efficient at higher Mach numbers. Edit: Actually, I am tempted to ask for a thread split, as I would like to pursue this question further where it doesn't skim along the surface of its parent thread in such a way that negates its importance.

This is probably true, and represents the main reason why I neglected to mention the 787. Apart from its massive carriage capacity, and unparalleled range, even by the 747, it's engines (and airframe) are EXTREMELY efficient. Edit: I digress, until I have more information about this topic. It seems upon further research that I overlooked a key aspect. Although the specific impulse may be twice as much, that only counts for fuel usage per unit of thrust, however it does not account for how much thrust is actually needed to sustain flight.

In cruise, the Concorde burns almost twice as much gａｓ as most HBP engines, however it also goes MORE than twice as fast, so it evens out to be a little more efficient in terms of fuel per kt. It makes sense really, and I can't find anything to disprove it.

No, don't encourage talk about other countries in this thread please. If anything, it should be moved to a separate for this separate issue, if not dropped altogether. My reference to 1.7 if you didn't get it, was to rule 1.7, as that's exactly the rule talks about those videos were going to lead to. Especially the one about the Chinese video game. Again, if this stuff needs to be talked about, lets do it in another thread where it doesn't end up sidetracking the current discussion (which TBH, is also unnecessary since it has been talked about in other threads).

Well, it is as you say, the engine itself may not enjoy better fuel economy due to its LBPR, however the aircraft as a whole enjoys far better fuel economy than any other jetliner in existence, with maybe the exception of the B-787 (to my knowledge). It is precisely because of the absence of parasitic drag on the body of the Concorde that allows it to be so efficient and fast.

I was under the impression that it was atmospheric compression that did most of the heating in, say the space shuttle orbiter. Is this not right? (thanks for clearing that misconception up that the boundary layer compresses with increasing velocity)

Actually, at hypersonic speeds the boundary layer gets compressed resulting in compressional heating effects that outstrip any heating effect by friction (it is still a lot though), and it is likely (more like guaranteed) that if these jets were to become passenger jets, they would have some sort of internal insulation where the exterior effects wouldn't affect the internal environment.

I meant that the pilot was probably looking to gather attention to the facts rather than to create a name for himself. And no, I still don't get what you were trying to say with the China thing. It really doesn't make sense in the context of a problem with Oxygen systems. At any rate, 1.7.

Actually interestingly enough, because speed isn't directly related to the specific impulse of the fuel, a hypersonic transport, rather analogous to the Concorde (currently the Concorde holds the record for the most fuel efficient jet liner ever made, despite it's high speed and afterburning engines) actually has the ability to be CHEAPER to run in terms of fuel costs than other, more conventional jets. One of the main reasons why Concorde flights were so expensive is their limited utility (routes), due to infrastructure and other considerations, as well as their limited production run. If they had a chance to develop as well as fly to an expanded set of fields, it may well have ended up costing less money per passenger than other more conventional jets. Plus Hypersonic travel is a utility that MUST not be overlooked for extremely urgent business (i.e. medical emergencies, important government meetings, military reactions, intercontinental business emergencies, etc.)

Sorry, I should have phrased my comment differently to say that while the media involvement was designed to draw attention to the matter, it probably wasn't out of some delusional desire to garner personal fame. As for the whole China thing.. huh? :huh: Was this meant for another thread perhaps?

Well, they must have felt as if they were being persecuted for actions which they believed themselves to have the right to make, and given that the issue was already made public, I see where they were coming from seeking public and federal protection. Seeing as nothing that wasn't already known was revealed, there shouldn't be any issue with them seeking political protection, especially if it was warranted. Keep in mind that if they are flying F-22A's to begin with, they probably took their jobs quite seriously, and weren't looking for any attention. If you look at what I am saying, I am not passing any judgement in either direction, but instead providing justification for their actions, be them right or wrong. At any rate though, whether it was a good choice or not, I believe it is up to the involved pilots to make that decision, and not us; since ultimately they will have to take responsibility for their own actions. One can only hope that they uphold their decisions with honor and integrity instead of trying to defame any party. However in that respect, there are certain tales that only time can put an end to.

Yes, then I would have to agree with you that the indication presented to seem to coincide with the presence of a bug. :)

No, I don't get what you mean. The aircraft still works, and the pilots can still fly them happily without many issues, MOST of the time. And the assumption that the military would sacrifice its members just because of a problem is absurd. The only issue I can see the Air Force having is with the F-22A guard pilots who refused to fly because of the safety risks, in which case I can't really blame them, and they have the right and final say in whether or not to take off. Though the issue was known both internally and especially externally after the USAF grounded its fleet last year.