Bushmanni

Is it possible to have acmis from the TAW servers too? There has also been interest to see the 2vs2 final on video so server replay track would be needed for me to make a video of it.

AH-1W also uses the mechanical system. You can see the stick in a stowed position on the top left canopy frame on pictures of a parked Whiskey. Here's a video of a Whiskey pilot explaining about the helmet sight. https://youtu.be/sp9LXvVBOVw?t=798

In early Cobras the helmet has a rigid boom with instrumented gimbals attached to it so that the system knows where each gimbal is pointing. It's fundamentally similar system as the gunners gunsight grip in UH-1H but it's on your helmet. You can find more about it in TM-55-1520-234-10 flight manual for AH-1S. edit: I found a video of it.

Congratulations to Stuge and Razer and thanks for organizers for smoothly run tournament. I had great time and many adrenaline filled fights, looking forward to the next one. And thanks for Sweeper, I had great time flying with you. :thumbup:.

Sweeper, I'm also available.

Collective controls vertical force ie. acceleration not vertical speed. You will have very little drag in vertical axis opposing the vertical movement when you are climbing in hover as your climbing speed is very small. So if your climbing speed stabilizes at 3 m/s vs 1 m/s it means very small additional force is responsible for that. You could get that from small breeze higher up if there was even a hint of wind in the test scenario, or small horizontal velocity component if the chopper didn't stay in perfect hover.

Could you elaborate why it couldn't be made legal? Rules can be changed and will be if there's enough reason for it. It's presumably safe and you probably can take it for a spin with much less hassle and quicker than a traditional plane or helicopter so it has its uses. Is there some technical flaw that makes it fundamentally unsafe?

Wings snapping off in simplified terms is a function of root bending moment, ie. force applied to the wing that causes it to bend and the highest bending moment occurs at the wingroot. This might not be the place where the wing snaps as there might be a relative weak point further along the wing span but it's the point of the highest bending torque. G-load on the other hand is a function of acceleration of the fuselage of the aircraft. Total aerodynamic force is responsible for the fuselage acceleration while root bending moment is only function of the forces acting on the wing. If the ratio between lift from body and wings changes, it will change the relationship between G and wing root bending moment like change in fuselage mass does. Blade element theory calculates body lift and wing lift separately so there's no reason to assume that mach effects on G and wing breaking relationship couldn't be modeled.

I cruises at only about 100km/h so not so great for long distances but in a congested city it could be nifty.

Bending usually doesn't make any sound and even if some sound is created it's not loud or something you hear over wind and engine noise in a fighter. Usually when something breaks it's just a sudden bang. [ame] [/ame]

You are right, I just did some test firings to check my claims after discovering that the supposed demonstration failed. In the current version absolute max range in said conditions seems to be about 17 NM. ED has actually nerfed the AMRAAM even further from previous versions, at least the high altitude performance. Also the 6 NM range limit is now at 15k instead of 12k. I have included two demonstrations from current version at 15k (6 NM) and 40k (15 NM) and an acmi from legacy DCS version just to show that it used to be possible to get at 20 NM. Max range is only achievable by maddoging the missile as firing it with M-link will cause the missile to maneuver excessively and fall well short of its potential. 17 NM shot would require pretty much perfect aim for the maddod shot for the missile to reach the target. Missile range test.zip

I tried some ghost settings and found that they disappear along with the actual contact when radar contact is lost thereby making it hard to remember or see where the contact was lost and where he was headed at the time. I'd like the ghost markers to stay until they fade on their own.

Try it. But like I said, you need to be at 40k or higher for it to work. That 6 NM separation keeps you safe only to about 10k feet altitude.

I should have been more precise as I meant head on shot range. OP is asking how far he needs to extend in order to re-commit. My distance is based on how much distance you need to the bandit in order to fire at him successfully while still being able to trash the bandits missiles. In practice though you need third party to provide this distance if you are going to base your decision on the distance. In practice you re-commit when you don't have bandits chasing or targeted on you and you consider having necessary distance for what ever moves you try to do. You might recommit the moment the bandit chasing you turns and switches to different target or you keep extending for 10-30 NM to the back of the grinder to provide SA and cover for your extending wingmen. At 40k an AMRAAM will catch you from 20nm away behind if your speed is around 1.1 M and 15 NM if your speed is 1.5M. If you have a bandit chasing you even at long distance like 15 NM it's extremely dangerous to climb to and extend at high altitude as climbing will extend the reach of bandits missiles considerably while you won't be able to increase distance during the climb. High speed high altitude extension is a safe method to bug out though as long as you have enough distance to the bandits (about 20 NM) so they can't engage you while climbing and accelerating. When you get your speed up nobody is able to catch you. I'm not sure what the OP uses as a reference for the 50-60 NM extend as it's obviously too much as a distance to the bandit. If it's a distance to the starting point of extension then it shows a fundamental flaw in his thinking of air combat. All your maneuvers are made in relation to the bandit and your wingmen (except when using terrain as cover but even then your main consideration is the position of the bandit). In 1vs1 you don't extend as IASGATG said as you will end up extending until you or the bandit runs out of fuel or the bandit catches you and shoots you down. In 1vs2 you might take a long range shot at both of the bandits in hope of lucky kill and extend early to provide enough distance to successfully run away from them. In NvsN extending is a viable concept as long as you have a wingman 5-10 NM behind you to kill the bandit chasing you or more likely encouraging the bandit to extend as well. You would merge only when merging with an advantage and there's no other bandits nearby to join the party as when you merge you are committed to killing the bandit or getting killed.

Max effective firing range is between 6-20nm, depending on altitude. When you are extending, you usually do it at low altitude to shorten the range of pursuers missiles so the required firing range is about 6-10nm. You need some additional range to allow for scanning with radar to build a picture so you can make a wise targeting decision. Scanning takes about 15s which needs about 5 miles. You also need maybe 1 mile for U-turn so your desired range to bandits is about 12-16 NM before re-commit, depending on altitude.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2033616&postcount=1035 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2033734&postcount=1037

Thanks to organizers and all the pilots. I had multiple hair rising close calls evading blue missiles but managed to survive to the end. Thanks for the Challenger side for putting up a though and fun fight and aggressors for great teamplay. And salute to Plaiskool and Stuge for their impressive performance!

Your name in replay is "New Player" or the name you set in the roster, not the one you use in MP.

You were climbing the Eagle at way too slow speed. 350kts IAS is optimum climb speed for MIL power and you are supposed to hold the IAS through the climb until you hit 0.9 M and then you hold the Mach. For afterburner climb you should hold 1.0 M (in-game optimum, in v 1.2 at least) through the climb. And of course you should accelerate in level to the climb speed before pitching up for the climb. I bet the Mirage will also climb better if you keep it at higher speed. Your test mostly demonstrated that Mirage has relatively less drag at at slow speed due to lower AoA. Traditionally time-to-climb tests start the clock at brake release but that would make the climb times to lower altitude levels inaccurate if you use climb profile for high altitude. Acceleration to best climb speed takes some time and you can easily get to 10k feet with optimum climb profile for that target altitude before you have even got to the optimum climb speed (and started climbing) for high target altitude. If you start the clock at beginning of pitch up for the climb you will get rid of this problem but the results won't be comparable with official climb results.

We (SF squadron) had lots of great fights, Thanks for everybody. Looking forward to the next one. I hope we can get the server ACMI or replay sometime soon.

You don't necessarily need to encode each pulse uniquely, as you can also alter the delay between pulses (essentially PRF) using well though out pattern so you can later figure out the target range comparing multiple pulses and their timings.

F-18A can't do what a F-18C updated with Super Hornet FBW sofware can do. Super Hornet FBW had it's control laws designed from ground up with different principles and produced definite improvements in controllability. While Super Hornet also had some additional aerodynamic enhancements to improve controllability, the legacy Hornet could still improve it's controllability using the Super Hornet software. [ame]http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p011127.pdf[/ame]

Sign up on behalf of Sykloni, kapsu and aekki flying F-15C.

I haven't found any good free standalone docs about radar or RWR (except in Finnish but that likely doesn't help you) but if you google some key concepts like "PRF range ambiguity", "PRF doppler ambiguity", "range ambiguity resolution", etc. you will find lots of snippets of information to build a more complete picture. This is the best I have found so far: http://ece.wpi.edu/radarcourse/Radar%202010%20PDFs/ And the excellent Finnish doc: link

Me too. Very laggy response to rudder on taxi and especially at take-off and landing and it doesn't want to stop when it starts turning. Extremely easy to start PIO.