mvsgas Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 About the fuel level. It depends on the aircraft. Like everything ells. For example SR-71 had to much weight and they would leak all the fuel out if they took off full of fuel. On the F-16, it is normal to be full of fuel, but there are options, for example not to filling the external tanks. The main problem is weight and balance. Some aircraft are very sensitive on fuel to maintain proper weight and balance. Also some equipment uses fuel for cooling. SlackerD, Pilots get on the loaded aircraft. The A-10 can be loaded with the pilot onboard but, not normally done in training because of safety risks. It’s hard to justify the risk. We do not refuel in End of Runway (EOR). They have designated areas and it’s not necessary. Obviously we could. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Frostiken Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 The best you'll get in that regard is a hot pit. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Snoopy Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 We use to do Integrated Combat Turns in the 90s, basically the Hawg would taxi into the spot and everything goes on at once...Crew Chiefs did a quick walkaround, loaded chaff/flare, and refueled the jet while weapons rearmed all while engines running. We don't do ICTs anymore because during the Iraq war and in Afghanistan we would taxi to one area to rearm and then to hot pits. EOR is for one last walkaround and arm weapons before takeoff. On landing it is to dearm. v303d Fighter Group Discord | Virtual 303d Fighter Group Website
WildFire Posted August 6, 2011 Author Posted August 6, 2011 What do you mean, the pit got too hot? I remember dubai. I swore the sand was going to turn into glass under my shoes... like 120-130 in the middle of nowhere... whew... Yeah I read that they often flew it in and fueled up full for patrol, but its not like I can say for sure, Im not a pilot.
Frostiken Posted August 6, 2011 Posted August 6, 2011 Hot pits = refueling without shutting down. The F-15 shuts down one engine in order to access the fuel receptacle, but basically the idea is the crew doesn't get out. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
WildFire Posted August 6, 2011 Author Posted August 6, 2011 Well I guess I was just confused by what paul said. Hes saying they still turn but they do loading and rearming in different areas... Im confused.
Frostiken Posted August 6, 2011 Posted August 6, 2011 (edited) Arming = removing all the safety devices before takeoff, like the pylon breach pins, the CMD interrupt pins, and other armament ground safety pins. Not to be confused with pins for the landing gears and such which are removed in chocks before they first taxi out. EOR = 'End of Runway' which is typically a parking spot where the aircraft are armed, and then wait for clearance to take off. Hot Pits = As mentioned, putting fuel in without the crew leaving the seat, typically with one or both engines running. Loading = Putting the munitions on, loading up new chaff/flare buckets, fresh rounds. It makes sense to do these in different places due to the potential for catastrophe you have when you mix loading fuel, loading bombs, and dearming them all in the same area. Related story: On the F-15, the Emer Jett button is curiously designed and, if it's pushed slightly, the only real indication is that there's a white band showing. Well at some point this button got slightly pushed and the white band was almost impossible to see - so much so that nobody noticed it. When the aircraft got to EOR and the pin was pulled from the pylon ejection breach, the carts fired and the guy nearly got crushed by a falling 660 gal fuel tank. Not a fun thing to have happen. Edited August 6, 2011 by Frostiken [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Stingray66 Posted August 6, 2011 Posted August 6, 2011 Which airports are you reffering to. The bases where ATC seems to ignore the wind, all have hazards associated with one runway. Take Batumi for example, you can only take off in one direction and only land in the opposite direction, regardless of wind. Due to the big **** off mountains in the way. Sorry for coming back to this such late -> I complete forgot about this thread... :music_whistling: I was talking about Senaki...I always start AND land on 27, although only 09 has an ILS frequency. Why that? If there are any places that you want to avoid, why do you direct takeoff AND landing on 27? Doesnt make sense. Any ideas? EDIT: Have to try to force strong winds coming from 09...maybe that helps...slow winds doesnt stop ATC from directing you to 27... Stingray ASUS P8Z68-V Pro - Intel 2500K @ 4,2GHz - Antec H2O 920 - 8GB Kingston XMP 1600 MHz - GeForce GTX 560 Ti 2GB - WD 1TB Caviar Black SSD Intel 311 20GB (cache) Textures: High | Scenes: High |Water: High| Visibility: High| Heat Blur: On | Shadows: High | Res: 1920x1080 | MSAA: x8 | Vsync: On | HDR: Normal| TSAA: On| Mirrors: Off | Civ Traffic: Medium| Res Of Cockpit Disp: 512 | Trees: 12000m | Clutter: 500m
rockyalexander Posted August 6, 2011 Posted August 6, 2011 Sorry for coming back to this such late -> I complete forgot about this thread... :music_whistling: I was talking about Senaki...I always start AND land on 27, although only 09 has an ILS frequency. Why that? If there are any places that you want to avoid, why do you direct takeoff AND landing on 27? Doesnt make sense. Any ideas? EDIT: Have to try to force strong winds coming from 09...maybe that helps...slow winds doesnt stop ATC from directing you to 27... I use Senaki 90% of my time in SP flights. I've never been directed to either take off or land from/to 27:wassat:
EtherealN Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 why do you direct takeoff AND landing on 27? Doesnt make sense. Makes all kinds of sense. If prevailing winds motivate taking off on 27, any landing that takes place at the same time and the same winds would also happen on 27, because both of these things are motivated by wind. At our airfield about 90% of takeoffs and landings happen on 21, not 03, because such are the prevailing winds. Anytime 21 is the active, BOTH takeoff and landing use 21. If 03 is the active, both occur on 03. (03L and 21R follow the same pattern, obviously.) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
nomdeplume Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 (edited) EDIT: Have to try to force strong winds coming from 09...maybe that helps...slow winds doesnt stop ATC from directing you to 27... Not "coming from [090]", you mean "blowing towards [090]" - airfields like Senaki-Kolkhi that can operate in both directions will have you take off and land facing into the wind. Runway 09 is the 'default' for this airfield, so you'll only get directed to 27 if there's an easterly. Not sure how strong it needs to be to force a shift, though. With wind direction 132' at 7 m/s I'm getting directed to runway 27. I normally use this airfield and so I've deliberately set the winds to force a takeoff from 27 in order to mix things up a bit. Note that the wind direction in the mission editor shows the direction the wind is blowing towards, which is opposite of how wind conditions are usually communicated. Edited August 7, 2011 by nomdeplume
Stingray66 Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Not "coming from [090]", you mean "blowing towards [090]" - airfields like Senaki-Kolkhi that can operate in both directions will have you take off and land facing into the wind. Runway 09 is the 'default' for this airfield, so you'll only get directed to 27 if there's an easterly. Not sure how strong it needs to be to force a shift, though. With wind direction 132' at 7 m/s I'm getting directed to runway 27. I normally use this airfield and so I've deliberately set the winds to force a takeoff from 27 in order to mix things up a bit. Note that the wind direction in the mission editor shows the direction the wind is blowing towards, which is opposite of how wind conditions are usually communicated. Thanks for all the answers. What I meant was that I never ever took off or landed on 09 which is the Standard RW as laid out by many of you. The question is what is the threshold at which you get directed to the other direction. Winds from say 170 or Even 180 shouldnt provoke a change. But what is? Besides: Even in really bad weather I got directed to 27 without ILS... Is that realistic? If you cannot land on 09 because of the wind and 27 has no instrument landing equipment wouldnt you be redirected to another airport? Stingray ASUS P8Z68-V Pro - Intel 2500K @ 4,2GHz - Antec H2O 920 - 8GB Kingston XMP 1600 MHz - GeForce GTX 560 Ti 2GB - WD 1TB Caviar Black SSD Intel 311 20GB (cache) Textures: High | Scenes: High |Water: High| Visibility: High| Heat Blur: On | Shadows: High | Res: 1920x1080 | MSAA: x8 | Vsync: On | HDR: Normal| TSAA: On| Mirrors: Off | Civ Traffic: Medium| Res Of Cockpit Disp: 512 | Trees: 12000m | Clutter: 500m
nomdeplume Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 The question is what is the threshold at which you get directed to the other direction. I haven't had time to experiment, so I gave a particular setting that was forcing a change. It's pretty easy to set up if you really want to find out. My guess is that probably anything that's blowing toward the west will cause a shift, but it might require a minimum speed. Besides: Even in really bad weather I got directed to 27 without ILS... Is that realistic? If you cannot land on 09 because of the wind and 27 has no instrument landing equipment wouldnt you be redirected to another airport?The game's ATC is not at all sophisticated. If it's not safe to land you could divert yourself, but the game's certainly not going to. Something for the wishlist, maybe.
Stingray66 Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Thx, I will try that with the Wind directions and strength. Stingray ASUS P8Z68-V Pro - Intel 2500K @ 4,2GHz - Antec H2O 920 - 8GB Kingston XMP 1600 MHz - GeForce GTX 560 Ti 2GB - WD 1TB Caviar Black SSD Intel 311 20GB (cache) Textures: High | Scenes: High |Water: High| Visibility: High| Heat Blur: On | Shadows: High | Res: 1920x1080 | MSAA: x8 | Vsync: On | HDR: Normal| TSAA: On| Mirrors: Off | Civ Traffic: Medium| Res Of Cockpit Disp: 512 | Trees: 12000m | Clutter: 500m
Cali Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Flying realistically doesn't mean you always take off with full tanks. Depending on payload and mission requirements I sometimes fly with just 50%. I never ran out of fuel yet... In the case of battle damage other system failures tend to cause my flight to end sooner than a punctured fuel tank :)... Yes it does, I have never seen a A-10 or F-16 take off with 50%, 60% or 75% fuel, they are always 100% full. Frostiken; the A-10 holds about 10 to 11,000lbs of fuel without bags, each bag is 600 gallon (4,000lbs) tank. So it holds about 22,000 lbs with all 3 bags, roughly the same as a F-15. i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED
Frostiken Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) Actually that means the F-15E holds a lot more - with tanks STA 2 and 8 you can get about 35,000 lbs of gas. Of course, the F-15 eats that gas like it's nothing whereas the A-10 may as well be a hybrid when it comes to fuel consumption rate :P I wonder which one gets the best milage.... Edited August 8, 2011 by Frostiken [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts