Vitormouraa

That's an awesome attitude coming from ED, I've got to say it. +1

I don't necessarily agree with X-CHECK about some things in that video but he made some important points that ED needs to look at. But I take that video as constructive criticism. Also, thanks for listening to the community, that's always important. :) Also, what Yurgon said.

Is there any major difference between the DCS: F/A-18C and DCS: F-16? In terms of development, perhaps new technologies used, etc.

:lol: :lol:

That's more of a Mission: Impossible thing. ;)

Weak trailer. There is nothing impressive about it. The only good part IMO was when Tom rode the H2. Rest looks nothing but random scenes. CGI (if there is CGI in it) looks decent.

Unfortunately, we can't really measure thrust without introducing a lot of variables. Without a developer tool, it's nearly impossible. Nice job on those tests bbrz! (I will now try to avoid polluting this thread even more - can't test it myself atm).

I feel like people keep saying/sharing stuff like this without even testing it like it was 100% true. :music_whistling: Looking forward to seeing what Habu can do for us other than feedback. It's always very important, hopefully, this SME feedback won't be ignored.

Looking for HUD/avionics footage with decent quality, anyone? :)

Afterburner is a bad idea because it goes against the whole point of the A-10 engines, which is efficiency. Afterburner is used on fast flying airframes, AB is used in those cases because it provides a very high exhaust gas velocity, as well as additional thrust without increasing the inlet diameter, which is great because no additional drag is created. But afterburner is terrible for efficiency, not only for fuel but also propulsive efficiency. It's like traction on your car when the wheels spin too fast, you lose traction which results in a bad acceleration. It's more or less the same thing here, unless you're at a decent speed, using AB at slow speeds, which is what the A-10 was designed for, isn't very efficient. The A-10 is a very draggy airframe, the maximum allowable airspeed is just 450 knots, you wouldn't want to go past that number. The idea behind the A-10 engines is to move a huge mass of airflow but at a slower speed. AB does the opposite, much lower mass flow, but at a very high speed. And according to the Kinetic energy formula, energy is equal to 0.5 * mass multiplied by the square of the speed. I.e, in order to shoot a little mass of airflow out of the exhaust at Mach 2, you need four times the energy.

I wasn't expecting that Ka-50 upgrade, I'm really excited and looking forward to seeing the new Blackshark. That's absolutely amazing. Thanks!

What's the purpose of this thread?

Perfect, can't wait!

Or Viper... ;)

Wow, I love this pic for some reason. Looking pretty good.

That's a billion times better. LOVE IT! How can I download it? :)

Awesome! We have many Hornet pilots around here, but I wish we had a bit more of the A-10 community (pilots) with us right here. Thanks for sharing!

The toughest job on earth: Dealing with people. Let's calm down guys. Let ED do their thing, then once the module is out, we can discuss whether Y, X or Z is wrong/inadequate, etc. But all this drama (Especially on Hoggit) isn't necessary. :)

That betty is hilariously broken. It really pisses me off.

That's exactly what I thought, reminds me of an interview about the F-111 where a pilot mentioned its analogue computers which couldn't keep up with the rate of acceleration of the F-111. :)

Very nice posts, Lex. Thanks for sharing them. By the way, have you noticed how the G-Limiter often fails to protect the airplane from exceeding the maximum load factor even when the weight exceeds 32,000 pounds? (according to NATOPS, from my understanding, there is no G-Limiter at or below 32k). Is that actually accurate? i.e you can still over G the aircraft, up to 10G even when the G-Limiter is working 100%.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing but what I try to do is, as I drop the bomb I have some time to do whatever I want until the laser fires itself at the target, so as soon as the drops out of the aircraft I turn away from the target as much as it allows, it could be from 20 to 45 degrees depending on how much time I have until the laser fires, then I place the aircraft on a bank, making sure it's not going to mask the TGP (this requires some experience), then I don't have to fly away to employ another bomb. I think your example could work well. Have you tried it?

Apparently, the building got its fire suppression system triggered by the collision.

Looks like the pílot ejected, hopefully, he's alright. Also, what about the hydrazine?

ALWAYS from the pilot's point of view.