Vandy01
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Vandy01
-
-
On 1/9/2021 at 6:41 PM, HuggyU2 said:
No beer/booze allowed on California ANG bases.
I heard weed is ok though.
-
4 hours ago, Smokin said:
I'm assuming the Eagle still has the old-school ADI?
Correct. The Light Grey is still rocking the mechanical ADI.
-
5 hours ago, brabus said:
Is it because they changed out the original Nintendos connected to crank pulleys for circa 1998 XBOXes? I knew it...
All for the low low price of tens of millions of dollars, too!
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, brabus said:
Too bad every fighter doesn’t have AGCAS.
That would require some sort of redundant computer controlled flight control system or capability. and also probably a terrain database of some form. And maybe a RADALT. The light grey doesn’t have any of those things.
the light grey Eagle is a mechanically controlled, hydraulically actuated flight control system with a very rudimentary analog single channel flight control computer “overlay” called a CAS. The CAS is not required for flight, and often “falls offline” during BFM... the CAS only allows for a little extra stabilator movement (7 degrees of trailing edge movement if I remember correctly)... it’s not connected to any other flight control surfaces.
yes. Every fighter should have AGCAS... to equip the F-15C with it would require a significant retrofit of the on board systems and flight controls (not that it can’t be done... the F-15E has a 3-channel redundant digital flight control system. So maybe it would be possible to retrofit that). Probably cheaper overall though to just replace the old jets with new ones that already incorporate this technology (F-15EX? F-35?)
-
23 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:
Is the canopy breaker shorter than many pilot’s helmets?
The breakers in the 35 are pretty long- well above the apex of the pilots helmet (sts?)
-
21 hours ago, Danger41 said:
This forum has turned into F-35 GK central (at least for me). What are the different flight regimes where the throttle reacts differently? I’ve only done AR in the F-15 and the throttle just acted one way regardless of what you were doing. Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying and I’d understand different amount of throttle requirements in landing config vs clean BFM config, but AR?
Yeah... it’s nothing like the F-15, despite the “digital” portion of the DEEC. In the F-35, the throttle sensitivity/flight control logic changes based on the regime of flight you’re in... and also based on settings like putting the gear down, or opening the AR door. It’s very noticeable in the AR mode: the jet basically dampens out over corrections.. the throttle needs to be moved significantly to get a small movement forward out of the jet. Think of it kind of like the throttle on a modern sports car (electronic throttle maps... “sport mode”, etc). A “fun” side effect of an all digital jet.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, di1630 said:
That is a c model, navy does weird stuff, not sure why you’d put gear down.
The jet goes into a different flight control mode when you aerial refuel anyhow with gear up.
I’ve refueled from a c-130 before with Eurofighters and Tornadoes all stacked up. It’s no big deal except when 2x wing pods are out, you feel really close to the other jet refueling right next to you.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appGreat question that I don’t know the answer to.... which control logic “reigns Supreme” between the aerial refueling logic, and the powered approach (gear down) logic... my guess is the gear down logic.., which would probably make the turn a little more comfortable for the F-35 pilot (throttle is very numb in the AR logic).
just speculation though
-
1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:
For those of you in aircraft with det cord in the canopy: is there any talk... officially or unofficially... that when you are in a controlled ejection, you jettison the canopy manually, and THEN pull the ejection ring?
I flew the t-45C about 15 years ago... I don’t recall that discussion.
Currently flying the F-35A... and no- no discussion on a manual TRS pull prior to controlled ejection. I don’t know that it would change anything.
In both aircraft, they have canopy breakers on the seat as well... just like the other 4th gen “normal” jets I’ve flown.
-
5 hours ago, MIDN said:
Does anyone know if people have been hurt by the canopy det cord from ejecting from the T-6 or T-45?
I know a couple people that ejected from T-45’s... none directly complained about that to me.
lots of folks have ejected from harriers, with no issue with the Det cord.
the F-35 TRS Det cord is probably “improved”.. the pilot from the Eglin mishap did say he had tin shards embedded in his skin... so there’s that.
-
26 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:
That boat anchor fuselage is a result of the B model. I had the opportunity to see the engine with it's gearbox that connects to the driveshaft that connects to and turns the lift fan and it's one ungainly large piece of machinery that has to be stuffed into the fuselage. And that didn't include the actuators and crap for the lift fan doors. RAND did a study and said building 3 separate aircraft would have been cheaper.
I don’t need a rand study to tell me that.... and I’m willing to bet the three separate aircraft would have each been better, too....
-
2 hours ago, DFNJ said:
Outside of taxing in the C, it's the best variant. More gas and bigger wings make such a large difference.
Biggest issue is having three variants with multiple services and partner nations all pushing for different things.
Being so weapons limited, I’d argue that the internal gun is damn near mandatory.., despite our gun chine problems and the questions about the accuracy of the HMD symbology... and don’t hit me with “external 9’s”... although the sidekick option is compelling.
so.. give me more thrust to weight (like.. a lot more)..and then the larger wing of the 35C... that way I can actually get out of trouble and execute some real L&L tactics if need be as opposed to being more reliant on the magic pants....I’d take a slight hit on gas for that... as I’m often running around with a ton of fuel and no amraams left during a DCA.
Lots of nuances to this discussion I haven’t even touched on.. a bit of thread drift too.
-
Some guys get f-cked and punch, others get on the fast track and love the game of ball fondling that gets them to their next step. A lot I talk to are like me.....joined for the right reasons, then realized the USAF is such a poorly run organization that is is frustrating to be a part of....Love the flying and bros....hate/despise the system.
I have 8 years until retirement, with the bonus...worth dodging the bad deals til then for my future goals. The USAF has sadly just become a job. I get paid $110K+ and the occasionally flight as payment to play a stupid game with subpar management/leadership and live in some below average places.
The saddest part for me is how much I used to love the USAF and the esteem I once held it in before I realized what a sh-tshow it actually was.
The only people that gripe about the "system" are the people that it chews up and spits out. The people that are tracking tend to enjoy it, or may even love it. The rift seems to occur around the senior O-3 level... When some bros are bitching in the bar, others may say "yeah, it sucks, but...." And then the conversation trails off. Once the rationalizations or self justifications set in, they've got you. I truly believe that the guys at the top don't think it's broken: why? Because "it worked for them, and they are so great as to make GO, so the system must work."
I don't think anything major will come of this. Guys will stay in, guys will get out. The guys that stay in will fly a little more, and probably Won't have to do these stupid 365s as the manpower will be required in the cockpits. Lets face it: if the AF needs pilots- it's got plenty- they just won't send them to these stupid schools anymore. Honestly, having less pilots will probably improve the QOL for those that do stay....
As for the bonus- only time will tell, but my gut reaction is it won't make much of a dent.
AD USAF to USN Reserves
in General Discussion
Posted
Don’t do it. You’re going the wrong way…. The Navy.. even the reserve component.. isn’t nearly as civil as the AD USAF, let alone the guard/reserves. It’s a different culture.. at a minimum, make sure you fully grasp the expectations and “possibilities” you may face.
Reference: 11 years AD Navy, 8 years guard, 3 years AD (vlpad) USAF.