AN/APG-68 Radar

[timc 1]

That is an interesting problem. Unfortunately neither James or I Saitek X52 controls. I have found with even the Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar that programming controls can be tricky at times.

x-man

let me know what your problem is with programming the X52 as I may be able to help. I could, in thoery send you a copy of the profile I use but you'd need to be happy with the changes you have made to the cfg files and assignments.

timc

[x-man 0]

Thank you both for reply timc and Horten.

Timc - I'm not sure are you talking about Saitek Profiler? If yes, well actually on my end it never worked so I get rid off it. If either you know how to make it work or talking about some FSX setting file, I guessing this could be changed to reflect my own setting – hence of course would welcome any help. My e-mail: x-man_sim@gmx.com

Meantime I managed to find a bug. Speeds shown for target on radar are sometimes incorrect.

Planes speed ( A=413 ) - target closure speed ( B=118 ) = should equal (in this case) target speed ( C=294 and NOT 440 ).

413-118 = 294

When comparing data from FSMap from same session, it become apparent that while closure speed was correct, target speed wasn't:

Orbit 5483 – speed 294 kts.

294kts + 118kts = 413 kts

[JamesChams 108]

Meantime I managed to find a bug. Speeds shown for target on radar are sometimes incorrect.

Planes speed ( A=413 ) - target closure speed ( B=118 ) = should equal (in this case) target speed ( C=294 and NOT 440 ).

413-118 = 294

When comparing data from FSMap from same session, it become apparent that while closure speed was correct, target speed wasn't:

Orbit 5483 – speed 294 kts.

294kts + 118kts = 413 kts

Mr. X-man,

Ok! Let me explain how this actually works ...

Closure (Rate [+/-] ) Velocity = the DIFFERENCE between YOUR Velocity and the TARGET's Velocity.

Note: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed" target="_blank">KTAS - True Airspeed, or in your aircraft, KIAS - Kts Indicated Airspeed & KCAS - Calibrated Airspeed ).

Also, if the Closure Rate Velocity value is positive "+", then you are gaining (getting closer) and if it is negative " - ", then he is escaping.

Therefore, (to keep things simple) ...

Value for the Closer (Rate) Velocity (Calibrated KCAS) = Your Aircraft's Velocity (Calibrated KCAS) - ["subtract] Target's Aircraft (Calibrated KCAS) velocity

ie.

Your closure to the Target (KCAS) = Your Velocity in Kts (KCAS) - Targets Velocity in Kts (KCAS)

However, in your example, you've kind of done this in your thinking without knowing it ...

118Kts KCAS = 413Kts KCAS - 440Kts KTAS

BUT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE USING TWO DIFFERENT UNITS (KCAS and KTAS) to do your calculatons.

So, this would be the result ...

TARGET VELOCITY = YOUR VELOCITY - CLOSURE RATE

294Kts KCAS = 412Kts KCAS (Roughly) - 118Kts KCAS

IN REALITY, YOU DON'T ADD THE CLOSURE RATE TO THE TARGET AIRCRAFTS VELOCITY TO DETERMINE YOUR VELOCITY. YOUR HUD ALREADY DOES THAT FOR YOU AND YOUR RADAR TELLS YOU TARGET VELOCITY AND CLOSURE RATE. It may be off one or two ten's of a digit but that's because both your aircraft's are moving in both speed and direction (VELOCITY) and it always needs to recalibrate. FURTHERMORE, Your HUD reading is set on Calibrated therefore, the Aircraft's Flight Computer (or realistically the Code for this equation) has made the calculations for you for your velocity, corrected with respect to the density altitude and temperature of the atmosphere that your F-16 is "currently" flying in. However, the RADAR's Velocity for the Target is in TAS. If that is confusing, then flip the HUD Mode switch [Right Panel] to TRUE AIRSPEED (TAS) and the HUD velocity reading will give you the correct TRUE Airspeed [and NOT the Calibrated Airspeed (KCAS)] and you will see that these values are correct to a tenth of a digit.

So, there is NO bug here; Does this NOW make sense?

PS: Boy's and Girl's - That's why Physics and Math are very important subjects in school, if you want to be a pilot ...

[Geraki 10]

Request for HUD the B baro(right- down side on the HUD) range when a target is buged or locked to change to F slat range....

[JamesChams 108]

Request for HUD the B baro(right- down side on the HUD) range when a target is buged or locked to change to F slat range....

Mr. Geraki,

The updated HUD of BETA v0.23 already has that FIX incorporated.

We hope to make that available to you all very soon now; Please standby for an update.

Here are a couple of pic's I posted before from earlier BETA's but, now, highlighting the AI & Slant Range information.

Enjoy!

CLICK HERE: ->

[x-man 0]

Thanks for reply James. I totally overlooked fact that indeed my HUD was displaying Calibrated airspeed instead of True.

I think in this statement:

TARGET VELOCITY = YOUR VELOCITY - CLOSURE RATE

294Kts KCAS = 412Kts KCAS (Roughly) - 118Kts KCAS

…what you probably meant to say was:

TARGET VELOCITY = YOUR VELOCITY - CLOSURE RATE

294Kts TAS = 412Kts TAS (Roughly) - 118Kts TAS

You said yourself radar velocity for target is TAS not KCAS.

Frankly when making post, I totally forgot that F-16 can even display different airspeeds on HUD, however reading your reply make me think and in result I noticed one more thing.

"Radar Target Velocity" being TAS is really done artificially – only in FSX, when you can simply input data for AI aircraft on F-16 screen, since FSX provides you with it. In real life neither real F-16 radar would have ability to measure TAS, nor any F-16 onboard computer be able to precisely adjust radar speed measurement to show true target TAS (since it would not know pressure, wind strength and direction etc, etc - in place where target is, and which can be different from where F-16 is).

Not sure how close to reality you trying to model FSX radar (perhaps this is intentional – and I'm not saying: bad), or what real F-16 radar shows in reality, anyway correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps more appropriate would be to call velocities shows on radar as "calculated TAS" – where some onboard computer after receiving imaginary closure velocity measurement from radar, tries to adjust value to represent it (more or less) as TAS.

TAS – even corrected is still "instrumental" airspeed, against mass of the air – as oppose to factual "inertial" airspeed, which doesn't care about air. Factual airspeed is – what radio-wave radar device would be capable of measuring (due to principles of its functioning).

Bit of different subject:

I was finally able to figure and make work Radar/Map range, format display – buttons. What I did wrong originally – I placed code (shown below) at the very bottom of panel.cfg file – instead at the bottom of [Vcockpit01]. Instruction was not specific where it should have been placed.

// Event Driven Target Management

gauge14=DispMgmt!DispMgmt, 0,0,1,1

Also, with your permission and if that's OK, I would like to send you adjusted by me text of first post installation instruction, reflecting all changes, corrections and clarifications, which you could than (after reviewing) copy and paste into first post.

It probably would save you time, as well save pains to everyone else in future, who would go into similar problems like me.

I could either make text of instruction as another post in this thread, or perhaps send it as Word file.

How you like idea and (if you do), what form of sending corrected text would be the best?

Regards!

[JamesChams 108]

Mr. X-Man

Thanks for reply James. I totally overlooked fact that indeed my HUD was displaying Calibrated airspeed instead of True.

I think in this statement:

TARGET VELOCITY = YOUR VELOCITY - CLOSURE RATE

294Kts KCAS = 412Kts KCAS (Roughly) - 118Kts KCAS

…what you probably meant to say was:

TARGET VELOCITY = YOUR VELOCITY - CLOSURE RATE

294Kts TAS = 412Kts TAS (Roughly) - 118Kts TAS

You said yourself radar velocity for target is TAS not KCAS.

Frankly when making post, I totally forgot that F-16 can even display different airspeeds on HUD, however reading your reply make me think and in result I noticed one more thing.

"Radar Target Velocity" being TAS is really done artificially – only in FSX, when you can simply input data for AI aircraft on F-16 screen, since FSX provides you with it. In real life neither real F-16 radar would have ability to measure TAS, nor any F-16 onboard computer be able to precisely adjust radar speed measurement to show true target TAS (since it would not know pressure, wind strength and direction etc, etc - in place where target is, and which can be different from where F-16 is).

NO; that is simply NOT true. I can go into the science of this but, it would be a waste of our time because FSX cannot handle modeling a complicated radar system like the AN/APG-68. Instead, it allows us to exchange data values in the form of variables, which we can then (through equations and logic, etc.) simulate a RADAR system. So, to FSX, TAS, KCAS, etc. are only variables of data that can be extracted or calculate in real time and are subject to some random changes in values due to atmospheric data variability and other model weight and flying charactistics. Does this help explain things better for you?

So, to answer your question: The RADAR is using "Target_Groundspeed" to obtain the AI's TAS from FSX. That is what is displayed on the RADAR and NOT KCAS for the "440 KCAS" value. The conversion of that from what you obtained from FSMap (in KCAS) is the example I posted for you ... OK???

Not sure how close to reality you trying to model FSX radar (perhaps this is intentional – and I'm not saying: bad), or what real F-16 radar shows in reality, anyway correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps more appropriate would be to call velocities shows on radar as "calculated TAS" – where some onboard computer after receiving imaginary closure velocity measurement from radar, tries to adjust value to represent it (more or less) as TAS.

TAS – even corrected is still "instrumental" airspeed, against mass of the air – as oppose to factual "inertial" airspeed, which doesn't care about air. Factual airspeed is – what radio-wave radar device would be capable of measuring (due to principles of its functioning).

We are ONLY simulating the actual functions of the AN/APG-68 RADAR A-A systems as FSX / Hardware permits within the scope of the fact that...

1. NO ONE HERE (Using the AS F-16) is trained to use the actual AN/APG-68 radar in its completion. (So, ONLY A-A features are modeled and then ONLY the Main one's related to actual functionality of the AN/APG-68 and FSX capabilities). Which means you'll have to do the correct things to the RADAR FCR to make it show you the correct information like the real one. Aerosoft's default RADAR was more like a GPS TIS (Traffic Information Systems) display showing every AI within the range scope of 80NM. That is simply NOT how the AN/APG-68 works in reality (and we've now fully modeled) in the BETA versions correctly. Added bonus is its less demanding on FPS, by far.

2. Many users could NOT handle the science (and time of education) for a 3-4 month training course on all the AN/APG-68's scope. So, what we have already is beyond most peoples capabilities (which will allow many users a lot of time to grow and use things - like Falcon 4.0 did/does).

3. There are Many systems of the real AN/APG-68 that FSX and most of your computer system's simply CANNOT handle; from FPS and other calculations; which will include FLIR or TFR, etc.

This is the short version of the list ... There is ton's more but like I said earlier - It's a waste of time to discuss this further, as you are ONLY going to use this for FSX "Play" and NOT "reality."

Bit of different subject:

I was finally able to figure and make work Radar/Map range, format display – buttons. What I did wrong originally – I placed code (shown below) at the very bottom of panel.cfg file – instead at the bottom of [Vcockpit01]. Instruction was not specific where it should have been placed.

// Event Driven Target Management

gauge14=DispMgmt!DispMgmt, 0,0,1,1

Also, with your permission and if that's OK, I would like to send you adjusted by me text of first post installation instruction, reflecting all changes, corrections and clarifications, which you could than (after reviewing) copy and paste into first post.

It probably would save you time, as well save pains to everyone else in future, who would go into similar problems like me.

I could either make text of instruction as another post in this thread, or perhaps send it as Word file.

How you like idea and (if you do), what form of sending corrected text would be the best?

I'm glad that you got things working properly; However, we been aware of these "issues"; which is one of several reasons that we've not posted any more BETA's. We would prefer to finish the project and then have Aerosoft's BETA testors and the general public have a chance to evaluate it. We will also provide proper installation instructions, which might NOT require you to modify ANY ".cfg" files on your own. That is our plan.

Hope this help!

PS: Keep in mind that you are using the BETA v0.08 version of the AN/APG-68 Radar and we are NOW working on the BETA v0.23 which has resolved many issues we discovered ourselves in Beta tests. We hope to have a fully tested BETA soon. We are currently implementing many aspects of the real HSD and HSI for this aircraft. I'll post some pic.'s later for everyone to see what's "under the hood."

[x-man 0]

This is the short version of the list ... There is ton's more but like I said earlier - It's a waste of time to discuss this further, as you are ONLY going to use this for FSX "Play" and NOT "reality."

It really is LOL. I only wanted to point that radar cannot know TAS, or KCAS (all long text was to make clear what I talking abut) – hope I didn't stepped on toe for saying that. Was hoping I helping really. Personally I prefer it the way it is, so its comparable with my FSMap. I'm also not THAT orthodox about things being ideal as in reality and can understand both difficulties in implementing things, as well difficulties in understanding things which comes from often scares and limited sources (as stated before). I'm sure AN/APG-68 will be great add on.

I'm glad that you got things working properly; However, we been aware of these "issues"; which is one of several reasons that we've not posted any more BETA's. We would prefer to finish the project and then have Aerosoft's BETA testors and the general public have a chance to evaluate it.

Maybe adding short bold red information in first post of this thread than?

"If you just found this thread be aware that original idea of presenting installation instruction for public in this tread has been temporarily halted. If you are not familiar with modifying gauges you may found information which do exist below difficult to understand – fact about which authors of this post are aware. Last posted version of AN/APG-68 is BETA 0.08 while currently we are working on BETA v.0.23. After rethinking we decided, that we would prefer to finish the project we discussing here and then have Aerosoft's BETA testors and the general public have a chance to evaluate it. We hope to have a fully tested BETA soon. We are currently implementing many aspects of the real HSD and HSI for this aircraft. Keep checking for release announcement in (specified where – this thread, separate thread, different forum etc).

[AKIS21M 0]

hi James..can i ask u something??what system do you have and appears you the trees so far at last foto you posted???

[melerin 0]

phiiiouuu

I am reading this threat for more than 2:30 hours, my eyes are going to blow, and finaly found all of my questions at the last 2 pages.

I have exactly the same problems with x-man (both practicals and philosophicals). I thing it will be better if you add a warning at the first post saying that the instructions are for those who have some knowledge to modifying gauges....

But i have one more question.All these mods in gauge file are for

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\Aerosoft F-16A 9\Panel\Panel.cfg and

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\Aerosoft F-16AM Display\Panel

folders.

If i make the mods in these files, all these features will be available for all the other F16 models? I usualy fly with F16C Hellenic AF.

Do i have to modify the gauge file there too?It's the Aerosoft F-16AM 120-2000-300-33 folder.

Althoug you have done a remarkable job here.....keep up the good work.

[melerin 0]

I think my question was reasonless.I just noticed that the F16C uses the F16A 9 panel.....

[JamesChams 108]

....I just noticed that the F16C uses the F16A 9 panel.....

Mr. merlerin,

Yes, just like the original gauges, you copy these BETA gauges into both "F16AM Display" uses the "F16A 9" panel folders for them to show up in all F-16 aircraft models.

=========================

Gents,

Fred hasn't changed the original posting recently because we have been working on the latest package which will make this obsolete; This was just a preview of the BETA v0.08. We are working on BETA v0.23 right now. Some pic.'s are posted here.

Enjoy!

[x-man 0]

Gents,

Fred hasn't changed the original posting recently because we have been working on the latest package which will make this obsolete; This was just a preview of the BETA v0.08. We are working on BETA v0.23 right now. Some pic.'s are posted here.

This still does not explain why you cannot add short information in FIRST post of thread – instead of its 7th page. What prevents you from working on Beta 23 and saving everyone else (who reads those threads) frustration and time?

Issue is not what you working on, but about fact this is "Aerosoft F-16 Support Forum" not "Aerosoft Software Development Forum". Those threads are read not just by programmers, but by ALL F-16 users. Not everyone here understands what you talking about, or even may care about trying.

Want to discuss guts of gauges? That's absolutely fine! Why not make clear for everybody in the very first post, that information in thread are not for everybody but just for people who do understand modifying gauges Right now everyone who finds threads assumes, there are new gauges and context of threads will reveal to them how to install them. That's what posting "Installation Instruction" implies.

You even have text which you can copy and paste – so you don't have to write one yourself.

What is so hard about showing some courtesy to readers?

PS.

By the way, instruction mentioned in link in last post is just as incomplete and not understandable as the rest of this thread.

[JamesChams 108]

hi James..can i ask u something??what system do you have and appears you the trees so far at last foto you posted???

Mr. AKIS21M,

I'm sorry I didn't get to answer your post till now ...

1. God has blessed me with a number of "high-end" systems; which, I in turn, have configured and optimized for use with FSX. In the Pic.'s, what you are seeing is FSX (configured in a Wide Screen mode in the FSX.cfg) on (x3) 47" inch LCD Screens (DVI) using Digital Triple Head2Go set at a resolution of 3840x1024-32bits.

2. Here is the "Tree enhancement" I got from Aerosoft's German Airports 2 Cologne-Bonn

which includes a real nice utility which allows you to change the default trees for seasons manually.

Enjoy!

[JamesChams 108]

Back on topic...

FYI: Here are a few pics from the BETA v0.23

Enjoy!

• This is a feature that Fred and I are thinking about and wanted users opinions:-

The authentic AN/APG-68 DOES NOT give the pilot "header information" (The stuff like GS - Ground Speed, in Kts etc.)

Authentic

Proposed

Let us know what you think about this... Thanks!

Next, these pic.'s (below) are from the current BETAv0.23. You will see that I've included many authentic elements, from Time / Temperature readouts, Altitude (Radar) and Heading (Course, Heading Bug Selection, GPS Track and "actual" Location heading) to Ground Speeds, Fuel / INS Navigational data, Waypoint Bullseye Information, and many many more (like PAPI/VASI visual cues, O. I. & M. Marker Beacons to name a few more). These are actual system readouts in GLASS P/MFD HSI equipped aircraft and are a REQUIREMENT for IFR Flight (something that this Bird could NOT do, that is, until NOW... )

PS: some of these features are NOT included in the Aerosoft's v1.20 (and earlier) Default gauges (ICP/DED) but, are NOW implemented in these newer gauges.

Look for more updates soon ...

[Geraki 10]

Hello I think the proposed version for MFD is not right ...i disagree i think it is better to stay to the original one....my opinion.

I prefer also to be full implemented the analogic HSI avionic near analogic alt.

[melerin 0]

same for me.....too much of informations inside the mfd...(and not realistic )

[JamesChams 108]

Thank you Gentlemen!

That's exactly the information we were hoping for; Also, the HSI MFD is still underdevelopment and many of the currently "excessive" labeling is necessary for the BETA testors who aren't firmiliar with the usage of that equipment. Furthermore, I wanted you to see the differences in implementation for the actual functions between NAV Aids. The final version will have less labeling for authenticity.

Thanks you all for your inputs and, please, continue to let us know if you have any further suggestions.

[Horten229 0]

same for me.....too much of informations inside the mfd...(and not realistic )

Well, maybe not realistic for an F-16, which is somewhat older technology, but check this out.

It's an Aspen EFD1000 Pro PFD. Note the bottom half - pretty much like James is building even down to the color.

[MenendezDiego 1]

Again, you are missing my question;

Why are you going to make a F-16 MFD with non F-16 features ????

And please stop claiming that you are a real pilot. ....... like you are doing harm to Cris' and MY profession my making such statements !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I couldn't agree more.

Let's keep this F-16 as it is in the real world.

And James, some of the things you say are simply rude. Implimenting a smiley face doesn't make it right.

[JamesChams 108]

Let's keep this F-16 as it is in the real world. ...

Mr. MenendezDiego,

The Actual AN/APG-68 CMFD's DON'T have HSI's; Aerosoft added that into their original package because they wanted to promote "... the F-16... [as being] all about Flying..." in FSX. Now, due to limitations in their (standby) HSI, it seemed fitting to improve on the MFD's HSI to what a modern (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2003/articles/oct_03/uae/images/UAE-B60Ckpt_500.jpg" target="_blank">CFT Block 60) F-16 (All Glass cockpit) aircraft (or even the F-22) would have. Unfortunately, the actual Block 60 CMFD documents are currently CLASSIFIED. So, Fred and I decided that a realistic P/MFD HSI based on the 1000 Series civilian version would be appropriate as a substitute. It allows for all aspects of flight including all of the elements of an IFR package. Now, we could do 100% "real" with NO CMFD HSI package or, the standard G1000 type HSI's but, we felt that neither Aerosoft or the public at large would like NOT having it (Color "Modern" HSI). So, that one stays for now; We, or Aerosoft, may do something else later but, I seriously doubt that either of us would exclude it.

Thank you for your suggestions and I'm opened to peoples inputs (except those who just want to rant, rave, and argue about nothing [or in the case of the above mentioned , start "flaming wars.]).

PS: I don't see any pics of anyone in a 767 ...

[MenendezDiego 1]

James,

Fair enough.

Here is some input from me. As the Aerosoft F-16 doesn't portray the Block 60, well you get the picture

If this is indeed included in the next update, I would like very much for it to be an OPTION, as I like the F-16 as it is right now.

Keep up with the MFD, more power to you, I just don't want to have it default in the next update

Regards, Diego

[JamesChams 108]

...Here is some input from me. As the Aerosoft F-16 doesn't portray the Block 60 ...

If this is indeed included in the next update, I would like very much for it to be an OPTION, as I like the F-16 as it is right now.

Keep up with the MFD, more power to you, I just don't want to have it default in the next update

Mr. Menendez Diego,

I've been thinking about an ALL GREEN (ie. NOT colored) version for the NON-MLU versions for the A and AM models. Which will have the same functionality without the visual color. This might be more of what your after... However, the MLU made all the A, AM, and C models have COLOR CMFD's; updating the original mono-chrome CRT's from all green to COLOR for many Block 40 -> 52's that were in service at the time. So, it might actually happen to only be colored for the MLU's but I don't see why we can't have both.

Finally, It will be up to Aerosoft to decide what to actual put in the next update, but I will pass along your suggestions/requests.

Thanks for your input.

[JamesChams 108]

Gents/Ladies,

UPDATE: F-16 MLU CMFD's (U.E.P. BETA v0.23)

Today, I Flight Tested the entire gauge set with an IFR Flight (VOR-VOR). The flight departed from Aerosoft's Franfurt X (EDDF) and included AI intercepts Enroute (for traffic avoidance), along with a procedural ILS approach landing at Cloud9's Flesland X (ENBR). Also, I broke the sound barrier over the North Sea and this baby went MACH 2.01 (not bad for a CATIII aircraft which took off fully loaded with fuel and ordance but, can't honestly say wheather or not it was realistic for that load/configuration ). Keep in mind that this is still a work in progress and many of your suggestion will be implemented shortly. However, please continue to let us know if you like the authentic look of things; Fred and I are opened to your inputs, as long as it's realistic to the F-16 and or actual instrumentation.

--- MACH 2.01 ---

I've place these large shots for everyone to take a close look at the HUD (for SLANT Range/ AI Target readouts), the AN/APG-68's FCR/HSD (Intercept/MAP/NAVIGATIONAL/Other realistic features), and the HSI (Realistic 1000 Series Navigational/Onboard-System readouts/details). Do pay close attention to the last 5 or so shots pictured here (it will give you a clue as to how sophisticated this project has become ).

Enjoy!

[kack911 1]

James,

I've been watching this project for a while now, and I've been really impressed with the new radar.

Unfortunately, I think you're getting off track with the HSI. A simple (realistic) HSD with the ability to load Steerpoints through the DED would have been great.

I lamented at the lack of realism in the default MFD's, and seeing the new APG-68 promised to add far more realism to the displays. But if I'm going to have to live with a fantasy HSI display with all sorts of non F-16 related stuff (in full color, no less), then I'll have to pass on what would otherwise be a fantastic addon.

The F-16 avionics wasn't designed to fly GPS overlay approaches, or have fancy full-color corporate jet type displays (MLU jets notwithstanding on the color issue). Perhaps you could concentrate on a more realistic INS, or the EPU, the JFS, or adding a CCIP pipper, GM radar mode, or about two dozen other more important aspects of an F-16?

Not trying to be rude here, just sharing my opinion. The people behind creating this addon seem to be technically competent, and I'd rather that they spend their time increasing realism.

Finally, I don't know what happened with Bernt Stolle, but you just trash talked a real MD-80 and 767 driver. Considering he's been around the community a LOT longer than you have, I think perhaps he didn't feel the need to provide you evidence of his accomplishments, real or virtual. Honestly, even though it looks like he's gone, you should apologize to the rest of us for your cocky attitude.

***EDITED:

Come to think of it, why do all the pictures you posted of yourself show you in a hangared jet? Don't you have any pictures of you flying the line? And where are your epaulettes? And why is a mechanic "escorting" you? Are you a really flight attendant? Or are you a just a private pilot who works in a corporate flight department as a crew scheduler?

Seriously, if you're going to accuse someone of being a poser, you probably shouldn't post pictures of yourself in a hangared airplane with tumbled gyros and flagged instruments as evidence of being a Gulfstream pilot.

FAIL.

Regards,

Nick