General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board

More Realistic RPMs on Approach

(1/4) > >>

Sludge:
Has anyone delved into getting the Acc Hornet underpowered or with higher drag flaps to correctly fit the RPM profile on approach?

So far, the best I could come up with was changing the static thrust to 7000.  Any higher and I would regularly stay below 80 percent on final while easily maintaining glideslope with approx. 35 kts Wind Over Deck (too overpowered).  From the NATOPS charts, RPMs should be around 85-89 percent at the 180 all the way to final and trap?  Any lower and my top end (max military) was pathetic for a modern jet fighter and wayyy low for the actual Hornet, after 30 seconds accel, under 500 kts at 1000 ft AGL (highly underpowered).

Im gonna try messing with the .air file, and see if I cant add a decent amount of extra drag for full flaps and underpower the static thrust to around 9 or 10k.  Hopefully, will see more realistic results.

Well, if you have any ideas or have experimented along these lines, please fire back my way.
Later
Sludge

SpazSinbad:
Sludge, IMHO it seems the lack of high RPM sensitivity/power is a perennial problem with Fligh Simulator Military Jet Fighters. It would be my biggest gripe with them and with the KAHU Skyhawk for example. This problem was not really resolved with A4K because the person responsible for the engine did not give me a chance to retest it before KAHU was released. Apparently it is a difficult issue to resolve. Of course I have not flown a Hornet but imagine that the engine is very responsive in the carrier landing configuration with only minute RPM changes/throttle changes to get something happening.

Another gripe would be that the RPM on a lot of FS miljets wanders all over the place after being set. Perhaps this is more to do with my own setup making the situation worse but the RPM should be set - go to new setting - and stay there without creeping up or down - without pilot input. Anyway personally I found that the Hornet appeared quite good in this regard (engine) but I can only compare to the venerable A4G. Having flown older - controlled by the pilot with throttle only - jet engines [as seen in the Vampire and Sea Venom where engine response was very slow - but predictable] any new jet engine is a marvel!  :-)

Sludge:
Spaz...

Actually, I like the responsiveness just not the actual power curve as related to actual RPMs needed to maintain glideslope.  I mean, if needed, I can get from idle to 85 percent really quick.  However, it seems that this FSX Hornet is highly overpowered, not unresponsive, as I can easily maintain altitude and/or get on glideslope with 70-75 percent power on the lower end of the bucket.

I will mess around with the .air file tonite and see what my results are, and post them, so if anybody cares or wants to help me out, they can.  Basically, Im looking for a mod that will keep me on glideslope at 85-89 percent power (as per NATOPS), yet maintain the high end power curve that at FULL MIL power, I can get around 600-650 kts, just under supersonic.  That seems realistic to me.

Later
Sludge

SpazSinbad:
Sludge, then what weight are you going to use as a benchmark? Max trap weight will keep your RPMs higher than lowest trap weight (at bingo fuel whatever that low figure might be). Perhaps an average between these two extremes might be worthwhile (as a standard to work from).

sonofabeech:
hey sludge if you need me to test things for you just send me a message ..I would really like to see this happen !!

Sonofabeech out

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page