General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
More Realistic RPMs on Approach
Paco:
Everyone,
Just my two cents. As a former military pilot with over 7000 hrs of turbine time, I feel the FSX Hornet is WAY overpowered and others have noticed this as well. As is the T-38 for FS9 and other FS military jets. The VRS Superbug for FS9 has a far better flight model, where one has to pay more attention to power vs. airspeed vs. flight regime. This one area where I'm really looking forward to the FSX version of Superbug.
Paco
Sludge:
Spaz...
Im roughly in the 5-6k fuel regime in the default Hornet when I start out and go from there. Last nite, I played with the numbers and worked more on upping the landing gear and flaps drag values in the .air file, than I did changing the static thrust on the aircraft.cfg file.
Right now on the default "clean" Hornet, from memory, I have 250 flaps drag, 150 gear drag, and 55 fuselage drag, in the fa-18.air file. I have 9000 static dry thrust as the value in the aircraft.cfg file. At 5k fuel, on carrier final, I was maintaining glide w/energy caret just a hair above the v/vector even line, at 85 percent thrust. Additionally, at 7k MSL, I could get 620 kts at FULL MIL. These flight parameters are getting closer to what I consider a realistic flight envelope. Tonite, I will continue to experiment and give more results.
Additionally, Ive been working on the CaptSim F-18D in parallel, w/the exception of CARRIER landings. So far, the main difference has been using 10k as a static thrust instead of 9k, as listed above. This helps to offset the additional drag and weight of the weapons/drop tank I have loaded and is more realistic as well, being the D-model has more powerful/efficient engines than the A-model. More importantly, this change helps the CaptSim Hornet behave VERY SIMILARLY to the default as far as low and high end flight profiles. In example, my max speed was .9 mach at 20k MSL at FULL MIL. Landing on a shore facility, I was on-glide at 88 percent power. So, all in all, a good baseline for this modification in getting more accurate flight speeds/RPMs in comparison to the real Hornet.
So to all who would like to help, input the numbers I have for both the default and C/S Hornets in the .air file, and use 9k static (default) and 10k static (C/S) for static thrust in the aircraft.cfg and let me know what your results are. BTW, before I forget, any help is appreciated, but if you are unfamiliar with modding your .air file or not comfy messing with your aircraft.cfg file, please dont change what you got. If you are good with modding, always remember to BACK UP your .air and .cfg file before making these changes.
Later
Sludge
Sludge:
Good news fellers...
OK, did both carrier landing, shore facility landing, cross country flights, and FULL MIL climbouts to 10k w/the default and C/S D-Hornet. Am pretty satisfied with the new envelope and Ill probly use these numbers from here on out.
The numbers are the same as listed before with the following exceptions. On the both Hornets, in the aircraft.cfg, I changed the induced_drag=1.1, which gives 10 percent more drag as AoA increases. This easily puts the RPMs within the 85-89 range when on-glide behind the carrier and even when shore landing. Also, for both, it gives me a .9 mach max at FULL MIL, which to me seems realistic as I think the only bird that can "supercruise" (Mach 1.0 and higher w/out afterburner) is the F-22.
Pretty happy with my results so far. Anyone else who has tried this, let me know your results when you get a chance.
Later
Sludge
Paco:
Sludge,
Can you send me the numbers. I'd like to try it. Did you just change the drag ratio?
Thanks,
Paco
GOONIE:
Sludge,
Any chance of you posting your updated .air file? I've updated the aircraft.cfg, but cannot update the .air file.
Thanks,
Capt
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version