General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
A little more flying quality info on Dino's T-45
Stretch32:
Another look through the T-45C NATOPS shows a level flight speed at 30,000' of Mach .85 for a Goshawk. I've personally seen 450 kts IAS at 14,000' at MRT so that might be a good reference number for getting airspeeds for the model in line with the real aircraft.
Generally, we climb out at MRT at 250 kts IAS to 10,000' (intial rate of climb is ~6500 ft per minute) then accelerate to 300 kts IAS the rest of the climb. If we're going high enough we'll actually continue the 300 kt climb to intercept Mach .76 but I've honestly never had to do that (don't generally cruise above 30,000' where it might be an issue although the T-45C can cruise up to 41,000').
Normal cruise is ~1200lbs/hr on the fuel flow gauge for about 320-330 kts indicated (TAS is alt dependent obviously). The cruise fuel flows are based on altitude to achieve the best ecnomoy and range, the lower you are the higher the required fuel flow and vice versa. Another thing about training command aircraft is that no two seem to fly exactly the same so that might be a consideration. I've flown jets that need 1500 lbs/hr to maintain 250 kts IAS and others that only needed 1200 lbs/hr for 250 kts at our normal training altitudes of 14,000-18,000 ft. Somewhere, I had gouge FF settings for the simulator for various altitudes and the resultant IAS but it's location escapes me at the moment. If I find it I'll post some more numbers that might be of use for getting the model really accurate.
Lastly, I saw some discussion about the T-45C AoA gauge. For on-speed we are at 17 units AoA which is the 3 o'clock position on the gauge. Unit's is an arbitrary measurment calculated to set the proper nose attitude of the aircraft so the tail hook is in an optimum location to catch a wire (obviously is also in the flight regime where the aircraft is easliy controlable at this low airspeed). Early on optimum AoA for on-speed in the Goshawk was set too high and there were some issues catching wires until the problem was identified and the numbers changed because the nose was too low and the hook too high.
Stretch
average_joe:
Stretch,
Great input. Maybe Dino will end up with some test pilots for his upgrade! The T-45 (and even the L-159) is a nice little jet for simmers who are just getting into jets. Striving for realism is a good goal but one could take a slightly different approach in this case ... make the T-45 fly like it should have performed for a student pilot ... a more responsive engine for one, reduce the pitch transients from the speed brake (for example the student is supposed to be learning how to fly formation, not fighting the jet), maybe fix some other bad flying qualities.
Stretch ... what did you fly in the fleet? I was a Marine NFO. Been to the boat 700+ times in RF-4Bs, EA-6As, EA-6Bs, F-14As, and a CQ det in the two seat F-18 (trainer version not the "D"). The EA-6A was a lot like the T-45 in that the engines were at such low RPM (we didn't have wing tip speed brakes like the A-6E) that power changes were a challenge ... lots of (actually too many) 1 and 2 wires.
Stretch32:
Joe,
Just getting started with my career so nowhere near as accomplished or knowledgeable as you or alot of other guys I've seen here (maybe one day though). I've flown T-34C's and T-45C's at this point. Still an SNA but nearly done with Advanced and should finish up here and head to the RAG in June (I'd like Supers or Charlies East, not sure what order though). I've flown the Goshawk for the last year and have a little over 100 hrs or so (not sure exactly, just fly when they say fly). I've also got over 100 hrs in the -45C simulator which is only really good for proceedures and button pushing practice.
As far as modeling the T-45, I do like the idea of making what would be good for the simming community. In all honesty it's so hard to model an aircraft 100% accurately that that may actually be a better route anyway. The T-45 does have it quirks but that's supposedly what makes it a good trainer since Hornets are supposedly easier to fly. We fly something hard so when we get to fleet aircraft the transition is easier I guess. I've actually heard numerous times the Hornet is alot easier to handle around the boat than a Goshawk also (looking forward to that). Can't wait to get auto-trim so the "speed brake drill" is a little less exciting although it's not bad once you figure out how to deal with it :)
Stretch
SpazSinbad:
Stretch32, Good luck with your training and fleet career. My experience is so long ago it can be difficult to remember finer points (back in 1971-2 with A4Gs on HMAS Melbourne) with far too much shore based work because we had only one carrier (now we have none). Anyway it is always very interesting to me to hear about / find out about Navy jets and how they are in carrier landings or whatever (NATOPS are good often).
Dino Catteneo has now a Goshawk T-45C NATOPS to work with plus material from other sources (mentioned in comments here): http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-after-f-35.html
https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/ppub_t45_str.htm (go past 'warning' about certificate)
&
http://www.airwarrior.net/Files.html [AirWarrior has gone on to 'Hairers'] ;D
BTW there was no weight / IAS graph in the T-45C NATOPS PDF I have (bought online). Any chance someone could post these graph(s) please? The previous graph above was for the T-45A and I have no idea what difference might be (if any) for the T-45C. TIA
Stretch32:
SpazSinbad,
The reason you couldn't find the weight/IAS charts is because they're published in a supplement that is handed out along with NATOPS. I don't have a scanner but if somebody needed some numbers I could send them although you may be able to find this pub in PDF format on the net. The charts basically cover TAS not IAS for a given FF, ALT, Drag Index and weight. There's several charts ranging from 10,000 lbs to 15,000 lbs, altitudes from sea level to 40,000 feet and drag index from 0 (clean) to 150 (loaded for bear). Since these numbers are for a new build aircraft they often aren't completely in-line with what's actually seen. I personally feel the best numbers would be the simulator gouge FF/IAS numbers (I'm still looking for them) that are alot closer to what's really seen flying the aircraft.
Stretch
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version