General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Sludge Hornet Modifications
SUBS17:
Just a hint here it might pay to talk to some of the guys who did the FM charts for Falcons HFFM(High Fidelity Flight Models) if you are into tweaking FMs the guy who did the HFFMs is also an engineer and did quite an awesome job for Falcon. I don't where you will find solid Hornet data though. You can view the HFFM charts if you look in the docs folder of Open Falcon 4.7 although its for an F-16 thats the sort of data you need to make such aircraft as close to the real deal as possible. As for other companys such as VRS from my own observations regarding this stuff don't chuck out your copy of the sim because its rare that devs make patches for their product with jet combat sims but in the case of VRS they continue to support their products with patches etc.
Sludge:
SUBS...
Game on, buddy.
My initial post, being very generous, open, and even-keeled.
--- Quote ---Realistic RPMs on Approach
Postby Sludge » Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:43 am
First... need to thank Varmint and Adieumus for being the most responsive customer service in history. You guys probly havent slept much this last week, but the patch installed and took care of a great many issues. Again, much thanks, if I were located nearby would take you out for a brew.
OK, now my question/problem is... When flying a full flaps down/gear down profile on final, I only need 70-75 RPMs to maintain glideslope. In my discussion with others and NATOPS pulls, I thought the approach RPMs are supposed to be 85-89 percent (as its listed in the carrier ops diagram). And in general, the Bug feels light in approach and also I have to do that "anti-flare" stick down motion when crossing the runway threshold just to maintain the watermark at 5 deg. nose up. Is that a function you programmed into the Bug?
And, I dont know how much the Bug is handcuffed by FSX flight dynamics, but if you put the "by the book" amount of static dry thrust, the Bug will be overpowered. I had this problem with the Sludge Hornet. Additionally, to get the right numbers on approach, I had to increase the induced drag scalar to 1.1, which makes alot of difference in increased drag in high AoA flight profiles (ie, final approach).
Anyway, when things even off a bit, and you get time... can you look into this?
Thanks
Sludge
--- End quote ---
And then somehow a few responses later, I get a "tone"??! Mixed with quite a bit of arrogance from Alvaro "this isnt like anything you played with in FSX." REALLY?! It has a aircraft.cfg, it also has a .air file, so what's soo different to make that statement true?
--- Quote ---Re: Realistic RPMs on Approach
Postby JACN » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:24 pm
Christian
Sludge wrote:You know what, I was only putting this thread out here as an idea that I felt the 'Bug FEELS light in approach
Should I modify the whole engine just because one person´s "feeling"?
Sludge wrote:I dont have any actual engine figures cause I never was/never will be a Hornet or Bug pilot, nor do I care to have to find "the numbers" just to show I can research them. .
Then you´re a lucky guy. I needed to research them to make the Superbug FM for seeing how a person comes here and tell me after 4 years of work ...my work is wrong because he´s a feeling...
Sludge wrote: If you have RW pilots out there who say your model is right on, then so be it, I'll drop the issue.
Yes we had.
Sludge wrote: Again, I just brought this up because of how I felt compared to what Ive "PLAYED WITH IN FSX" in the past and how the 'Bug seemed to FLOAT on barely above idle power while maintaining glideslope.
Sorry, bad argument. Superbug is not like anything you´ve "PLAYED WITH IN FSX".
Sludge wrote:From my limited understanding, shouldn't the Hornet be spooled up on approach to be more responsive to throttle increases only using a tad of throttle movement? Thats my whole point in posting here
Transient responses of the Superbug´s engine are validated against actual F404 engine data. Response times are in the 3+ seconds range as average, so you should not consider it needs the same technique as an old F-4´s J79. An accurate Thrust vs N1 curve was not in the SE features list and will never be. If you want so you´ll have to wait until the PRO and pay for those aditional features...
Sludge wrote:In my previous posts, I didnt claim this should be the end-all/be-all knowledge base of the flight model,
Your tone said another thing
Sludge wrote: only that my previous experiences (in changing the default Hornet to something more realistic) had shown and from what I could tell of NATOPS readings and RW Hornet maintenance folks, that the Bug seems too light in approach.
Superhornet is based not only on NATOPS performance manual (NOT a true technical data source, BTW) but mainly on several performance data technical notes. Hornet maintenance folks?...don´t get me wrong, but I´m an aeronautical engineer who sees dozens of A330s, Belugas, C295s, EF2000, F-18 take-offs and landings a day and I will never pretend to do a serious statement about any of those aircrafts behaviours just based on what I think I see. And, of course, you cannot consider that as "objective technical data" source in which you could base a simulation...
Sludge wrote:Glad to see your soo open to discussing IDEAS and not shutting them down.
Not a discussion, just a refutation of a not adequately supported assessment
Sludge wrote:This is beginning to seem a waste of 40 bucks as I still dont have full throttle range control and now I have to pull out technical manuals, NATOPS, even be a former pilot to get an idea some traction? Great discussion board.
Ok, if you want so, please PM Jon and you´ll have a refund.
This topic is closed.
Álvaro
--- End quote ---
...to continue... to the best part...
Sludge:
SUBS...
Wait for it.
Thanks Raz.
--- Quote ---Re: RPMs on approach
Postby Razgriz » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:46 am
On a continuation from the old thread by Sludge (Don't lock it just "because you've worked on it and THINK your right.") NATOPS is what I base this on, so I'm sure this is fairly accurate.
RPMs on approach - 85-88%, 3/4 mile, on-speed.
Part III, Chapter 8, Figure 8-2. Carrier Landing Pattern. [Page 333/806]
--- End quote ---
Next. As I said, Adiemus is the best guy there... level-headed, open to new ideas.
--- Quote ---Re: RPMs on approach
Postby adiemus » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:58 am
I don't agree with locking the old topic either, but I'll leave that one to Jon to fix if he so desires.
The issue with that NATOPS graphic specifically is that it doesn't specify an actual configuration. In other words, there's no weight or DI specified, so the best you can guess is that it's *somewhere* inside the safe trap range. Thus, using that as a reference isn't terribly helpful other than as a rough estimate.
--- End quote ---
Now comes the evidence and support. Thanks Ryan!
--- Quote ---Re: RPMs on approach
Postby ryanyomomma » Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:07 am
I have a confession to make.....it was me who gave Sludge the NATOPS reference (The man had his cards right for calling that so the least I could have done was give him the references.). I have it on me and I double confirmed it from the copy at work AND the -500...... 85 - 88% N2 pretty much from the break decent and onto the intercept glide slope. ref. pg III-8-11.... figure is on the page and the written procedure are on the next pages. If I was a betting man, the Flight Idle numbers will be higher than 70% N2 HOWEVER, Flight Idle parameters are not in the super hornet NATOPS. Don't ask me why but I could ask my divo on that issue...
I WILL however, acknowledge the fact that Aces has a behemoth of code for FSX and its hard to develop with...and the fact that the VRS team is working on that Pro version (in which I will put to test like it was nobody's business). That was mentioned before.
Oh, and the whole loadout thing....well...in my experience on the flightdeck....I never seen a bird comeback to the ship with a complete loadout like I see on here.....and even if it was just inert, I never seen a load plan that huge...not to mention some really pissed off ordies (cag and ship). Even looking at OIF/OEF pics of aircraft....the loadouts ain't that big...
--- End quote ---
...you ain't seen bad yet, but its comin'...
Sludge:
SUBS...
More support.
--- Quote ---Re: RPMs on approach
Postby ryanyomomma » Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:53 pm to top it off, NATOPS is our bible. NATOPS is law. It must be followed just like any other Naval publication/IETM/TD/NAVAIR. NATOPS STATES 85 - 88 % N2 on intercept glide slope.
--- End quote ---
...now, the HAMMER...
--- Quote ---Re: RPMs on approach
Postby LCDRRolex » Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:08 pm
Ok, I did four passes today in the Super Hornet sim, and all four yeilded the same results.
Setup: 5 Mile final to the carrier, 44,000lb jet, Gear down, flaps full, hook down, Auto Throttles engaged.
I used ACLS Mode 1 approaches on 2 of the 4 to cross check manual with auto.
All four passes RPM's were in the 82-85% range throughout the entire pass, mostly staying at 85% on glideslopse and dropping to 82% when I was working off the high. Hope this helps.
Rolex
--- End quote ---
Any questions?
And this all came from my original question that I had about the RPMs being outside of NATOPS on approach and I didnt say anything hostile in my opening or subsequent posts 'til the discussion turned snippy and was locked. My biggest mistake was saying something about the engine modelling because my work with the Sludge. Whereas I should've talked more about the flaps/gear drag values. I did but not to the extent I should've emphasized that over an "overpowered" engine. And somehow, according to Alvaro, I had a "tone"? I mean, am I supposed to write "humbly bowing" when I comment or I have a tone? Care to comment on that, SUBS?
Later
Sludge
Razgriz:
and the hammer falls.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version