General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
vLSO Beta release
SUBS17:
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on November 01, 2011, 01:17:47 am ---subs17 asked about the 'KAHU'. It is a cheapware FSX version of the A-4K Skyhawk upgraded / modified by the RNZAF in the late 1980s - early 1990s to the 'KAHU' standard with a HUD amongst other things. The Kiwi chaps making/modifing the FSX version were not familiar with the AOA indexer nor with requirements of carrier landing. My attempts to have them change the parameters (I was the flying characteristics tester) to get a better landing configuration response were not viable. They only consider it as a land runway version. The view is not so good out the front either. It is not a good candidate for carrier landings but OK for land landings. :D Otherwise the model is excellent with accurate flying responses and working everything otherwise correctly and it looks very nice when doing all those things including the wonderful parachute out the back on landing. A lot of old style earlier than FSX A-4 aircraft used to fly like Lear Jets and drop out of the sky when the spoilers were activated. None of this happens with the KAHU. The leading edge slats work as well as the spoilers, speedbrake and brake parachute, with opening canopy etc.
Here is a video of a test flight (I always took off in the same configuration because the circuit was where the changes needed to be made, so that aspect is not realistic, a good circuit is a tight circuit). The brake chute was made larger and more realistic also.
http://www.flightsim.com/main/review/a4k.htm
&
http://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=2465
This was their old website: http://www.fratbrosdesign.com/
Did not realise there is now so much info available on it online. Whatever.
I hope one day to see an accurate (as accurate as the Hornet) Skyhawk available (without the HUD being in the way) for some old style carrier landings. Meatball, line up and airspeed (Optimum Angle of Attack).
Someone may find the engine response and carrier landing flying qualities OK so don't let me put you off a very good FSX aircraft. ;D
RNZAF A4K KAHU Skyhawk - test circuit NAS Nowra
--- End quote ---
Hey Spaz that is a cool addon I wonder did the RNZAF ever land any of their A4s on the Aussie Carrier? I'm surprised they never allowed the AoA indexer to be modeled since the K has got alot incommon with the F-16 which has one next to the HUD. I wonder if the real K had one in the same location.
SpazSinbad:
subs17, short answer is that the Royal New Zealand Air Force flew the A-4K a couple of years after the RAN FAA started (both sent crews/maintainers to the USA). However the New Zealanders had no requirement to carrier deck land. When the fixed wing component of the Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm was stopped (along with the only aircraft carrier being sold for scrap) around 1984, the Kiwis bought the remaining 10 A4G/TA4Gs, flying them back to New Zealand from NAS Nowra in mid 1984.
Later all the RNZAF Skyhawks were upgraded to KAHU status. Initially the older RNZAF pilots had some difficulty using the new HUD. One such tore off a main wheel in the under run during this transition, having to make an empty drop tank landing (partly arrested) on foam. The Kiwis were not so savvy about arrested landings even ashore. These stories and more in the PDFs online (see sig below URLs).
The FSX KAHU does have an AoA Indexer working but not so accurate as that in the Hornet for example. The AoA can be seen in the HUD and as seen in the video it jumps around a lot. Not a big deal. My concern was the poor engine response in landing mode. OK for long straight in approaches but not good enough for carrier landings IMHO. As mentioned others may find it OK. Otherwise it is an excellent aircraft for shore operations.
From memory (not a lot of details are actually available about the KAHU to date but now that the aircraft have been given to museums or sold to a commercial warbird interest in the USA - these details may become more public knowledge) the old AoA indexer was incorporated in the cockpit unique design which does have a lot of F-16 commonality due to the radar used.
If there is a good USN Skyhawk for FSX out there it would be good to know.
SpazSinbad:
It is very important to fly 'dirty' delta winged aircraft in turns at Optimum Angle of Attack or above (the A-4 Skyhawk is a good example) . At less than optimum there is a danger the aircraft will fall out of the sky very quickly, especially if engine RPM is low and full power needed. One reason why the AoA indexer was invented by the USN in the mid to late 1950s. Flying an airspeed without taking weight into account was too dangerous. Here is a pic showing the old A-4K AoA indexer (with the KAHU HUD) which was used by the RNZAF for landings ashore but after a while I'm told they transitioned to using only the HUD AoA indications.
Paddles:
--- Quote from: Sludge on October 31, 2011, 08:07:21 am ---And here's my problem with the Ball Call distance. When I called the first ball, in-flight/on-HUD it was 0.7NM, but the vLSO GS/LU screens had me at approx 3900'.
--- End quote ---
Sludge,
There's no problem ;) The HUD TCN reading has format 4.1, which means that 0.74, and 0.70, and 0.65 are all rounded to 0.7, but 0.64 to 0.6 etc. So, if you're at the distances from 0.74NM to 0.65NM, you will get the same 0.7 TCN reading...
Simple computations will give us
0.70NM * 6076' = 4560'
0.65NM * 6076 = 3949'
0.60NM * 6076' = 3650'
Actually you called ball at approximately 4200'..4100' from the touchdown point, so this is still 0.7 TCN.
Sludge:
Serge...
OK, so try to call it right as the HUD TCN changes to .7, that way its on the topside of the rounding and closer to your depicted BC zone?
Also, not only is this question for you Serge but for everyone as wel. Other than Orion's one-time 16 sec groove, has ANYONE been able to get the NATOPS 15-18 sec groove time? I for one havent even been close. I even set 25 kts WoD just to try and I got it down to 22 secs. I even tried straight-in approaches just to makes sure it wasn't a pattern issue and sure enough, still 22 secs or more. Am I missing something (obvious or not)?
Not sure why but we here in FSX NavAv just cannot get into the sub-20 groove time? What real-world/FSX disconnect is happening?
Later
Sludge
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version