General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Flight Model Comparisons
MikeB54:
As you may recall, I mentioned in an earlier post that my son was coming home for the Holidays and I was going to get him to see how FSX compares to the real F-18.
We did that the other night and the results were interesting to say the least and not what I expected.
I started out by putting him in a cold and dark VRS Superbug. One of his first comments was, "Is there any way to raise the seat?" Simple enough in FSX to raise the eyepoint with Shift-Enter. The problem then became the HUD. It's not collimated in the Superbug so when we raised the eyepoint the HUD display stayed in it's original position. I ended up having to tweak the default eyepoint in the aircraft.cfg to get things the way he liked it. Thanks to Sludge and others who had a rather lengthy discussion about collimated HUDs in an archived post I found. It was in that post where I learned that the HUD display position was based on the default eyepoint. I was looking for how to change the HUD position but after finding that post it save me a lot of time. His overall impression with the Superbug was kind of blase` but he isn't a big fan of the real F/A-18E/F either.
We moved on to the Sludge Hornet with the modified air file. No problem with the HUD here. Adjust the eyepoint and the HUD follows suit. There was one thing in particular that he didn't like. When rolling out of a turn there is a pronounced pitch up. I loaded the original Sludge Hornet and it did the same thing. Just for grins I set up a flight with the default Acceleration F/A-18.
Here is the part that was not what I expected. As bad as I feel about saying this considering all of the hard work that Sludge and so many other have put into making the Hornet better, my son liked the default Acceleration flight model the best. It did not have the pronounced pitch up when rolling out of a turn. To put things into perspective, he had three wave offs in a row for being too high in the Sludge Hornet. On his first attempt with the default bird he trapped.
Here is what he told me about how things should go on an approach.
1. Use trim to set the desired AoA when on speed.
2. Very little front/back stick should be required
3. Use power to adjust your rate of descent.
4. The E bracket shouldn't deviate much from the velocity vector once the proper trim is set.
Let me expand on number 4. What was driving him crazy was that an increase in power would send the E bracket up with no corresponding increase in pitch and vice versa.
Mike
Sludge:
Mike...
Actually, I couldn't have asked for a better "test subject" as this whole thread has been the goal of the "Sludge Hornet" from the jump. I've always wanted a real-world Hornet driver to fly her and tell me what worked and what didn't. I've noticed several points you talked about, including the "pitch up" when rolling out of a turn. I'm guessing the reason this happens is the auto-pitch that I have done with the .XML file. Also, was wondering about the approach profile and how that worked for the Legacy. Now when you say he used the default Hornet, you mean the straight up "no mods whatsoever" Hornet? The reason I'm asking is that the default Hornet is all AUTO-Flaps, whereas the Sludge is MANUAL-Flaps and is slower airspeed. Might have to go back to the drawing board but hey, thats what spring is for, right?!
Thanks for having your son fly the Sludge, its the ultimate test that I can ask for... and dont ever feel bad for saying he liked the default better. That just lets me know where I may have taken a WRONG fork in the road and what we can do in the future to make things better.
Later
Sludge
MikeB54:
The pitch up rolling out of a turn happens both with and without the auto pitch enabled. One thing that Chris didn't like was that with the auto pitch enabled the stabilator nose up was set to 34. Even though the Sludge Hornet doesn't do it, he says that if the stabilator was really set to 34 NU, which in reality it can't be because the max is 24, you would be doing a vertical 360 off the deck. As he put it, if we want the Hornet to be as realistic as possible the trim should be set to 16 NU as specified in table 8-1 of the NATOPS. Takeoff trim for field operation should be 12 NU. The $100,000 question is, can trim sensitivity be set in the aircraft.cfg? Tweaking the dynamics isn't in my area of expertise but it is something I would like to learn. I renamed the base.xml file to disable the auto pitch and allow him more control of the takeoff trim. From looking at the file that shouldn't have messed up too much.
Anyway, he leaves on Sunday so if there is anything specific you would like him to test, please let me know.
Mike
Paddles:
Mike,
During your tests did you use vLSO? It would be really useful to have real pilot's opinion on this program. :)
Thanks!
MikeB54:
As a matter of fact, he did. :)
He liked it but had a couple of comments. He thinks it grades a bit tough. There are times when you get a waveoff when the grade is in the "little" category. i.e. A little low or a little high. He said those approaches would be allowed to continue, especially if corrective action was taken.
From what I can tell, in vLSO the waveoff will happen as soon as you deviate outside the "little" cone. I don't know how hard it would be but if another cone could be added half way between the little low/little high and the low/high cone it would probably be more accurate. Especially since the cones are so small when you are "at the ramp". Another comment was that unless you are in danger of a ramp strike you aren't going to get a waveoff at the 600' "at the ramp" marker. At normal approach speed you only have about 3 seconds to touchdown and you would be hard pressed to arrest your descent in time to avoid an "in flight engagement". From what he tells me, those are not only bad for the aircraft but are also rough on the pilot.
Mike
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version