Thanks for your feedback, I will take all of that into consideration.
Here is what I have done so far, what I intend to do, and some questions that came to my mind:
- You can now compare the following FA-18 versions: FSX, CS and New Hornet.
- I intend to make an outline/silhouette for the three side views in the spreadsheet for better visual localization of the contact points.
- So far, it seems that the values for the New Hornet seem closer to RL than the FSX or CS version ones.
- wing_pos_apex_lon and wing_pos_apex_vert seem to be merely cosmetic values. I adjusted them so the plane is positioned correctly to match wingtip vortices effects - which seemed slightly off before.
- Why are there more values present for the New Hornet under the sections wingtips, bottom and top?
- Do the sections engines, gear, wingtips, bottom and top have an impact on flight dynamics or FCS?
Some general thoughts concerning how Jimi's FCS works and how contact points could be adjusted accordingly - as I do not really understand how it works. Some explanations needed...
- Scenario A) FCS works static, like a multiplicator and/or offset to certain flight dynamic parameters. Values inside FCS gauge and 'flight_tuning' (aircraft.cfg) are tweaked to be compliant with NATOPS as best as possible.
- Scenario B) FCS works dynamically, like a program/feedback loop (like a real FCS does), ensuring that a certain end result/behavior, within NATOPS, is met.
Implications on contact points: If a dynamic mass, like a fuel tank is added - that is getting lighter gradually, in RL the FCS would compensate by decreasing elevator/aileron movement, because there is less mass to be moved over time - all other things being equal. If we move such a changing contact point further away from the cg the more has the FCS to compensate for.
- If our FCS is 'static' the best approach would be to place all changing contact points, like tanks, directly to the cg, so their impact through a change of mass is limited on the FCS.
- If our FCS is 'dynamic' the best approach would be to place all changing contact points, like tanks, to their RL positions and adjust FCS behavior accordingly, if necessary, to be NATOPS compliant.
Peter
(most current spreadsheet attached below)