FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: MikeB54 on September 27, 2011, 08:21:33 pm
-
This Friday I will get an opportunity to fly an actual F/A-18C simulator. I am about to find out if all of the time flying the Sludge Hornet and carrier approached with vLSO are going to keep me from embarrasing myself. LOL
Mike
-
Good luck! Should take some videos or pictures if they allow. Would be awesome to see.
-
ah, lucky you, I'm jealous, haha, yes, give a report and some fotos or vids, please
-
Where? :P
-
I'm flying out tomorrow to visit my son who is an F/A-18 pilot at Miramar. His invitation was to see the Miramar Air Show but when he made the offer for sim time that was an offer I couldn't refuse. :)
I'll do my best to get some photos and/or videos. I will also post a report on the experience when I get back next week.
Mike
-
Ah, very cool. :D
-
Mike...
Already sent you a request PM. Also, with my YouTube carrier pattern video I sent to ya, can you show that to your son and let us know his opinion or any comments. Would be enlightening to hear what he has to say.
BTW, I'm really jealous, San Diego is the "promised land" for me... I've been trying to get out there for years.
Take Care
Sludge
-
Sim time is in a couple of hours but I wanted to mention a comment my son had after watching the video and I think this is something we are all guilty of. At least I know that I am. The time in grove target is 12 - 18 seconds. If you are over 20 you will get a No Grade for the pass no matter how good it was. He also mentioned a trickk they use with the Velocity Vector during the turn to final. It's hard to explain in words so when I get home I will set it up in FSX and post a picture.
Mike
-
OK, guys, here's the deal. First off, I don't have any pictures to post. Cameras of any kind are forbidden in the sim area. In fact, they held on to my phone while I was in there.
The sim itself is a full cockpit sim with 360 degree projection. I had them set it up cold and dark and from what I had learned from reading the NATOPS was actually able to get both engines started and the jet ready to fly. Well, almost ready. There are certain procedures in setting up the NAV and the INS that we don't simulate in FSX and I wasn't familar with. Even without that the jet was ready to fly but military pilots live by the details so all of those things were explained and done for me before I was allowed to take off.
The sim was set up for a departure from Rwy 24R at Miramar with a carrier about 20 miles off the coast. The first thing that caught my attention quick was how stiff the controls are. Unless you have a joystick that is firmly attached to the desk there is no way it can have as much resistance in it to come anywhere close to the real thing. I have a private pilots license and I am used to adding pressure to the controls to make the airplane do what I want it to do. It doesn't work that way in the F/A-18. You move the stick to where you want it and the on board computers take care of moving the appropriate control surfaces. Once I got used to that it was fairly easy to fly the jet. Not with the precision I would have liked but good enough that I didn't break anything. The feel of the controls made it a little hard to judge but from I could tell the Sludge Hornet is right on the money as far the flight model goes. With one small exception, elevator trim. Normal takeoff trim settings in the real jet are 12 degrees for runway takeoffs and 16 degrees for carrier catapult launches. In FSX I use 4 from runways and about 4.8 off the cat to get the same effect. That may be due to aircraft lot numbers the two sims are based on. I seem to recall that the older lot numbers use the lower trim values. I would need to go back to the NATOPS to confirm that.
After the departure we headed to the carrier. The biggest thing I noticed about carrier patterns is that things happen FAST. You don't have time to really think about what happens next. You just do it out of habit and muscle memory. The normal procedure is to overfly the ship at 800 feet and 350 knots. About a mile past the ship you perform the break. Simutaneously you chop the throttles to idle, roll into a 60 degree bank left turn and descend to 600 feet. The airspeed bleeds off pretty quickly. As soon at you are below 250 kts you drop the gear, flaps to Full and drop the hook. By the time you roll out on the reciprocal of the Base Recovery Course you should be at 600 feet and on speed. Here is where I, and probably a lot of us, do things wrong. Altitude is controlled by throttle, NOT pitch. If you are a little high you reduce power, you don't pitch down. The velocity vector should be within the E bracket at all times. One thing my son mentioned to me was that when I was flying I wouldn't adjust the throttle for 5 seconds or more. That made him cringe. That's right, 5 seconds was too long! I watched him fly a pattern and he never stopped moving the throttles. Since the reaction of a jet engine is not instantaneous like a propeller you need to constantly anticipate the next power adjustment. The distance abeam the carrier of the downwind leg you are shooting for is 1.3 - 1.4 nm. Remember how I said in my earlier post that a short (12 - 18 seconds) time in the groove was important? What that means is that you start your turn to final just about the time you can see the stern of the carrier. You start the turn using about 28 degrees of bank. The nose comes down about 1 degree in the turn. How do you tell when you are at 1 degree? The velocity vector circle has 3 short lines coming off of it; one to the left, one at the top and one to the right. You take the end of the top line and the end of the right line and put them on the horizon line. Rate of decent is controlled by constant adjustments to the throttle. You are shooting for 450 feet at the 90 and 380 feet at the completion of the turn rolling out on center line and ready to call the ball. All the while you maintain "on speed" by keeping the velocity vector centered in the E bracket. Another thing he mentioned about flying the ball, you never want to see a low indication. The tip he told me that he does is to keep the ball indication one position above the datum line. If you fly with the ball exactly on the datum line you have no room for error. Coming in low and flat and catching a 1 wire is called "walking it on". Let's just say that that is frowned upon.
He also set me up for some night traps. Night catapult launches are unbelievable. There are no visual references AT ALL. It was like someone threw a black cover over the canopy. All of the cockpit lighting is kept as low as possible. To make things more challenging he set it up so the conditions were the same as when he did his first night trap in the F/A-18, a 400 foot cloud ceiling. After the launch you go out about 3 miles climbing to 1200 feet. The downwind turn is a lot more gentle, about 15 degrees of bank. The downwind is flown 3 miles off the BRC at 150 kts. There are 3 options for the turn to final, 4 miles, 6 miles or 8 miles from the carrier. By the way, the only time he has the ILS needles up on the HUD are in bad weather or at night. Never for normal daytime Case 1 approaches. You maintain 1200 feet until you intercept the localizer then reduce power and start on down. Remember, throttle controls altitude and pitch controls airspeed. With the 400 foot ceiling I broke out just inside 3/4 mile. At that point it's just like a daytime pass. You call the ball and fly the rest of the approach visually.
So, how did I do? Not as well as I had hoped. I had no Fair passes. The best estimate is that about half of them would have been graded No Grade which isn't a "bad" grade but it isn't a good one either. Some of the ones where I trapped probably would have been waved off. However, I did manage to catch a 3 wire once but I almost broke the jet doing it. The approach was high and I forced it. My rate of descent when I trapped was about 1100 fpm. Not enough to brake the jet, but enough that it would have needed a maintenance inspection before it flew again.
One other thing my son mentioned was that I was trying to be too smooth. I was trying to fly it like an airplane rather than like a fighter jet. You need to be quick and decisive with your control inputs. There are no passengers in the back that you need to keep happy. LOL
Anyway, I'm sure I left a bunch of stuff out. If anyone has any questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Mike
-
Sounds cool! Was it a full motion simulator, or was it stationary? What sort of software were they using for the sim? Proprietary stuff, or something like Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d?
-
Thanks for the detailed report, Mike, well written.
I think it is fair to mention we have our further flights to do following the info here. I will for certain.
-
Nice report, thanks a lot Mike.
I had, a few years ago, the chance to fly Mirage 2000N (1,5 hour bombing mission) , Alpha jet (some TAGs and ILS procedures and Patrouille de France exibit - well... trying to for that point) and Mirage F1CT sims (also Mud mission), and it was really cool. But never had the possibility to fly naval operations as you did.
Thanks again for the report.
Ost
-
Orion...
I would further a guess that L-3 Comm (contractors who run the sims; the company that posted the job opening I was looking at last summer) probly use their proprietary stuff. I've been to the full-motion airforce DMT F-16 sims and they are all proprietary based.
Mike...
Probly one of the best "real world" sim reports I've heard in a while. Thanks for all the well-written information.
The sim itself is a full cockpit sim with 360 degree projection. I had them set it up cold and dark and from what I had leaned from reading the NATOPS was actually able to get both engines started and the jet ready to fly.
Great job. Most people would have NO CLUE how to do this. Did you get a PCL (pocket checklist) to help you out?
With one small exception, elevator trim. Normal takeoff trim settings in the real jet are 12 degrees for runway takeoffs and 16 degrees for carrier catapult launches. In FSX I use 4 from runways and about 4.8 off the cat to get the same effect. That may be due to aircraft lot numbers the two sims are based on. I seem to recall that the older lot numbers use the lower trim values. I would need to go back to the NATOPS to confirm that.
Good analysis. I'm guessing its more of the FSX-factor than anything. We always have to remember, FSX was primarily designed as a "stick and rudder" flight sim and not a native FBW simulator. You can get FBW (thru many "brute force workaround" gauges), but even then some behaviors in the flight model will be suspect, as FSX is not a FBW simulator... when any conflicts exist, any flight model for FSX will "run home to mama" (back to stick and rudder calculations) by default.
I do have a question... when you took off from the cat, where did the W (waterline) and the V/Vector go? Right now, I try to get the W at 15 deg up and the V/Vector at 10 deg up. This will help me in setting a relative FSX takeoff auto-trim for the Sludge Hornet in the future.
What that means is that you start your turn to final just about the time you can see the stern of the carrier. You start the turn using about 28 degrees of bank. The nose comes down about 1 degree in the turn. How do you tell when you are at 1 degree? The velocity vector circle has 3 short lines coming off of it; one to the left, one at the top and one to the right. You take the end of the top line and the end of the right line and put them on the horizon line.
Straight up, FSX Naval Aviation GOLD. I knew about the stern of the carrier and the 28 deg of bank, but will work on this NEW velocity vector 1 degree method and see if it directly translates to FSX.
Another thing he mentioned about flying the ball, you never want to see a low indication. The tip he told me that he does is to keep the ball indication one position above the datum line.
I heard the same thing from those Prowler and Growler guys down at the Alliance airshow. They called it "cresting the ball" and said its preferrable to have a one-ball high indication, as you can slowly walk that a tad lower and still get a fair-OK three wire pass. Whereas everything from just a bit below on-glide to low goes from BAD to extremely BAD and should not be accepted in any way during a pass.
By the way, the only time he has the ILS needles up on the HUD are in bad weather or at night. Never for normal daytime Case 1 approaches. You maintain 1200 feet until you intercept the localizer then reduce power and start on down. Remember, throttle controls altitude and pitch controls airspeed.
You are shooting for 450 feet at the 90 and 380 feet at the completion of the turn rolling out on center line and ready to call the ball.
The only exception to this I would say is that I use the ICLS needles for FSX because I dont have TrackIR, so I have to use the ICLS to let me know if I'm on glideslope from the 90 and the 45 positions, since I can't "glance left" and visually acquire the meatball. Also, more than likely, the simulator used a 3.5 glideslope whereas in FSX we are stuck with 4.0, so that throws off the approach numbers. Usually, its 520 ft at the 90, and 405 for ball call. Oh, that reminds me, when did you visually acquire the meatball during Case I passes in the pattern? And what TCN distance were you at when you were at the 90?
I'm done for now, but cant express enough thanks for sharing this with us here. A great wealth of knowledge has just been gained by all!!
Thanks Mike
Sludge
-
Mike...
This one is for Scott Printz (original FSX realistic F/A-18 HUD designer) and JR (updated realistic HUD and Gun HUD designer) and Serge (multiple BlackBox gauges, Betty warnings, and sounds designer)... how did the HUD look and sound (audible warnings) in comparison to the real thing? Did you get a similar look, indications, and alarms from the realistic FSX F-18 HUD as you did from the real simulator?
Later
Sludge
-
MikeB54, many thanks for your excellent first person description of your F-18 simulator experience. Much appreciated.
-
Orion,
It was a stationary simulator. I don't know what software it was running but it wasn't Prepar3d. The graphics weren't anywhere near as good.
Sludge,
No PCL. I also fly the VRS Superbug and I learned the startup procedures from that.
On the cat shots, the procedure I was using in FSX was to set the trim so that on launch the W would be 10 degrees nose up and when the velocity vector matched it I would reduce power so my airspeed didn't exceed 200 kts. Now that you mention it, the W did go to 15 and the VV to 10 on the launch.
As for the meatball, I always found it difficult to see in FSX. As it turns out, that's the way it is in real life, too. When I was showing my son the video I commented on how hard it was to see the ball. He just shrugged and said "That's just the way it is." In the sim I picked up the ball just about as I was crossing the wake. I don't recall the TACAN distance at the 90. I'll see if I can get an answer to that.
I didn't notice any difference in the HUD from what I was used to in FSX. If there were any audio alerts I didn't hear them because my son was wearing the headset so he could talk to the sim operator. It was a different set up from the T-45 simulator at Meridian. In the 45 sim, the sim console was behind the cockpit and it was easy to make changes to the environment. In the 18 there was a sim operator in the next room who did all the config changes. There was a DATA indication that would show up occasionally just below the altitude readout. If I remember correctly it had to do with the INS/NAV system being updated with GPS data. Other than that I don't recall anything on it that I hadn't seen before.
Mike
-
Very nice report, Mike! Thanks for sharing!
I was lucky to have a 45 min. ride in the CF-18 simulator at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta back in 1994. Obviously it was a F/A-18A sim, but also with 360 degrees view and stationary. No carrier landing trials, however, I remember most vividly the sensitive flight control system. You had to only think about turning, to get the plane rolling (or pitching for that matter). I was only used to fly gliders in RL up to that point, and although they are agile too, the Hornet is a different story, I really needed a couple of minutes to get used to the Hornets fast response for your inputs, in fact, after take-off I needed around half a minute to keep the wings just steady level, I was always "over"banking.
Again, thanks for the insight! Cheers!
-
Mike...
Ahh, OK. Good deal. One of the glaring faults of the Sludge (and default) Hornet is that it really doesnt have all the necessary "hardcore" cold/dark startup procedures.
So, for right now, I'll keep the auto-tension hold UP ELEVATOR VALUE where it is. As once you take off it shoots you up to 15 deg on the W and about 10 deg V/Vector... by then you can take the controls and make the necessary adjustments (back in the pattern [BRC then turn downwind] OR outbound vector for a mission). And I know the real-world bird uses takeoff and carrier UP TRIM but as an FSX "less XML code is MORE" work-around, I use the UP ELEVATOR and not the UP TRIM. Makes for easier programming, as there's no additional XML code required to "break free"...all one has to do is make one stick input and they are free to fly.
Yeah, just sucks that for those of us without TrackIR, we cant slew our heads to the left as easily. Plus, in FSX the field of view is a big restriction, thats why I use 2D HUD from the 45 to the wires. Good to know real-world its a problem too, probly not as bad as FSX, but still a problem.
OK, good to know... probly cant incorporate that ("data" readout) into the HUD but as always real-world info is good to have.
Thanks.
Sludge
-
Mike thank you for sharing that experience with us. Must have been one heck of a day.
Your son is flying with witch Marine Squadron?
Did he ever had time to try the Sludge or the Superbug in FSX with you?
Let
-
Glad you liked the report. I hope people find it useful.
My son is with VMFA-323. He hasn't flown the Sludge Hornet or the Superbug yet. He may be coming home for the Holidays and I hope to get him to try them then.
Mike
-
An old saying is that one needs to 'work like a one armed (wall)paper hanger' especially when FLCPing or Deck Landing. Attached is an inside view ('FCLPhornetInsideHQ.wmv' video zipped) of a Hornet pilot moving stick and throttle during an FCLP approach. Notice at start of straightaway there is a 'trim button'? movement also. Hornet STICK diagram from F/A-18A-D NATOPS.
-
Mike...
Thats too funny, he's with the squadron (Death Rattlers) that I picked for my main Sludge Hornet that I fly. Ray did the LINE paint and JJ did the CAG paint.
VERY USEFUL... especially that it seemed the flight dynamics were close, as best you could tell. Thats what we are shooting for here, to up the realism of the default Hornet.
Thanks
Sludge
-
A couple of corrections and additions to my original post.
I stated that the time in groove target is 12 - 18 seconds. The correct target is 15 - 18 seconds.
Angle of bank for the break is usually MORE than 60 degrees. It depends on your speed entering the break. The faster you are going the steeper the turn necessary to hit the 1.3 - 1.4 distance abeam on the downwind. Also, the hook is normally down before the break is initiated.
In a Case 1 approach I said your altitude targets were 450 at the 90 and 380 joinng the final. You actually want the 380 with 45 degrees of turn left. As Sludge mentioned, FSX uses a 4 degree glide slope where 3.5 is normally used at the carrier. As soon as I can I will be doing the math to calculate the proper altitudes for a 4 degree GS.
On the night pattern (the correct term is bolter/wave off pattern), I mentioned there were three options for the inbound turn, 4, 6 and 8 miles. If you start the turn at 4 miles, gear and flaps go down at the start of the turn. At 6 miles, halfway through the turn. At 8 miles, at the completion of the turn.
I also was wrong about the trim settings varying by lot number. That may be a Superbug issue. My son tells me that all legacy Hornets use 12 for land takeoffs and 16 for cat shots.
@Sludge, he also tells me that the W will go to 10 degrees nose up on a cat shot, not 15. The position of the velocity vector will depend on the speed off the cat. The elevator up method you are using seems correct to me since the Hornet doesn't have trim tabs. It is just an offset to what the FBW system considers neutral.
Mike
-
Mike...
In a Case 1 approach I said your altitude targets were 450 at the 90 and 380 joinng the final. You actually want the 380 with 45 degrees of turn left. As Sludge mentioned, FSX uses a 4 degree glide slope where 3.5 is normally used at the carrier. As soon as I can I will be doing the math to calculate the proper altitudes for a 4 degree GS.
Actually, I think you are correct in your first post. NATOPS says 450 and then I've seen Y/T videos of Hornets landing... look at the video, he's at 470 RALT (a little high) and the TACAN needle is a bit past the 90. Then around 0.8-0.7 TCN (Ball Call), he is about 300 RALT. If you notice, he's even a bit high (cresting) AR and coming down into the wires.
I think you may be getting messed up in computing BASIC Angle ONLY and not factoring in EFFECTIVE Angle? Whereas the Basic Angle is set at 4 or 3.5 and because the ship moves forward, the Effective Angle is now 3.2 and 2.8 respectively. You can get that from LSO NATOPS Manual, Page 4-7 or PDF page 45. If you compute for 3.2 outward, you should get the correct numbers we can use in FSX with a 4.0 basic angle set from the carrier.
Later
Sludge
-
Mike..
Just did some "laps" around the boat and sure enough, your technique (using the v/vector top and wings) is great for getting on the proper rate of descent, even for FSX. Plus, at the 90s, you can either have the ICLS UP and see if that keeps you on glide, or use close-enough numbers (520 at the 90 w/1.4-1.3 TCN, etc) and then go from there.
Thanks again... as now I'm putting the info to use in my patterns.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Glad it's working for you. I did some laps myself last night. Let's just say I need some more work. ;)
Mike
-
F/A-18 trainers receive 360-degree high definition visual system | Dec 15, 2011
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4854
PIC: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/TOFT2_revised_1.jpg
"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- The F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFT), Naval Air Station Oceana, Va., recently received state-of-the-art upgrades to their cockpit systems.
The new visual system upgrade, developed by L-3 Corporation’s Link Simulation & Training division of Arlington, Texas, uses High Definition (HD) technology, the first HD 360-degree visual system for the F/A-18 platform. Upgrades consists of new projectors, mirrors and image computers that give pilots and naval flight officers the same visual perspective they have in the aircraft, including night vision goggle training.
“Through this new visual package, aircrew will become more proficient in recognition and target identification, as well as experience simulated carrier landings with a clarity and fidelity not yet seen in the Navy’s simulation of fighter aircraft,” said Lt. Cmdr. Brian Baller, F/A-18 training systems integrated product team lead, Naval Aviation Training Systems Program Office (PMA-205) here.
In addition to the HD-9 visual system upgrade, the TOFTs will receive new motion cuing seats that will simulate the feel of the aircraft employing weapons; taxiing, take-off and landing; and motion simulation of special effects, such as positive and negative gravitational forces.
"PMA-205 is enriching F/A-18 simulation by enhancing priorities identified by the Naval Aviation Simulation Master Plan study. What does this mean to the warfighter? It means effective training, which promotes increased performance and mission readiness," Baller added.
Recently, a NASMP requirements analysis identified the physical and functional requirements of training systems that enhance the performance of aircrew and mission readiness of the platform. The evaluation identified visual perception and motion cueing as top priorities to increase F/A-18 simulation training effectiveness.
“The goal at PMA-205 is to ensure our warfighters are proficient and effective before they even step into an actual aircraft,” said Capt. John Feeney, Naval Aviation Training Systems Program Office (PMA-205) program manager. “By implementing these advanced technologies into the F/A-18 trainers, our pilots and naval flight officers will be even better prepared for live-fly scenarios.”
-
Nice find Spaz! This is the exact sim I flew (super Hornet) at Oceana NAS after thanksgiving weekend. The cool thing is when you use the 'close canopy' switch in the cockpit the hexagon panel on the rear left closes which gives you full 360 view. They also have a WSO sim that looks exactly the same. One thing you may notice is the HUD is bigger/wider then the real f/a-18 HUD, my friend confirmed this. Also the HUD symbology is not displayed on the glass, it is projected on to the front panel to simulate a conformal/collimated HUD (collimated to the distance the screen is in front of you compared to the real HUD which is several 100 ft ahead).
It is cool to have a picture of the sim since I was not allowed to take in a camera. The article talked about motion, I guess they did not use that when I flew (was not active) although the 360 display can trick your senses that you are moving, or at least it felt that way to me. I wasn't able to use any weapon systems (classified), but all I wanted to do anyways was try to land on the boat.
CAPT
-
Wow- impressive! :o
-
capthaltli said: "...360 display can trick your senses that you are moving..." Good to know. Good to know you had a good time in that same sim. Thankfully our eye sense over rides other mistaken senses (such as 'balance, turning' from inner ear) in cloud flying for example. This is when locking on to the instruments and believing them (rather than your mistaken senses otherwise) really is important. However as you have experienced there are other effects. ;D To me that says a lot about the sim fidelity. Disorientation for pilots in cloud or at night can be fatal.
I get disorientated flying night FCLP in FSX when looking at the zoomed HUD and nothing else (not that at that point there is anything much else to look at mostly). I really have to convince myself to pay more attention to what the HUD is telling me. But maybe that is just me. ;D In this instance it is easy to over concentrate on altitude or bank angle or airspeed at the expense of the others - so having an overview is important.
Must be terrific in that Hornet sim.
-
Full 360 moving sims are quite good pity there is so few of them they are fun to dogfight with though you spend alot of time upside down sometimes. ;D
-
Curious photo:
This is not a Hollywood film set but the U.S. Marine Corps F-18 Hornet simulator
May 4, 2012 by David Cenciotti
http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/04/hornet-toft/
"The following picture shows an F/A-18C Hornet Tactical Operational Flight Trainer (TOFT) that the U.S. Marine Corps have recently relocated to MCAS (Marine Corps Air Station) Iwakuni, Japan.
The TOFT is used to support the entire strike-fighter pilot’s training including radar intercept, imagery and warning system operation; weapons delivery; HARM (high-speed, anti-radiation missile) system operation; and electronic attack.
Previously located at Naval Air Station Atsugi, Japan, the TOFT hhas received various upgrades at Iwakuni: among them a sensor video-recording system that provides communication access and networking capability to interconnect it with other simulators, making air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical mission training involving other similar systems possible."
http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/simulator-f18.jpg
(http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/simulator-f18.jpg)
-
We have a similar system in the Army that is non-motion VR visual sim with reconfigurable cockpits for all 4 primary rotary airframes, and they can be linked together.