Real F/A-18C Simulator

[MikeB54]

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

[Ray]

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!

[Sludge]

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

[Letourn]

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

[MikeB54]

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

[SpazSinbad]

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.

[Sludge]

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

[MikeB54]

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

[Sludge]

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

[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

[MikeB54]

Sludge,

Glad it's working for you.  I did some laps myself last night.  Let's just say I need some more work. 

Mike

[SpazSinbad]

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.”

[GOONIE]

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

[Orion]

Wow- impressive!

[SpazSinbad]

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.    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. 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.