New FSXBA Hornet

[Wingnut172N]

Figured I'd copy this here; it's a series of tests Jamal requested I run in the Hornet sim regarding the behavior of the jet in certain flight conditions when the stick was released.
_______________________________________________________

Jamal,

Alright, just got home from the simulator test. Here's what I observed when the stick was released in the following conditions;

1.) 10 degrees nose up, 300 KCAS, power to maintain.
The jet maintained 1.0G flight at 300KCAS and 10 degrees nose up.

2.) 30 degrees nose up, airspeed bleeding, power at mil.
Jet maintained a 30 degree nose up vector at 1.0G as speed bled off. As the speed bled off through approximately 170 KCAS, the nose began slowly tracking up to 34 degrees nose up while the velocity vector began to fall until it was HUD limited. At roughly 110 KCAS and 25 AOA the nose began to slowly fall. Slowest airspeed was 100 KCAS at 30 AOA. Nose continued to pitch down gradually to 3 degrees nose low at 20 degrees alpha as the airspeed began to increase again. The maneuver ended up slightly nose low with the airspeed increasing under 1 G flight when the airplane recovered itself. The entire evolution occurred between 1.1G and .7G with .7 occurring during the pitch down from 33 degrees to 3 degrees nose low.

3.) 20 degrees nose down, airspeed increasing, power at idle.
Jet accelerated under idle power at 1G flight maintaining roughly ~20-18 degrees nose down. Nose slightly tracked up due to a slight lag in the automatic trim as the speed increased.

4.) 40 degrees nose down, airspeed increasing, power at mil.
Jet accelerated at military power in 1G flight to Mach 1.21 at ~40-38 degrees nose down. Almost identical performance as the condition above.

 Hope this answered your questions, Jamal!! Anything else, please don't hesitate to ask. I'll also post this on the forum at FSDREAMTEAM in case you see it there first.

__________________________________________________________

Another notes I made from the sim;

In the overhead break at the field from 350 KCAS, an IDLE power turn using the 1% rule (3.5G pull at 350 knots, 3G at 300 etc...) yielded an airspeed of 280 KCAS through 90 degrees of turn.  250 KCAS roughly 135 degrees through the turn.

[Wingnut172N]

If you can, shoot VRS some info on this. I'm fairly confident that they use custom variables for the flight controls, which means they should be able to fix it.

I've communicated this information to VRS several times and they are unwilling to fix the issue.  They said they might look at it for the Pro version, but in the meantime they seem like they're content with the current model as is.

[pyroperson87]

they seem like they're content with the current model as is

Which is a real shame TBH.  I'm not sure if you have the Superbug and if you can comment or not, but there are certain flight regimes in which it seems the Superbug is extremely inaccurate.  There are two things that come to my mind:

- The so called "ground effect" that has been claimed as a fault of FSX (although the FSXBA 2012, Sludge Hornet, and the FSXBA 2014 don't experience this).  As you get closer to the ground, the rate of descent is slowly arrested which makes FCLP damn near impossible, although it is manageable at the boat by adding a bit of forward stick or cutting power at the ramp, but it's still annoying not to be able to fly it correctly all the way into the wires. 

- The second thing that annoys me is the Superbug's performance at "low speed."  If I'm under 250 knots and enter into anything greater than about 1.7G, the aircraft rolls towards the high wing and pitches up, and occasionally a small amount of yaw is induced.  This obviously results in a huge loss of airspeed, and in my testing has led to departures fairly frequently.  Everything I have studied about the Rhino makes it seem like this is utter non-sense.  A fella on the VRS forums even brought it to their attention with a Q&A with a Rhino pilot, and the VRS guys just brushed it off.

Don't get me wrong, under most circumstances the Superbug is a fantastic simulation and it was worth every penny.  I just wish they would listen a bit better to people that actually know what they are talking about.

[Wingnut172N]

Which is a real shame TBH.  I'm not sure if you have the Superbug and if you can comment or not, but there are certain flight regimes in which it seems the Superbug is extremely inaccurate.  There are two things that come to my mind:

- The so called "ground effect" that has been claimed as a fault of FSX (although the FSXBA 2012, Sludge Hornet, and the FSXBA 2014 don't experience this).  As you get closer to the ground, the rate of descent is slowly arrested which makes FCLP damn near impossible, although it is manageable at the boat by adding a bit of forward stick or cutting power at the ramp, but it's still annoying not to be able to fly it correctly all the way into the wires. 

- The second thing that annoys me is the Superbug's performance at "low speed."  If I'm under 250 knots and enter into anything greater than about 1.7G, the aircraft rolls towards the high wing and pitches up, and occasionally a small amount of yaw is induced.  This obviously results in a huge loss of airspeed, and in my testing has led to departures fairly frequently.  Everything I have studied about the Rhino makes it seem like this is utter non-sense.  A fella on the VRS forums even brought it to their attention with a Q&A with a Rhino pilot, and the VRS guys just brushed it off.

Don't get me wrong, under most circumstances the Superbug is a fantastic simulation and it was worth every penny.  I just wish they would listen a bit better to people that actually know what they are talking about.

I do have the SuperBug, and I agree that while it is a great simulation, there are some downfalls that the devs seem happy to ignore.  Speaking honestly, I did give them some bad gouge as a mid while I was on an aviation cruise, so that may contribute to their lack of desire to act on my feedback, but I feel that currently flying the jet should give me a bit of credibility that I lacked as a midshipman.

The ground effect is very annoying in the VRS, and in fact I don't fly it at the ship or FCLP for that reason.  The Hornet sims don't seem to have the issue.  I wonder if that's an issue with the Hornet having smaller wings than the Rhino and FSX picking up on that?  The real Super Hornet does tend to float a little more on the ball than the Hornet does (the Hornet tends to settle due to it's tiny wings) but nothing even close to how the VRS flare itself as it nears the ground.

The pitch up and into the high wing is also irritating.  I haven't maneuvered the Rhino dynamically enough in real life to really be able to comment on it's performance in the corners on the envelope yet though, so I'll defer to folks with more experience.

[jimi08]

Great info guys.  Just reading the dialog going back and forth and I think I might be able to shed some light on a few things.

The so called "ground effect" that has been claimed as a fault of FSX (although the FSXBA 2012, Sludge Hornet, and the FSXBA 2014 don't experience this).  As you get closer to the ground, the rate of descent is slowly arrested which makes FCLP damn near impossible, although it is manageable at the boat by adding a bit of forward stick or cutting power at the ramp, but it's still annoying not to be able to fly it correctly all the way into the wires.

-While tweaking the jet that I am working on, I've noticed that there is in fact a "Ground Effect" variable in the .air file.  I haven't check VRS' file but, adjusting it might yield the results that you are looking for.

Figured I'd copy this here; it's a series of tests Jamal requested I run in the Hornet sim regarding the behavior of the jet in certain flight conditions when the stick was released.

-This is on part from what I understand from reading the NATOPS.  With zero pitch input, the FCS will seek to keep the jet a 1.0 G, zero pitch rate flight up to 22 degrees Alpha.  Any further increase in Alpha requires constant pitch input from the pilot.  Any the point where the aircraft exceeds 22 degrees Alpha that is not commanded by the pilot, the FCS starts to incorporate nose down trim, until the aircraft's Alpha is below 22 degrees, the FCS once again seeks to keep the aircraft at 1.0 G.  That explains the brief nose down pitching, followed by the nose low settling.

[pyroperson87]

Jimi, what are you using to "decompile" the jumbled mess that is the .air file?

Wingnut,

I haven't maneuvered the Rhino dynamically enough in real life

Where are you in the syllabus right now?

The real Super Hornet does tend to float a little more on the ball than the Hornet does (the Hornet tends to settle due to it's tiny wings)

Meaning Hornets fly the ball with significantly more power on than Rhino's correct?  I would also assume then that the burble also has a far more pronounced effect for Hornets than for Rhinos.

[Wingnut172N]

Where are you in the syllabus right now?

Currently in the transition phase of the syllabus.  This is the first phase of training where a Cat I receives their NATOPS qual and Instrument Card so they are qualified to fly the jet.  Following phases are Strike, Fighter, Fighter Weps, CQ.

Meaning Hornets fly the ball with significantly more power on than Rhino's correct?  I would also assume then that the burble also has a far more pronounced effect for Hornets than for Rhinos.

While I'm not sure about power settings (having not flown both) anecdotal evidence is that the Hornet tends to settle much more at the ramp than the Super because of the burble effect and the tiny wings.  Rhinos don't have the same tendency to settle, but tend to float and go flat at the ramp because of their bigger wings and more powerful motors.  It's easier to get overpowered in a Rhino than a Hornet is what I've heard around the squadron.

[pyroperson87]

Ahh yes...NATOPS quals.  Pretty much the only time on earth where mixing up two words can potentially end a career path...   "Possible" and "Practical."  At least this is what I've heard of transition phases.  My dad flew Vikings back in mid to late 80's, said the transition was brutal in the ASW pipeline.

[jimi08]

Jimi, what are you using to "decompile" the jumbled mess that is the .air file?

-I use a combination of aired and Air Update.

[LtButler]

When hooked up to the catapult, the jet automatically rudder's slightly to the right.
Not a big issue. May be something i'm not doing correctly.

[jimi08]

Roger.  It should recenter by 50 KIAS.  I'll add it to the list though.

[pyroperson87]

Jimi,

Had a quick flight with a friend.  Still no joy on the hook/probe being visible in MP.  We have identical aircraft, no mods, and are using identical FSX settings.

Packet count in MP is rather large...over 800 most of the time.  I'm assuming that some of that is caused by the data gauge.  Does anything depend on the data gauge or can I remove it for testing packet count?

The UA logic is now correct for normal flight conditions.  Inverted flight is still incorrect as it still attempts to capture -1.0 g.  It should be identical to normal flight and attempt to capture +1.0 g.

That's all I have for now.

[Dman]

Kinda off the topic.. I know some of the animations aren't working yet, But is there a way to show the empty cockpit on this current version? I thought I saw a screen shot of this at one time..
I'm A huge fan of the legacy hornet.. I would like to say thank you for this model and work that went into it!!!!

[pyroperson87]

Jimi,

Did a few passes at the boat, and tested some things.

NWS is my bad...Sorry I said that.  I would rather have the old NWS back (the NATOPS spec version) and just get used to it.

Overall handling characteristics feel very different now.  The thrust feels much better, but roll rates seem a tad slower, and rate of turn (i.e. rate of heading change) seems slower as well.  Also, when entering into a bank from level flight the vertical speed should slowly decrease (i.e start going negative) and the velocity vector should sink slightly and visualize that decreasing sink rate.  From my flight, it doesn't appear that is the case, but rather the jet is attempting to maintain level flight.  Maybe I'm incorrect in this, but that is the way the previous iteration of the 2014 flew, as well as the 2012 and the Superbug.  It made passes at the boat a bit difficult.  I can try to explain this in better detail if needed.  Or maybe tomorrow after I get home from work I'll try to make a quick video showing what I'm talking about.

ATC now works in UA and PA mode, however it didn't disengage when I trapped and I rolled right off the end of the deck after letting off the brakes.  I'll have to try it again at an airfield, and then make a few more passes at the boat with it engaged.  I also noticed it's no longer mapped to the carb heat, but to Ctrl+R, could that be causing FSX autothrottle to interfere with your custom autothrottle.xml?  EDIT: Flew another pass at the boat using the ATC in PA, I think it's holding the airspeed I engaged it at, as opposed to trying to maintain on speed for the given trimmed AoA.

And a question about the AoA trimming.  I believe I read that once in PA mode, trimming the pitch is done by hand to 8.1 AoA.  It seems however that in the 2014, trimming doesn't work at all in PA, and that it's automatic?  Is this as per NATOPS?

I think that will be it for tonight....sometimes I wish I didn't have to work so early.    It's loads of fun flying around in this jet.

[pyroperson87]

Jimi, figured out the hook!    It shows in MP whenever both parties are using the CLEAN model, but does NOT show in MP if both are using the training model.  I don't have the time to test each model tonight, but I most certainly will tomorrow after work, and I'll let you know which other models (if any) properly display the hook in MP.