New FSXBA Hornet

[Tregarth]

I apologise for asking a basic question but I have downloaded the F/A-18 as listed in Post 249.  I have tried to unzip the file direct into FSX but the folder did not unpack into the relevant folders so I have opened them and copied the contents e.g. Effects, .cfg and .air into their various locations manually.

But I have not seen a Model.XXX folder before so I am not sure where to put it (!)

Similarly where does Panel.Fleet, SoundAi and Amod_Log go?

Can somebody please tell me the paths for these folders/files.

Also, I do not really need to install all of the textures, can I just install 2 or 3 without any difficulties?

Thank you,

Tregarth

[Orion]

I'm not sure what Amod_Log is, but the rest of the folders you mentioned go in the main FSXBA Hornet folder, alongside the aircraft.cfg.

If you don't want all the textures, you can remove both the folders and relevant entries from the aircraft.cfg; however, they will no longer be shown in multiplayer should someone else use it (instead it'll be substituted)

It may be worth noting that textures can fallback to other texture folders, so if you remove one, it may break other textures. An example of this is the default Acceleration Hornet's Blue Angels #1 texture folder -- it contains textures common to all repaints, and if you remove it, the other repaints won't show properly.

[Tregarth]

Orion,

Thank you for your reply and valuable guidance.  The plane flies beautifully and using Paddles FCLP is a real challenge.

Best regards

Tregarth

[Orion]

Went for a flight with Ben (Afterburn93) in a slightly older than current version of the FSXBA Hornet.  Well done.

[pyroperson87]

Out of curiosity....has anyone tried to add TacPack functionality to the FSXBA 2014 bird?

If not, I think I'll give it a try when I get some time.

[jimi08]

Hey Gents,

Fleet Variant Update FLT14.14 is now available for download. 

Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3So3WwTLPRZUHItcXhSRGVEYnM/view?usp=sharing

Updates include:
-Decreased gear threshold from 4400 fpm to 3200 fpm for more realistic landing tolerance (still looking for hard numbers for this though)
-Decrease static thrust from 11000 lbs to 10600 lbs.
-Adjusted wing sweep to 26 deg.
-Oswald Efficiency Factor set to 0.8.
-Wing twist adjusted to -4.1 deg.
-Updated Auto Rudder Logic. Re-visiting the "Active" system that constantly attempts to null out skid/slid while turning in Up & Away (UA) Flight.  Might notice a slight "wagging" of the tail.  Still working on smoothing this out.
-Ground effect added.
-Trying out new Afterburner Effects (Make sure to install them).
-New shutdown effects added.  Stabs and Flaps droop once hydraulic pressure drops below a certain PSI (engines shutdown).  Flaps and stabs raise to neutral position once pressure returns (engines running).
-Flap deployment speed adjusted to reflect realistic movement.
-Added Status Gauge (Shift+4).  Reflects basic configurations settings of the jet.
-Wheel brake strength has been reduced.
-Stabs and ailerons have been adjusted to show full movement while on ground.

As usual, any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated.


-Jimi

[SpazSinbad]

How this will translate to 'crash detection' I have no idea however here are some quotes about HIGH SINK Rate testing which will never deliberately go to the actual design break limit - the operation max. limit will always be less by about 20% I believe but don't quote me.

Unnatural Acts of Landing Patuxent River Naval Air Museum Association
The Kneeboard Mag'n Spring 2012

"...testing must also show that an aircraft can absorb these loads when:

- Its sink rate (how fast it descends) is high (as much as 26 feet per second!)..." [1,560 feet per minute] add 20% = 1,872 approx. will break it]

http://api.ning.com/files/8OBnZkm85rrIMYQKeV*ggLdFOJeVqjQZZd6TVym3edKjcGDND6Xeiz4Pmo1qdQel3UuSwHY4oOAYEPGPr3FYJaGwJlDafX1q/KneeboardSpring2012.pdf

[jimi08]

Did some homework...

Based on some digging, I roughly calculated fpm per G.  On another forum, someone mentioned that landing with a 600 fpm descent rate gave them 1.8 G upon touchdown.  So after a quick calculation (600/1., you get about a G per every 333 fpm of descent rate.

Based on the referenceces that was provided here, we know the hornet touches down at around 2.7 G.  Again, after some quick math (333*2.7), you get a descent rate of about 900 fpm in order to get 2.7 G at touchdown.  Which sounds about right.

Look at Spaz's article (thanks by the way), looks like the max is 26 feet per second, which Spaz's math worked out to 1560, 1872 fpm, with a 20% safety buffer.

Based on that, I get a normal, operational fpm 900, high sink rate probably starts at around 1560, and structural limit at 1872.

You're looking at hitting the deck at around 5.6 Gs to break this jet at max trap, and about 3.5 Gs with at max takeoff weight.

Unless anyone has anything to refute this, these are the numbers that I will go with.  A little less for the nose gear of course.

-Jimi

[Roller25]

I've already told you this Jimi - but damn, your attention to detail is impressive.

[hd764jvgd843]

Hello Jimi,

some feedback. I have been fiddling around with the drag and flaps values. Here is what I have come up with so far.

- I have checked some of the flaps values you provided with references (page 127 of 902 on F18-ABCD-000.pdf) and changed them accordingly: Leading Flaps do NOT move full out when on the ground or approach, etc. They only do so in Auto mode. Have a look at the changes in the .cfg file I have included.
- The extending-time values seemed much too slow. From a youtube video someone linked here where they are tested pre-flight, it seems they can be moving very quickly.
- I have corrected the span-outboard values too, by adjusting values in relation to each other via visual comparison (e.g. measuring the pixels from a detailed sketch and a screen shot). They should be closer the the real deal now.

As a starting point for the performance (Vmax and drag) adjustments I have taken the default fsx drag coefficients (from within .air under 'Primary Aerodynamics' section 'Drag') and their relations to each other and made a series of tests concerning Vmax with different parasitic drag scalars (in .cfg file) representing different loadouts. As reference parasitic drag scalar values I took the ones from different CaptainSim D version loadouts, and adjusted the drag values inside the .air file accordingly to match Vmax at high altitude. You can test the results if you like for yourself. I have attached the latest .air and .cfg files. If do not want to adjust paths etc. you can work with this version here: http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,10839.0.html ('New FSXBA Hornet' version)
For better understanding of the calculations I have added a screen shot of them below. The results seem to be promising.

Performance (At Maximum Takeoff Weight) F/A-18C/D:
- Max level speed: More than Mach 1.8
- Max speed, intermediate power: More than Mach 1.0
- Acceleration from 460knots to 920knots at 35,000ft: under 2 min (35,000ft: 460knots = Mach 0.79  ;  920knots = Mach 1.59)
See references posted here:
http://what-when-how.com/military-weapons/fighters-military-weapons/
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=5igml7o8t6atmkmepmte2oadm4&topic=6944.435

Some more feedback:
- really like the new AB effects, looks more realistic to me.
- C version model error: in Trainer & BA model, pilot's heads are not moving and are looking funny, something with the hair/helmet seems to be wrong.
- I really like to work with the D version, but the blue color on internal parts of cockpit and canopy error is annoying. DX10 error? I'm still working with P3D 1.4, DX9 is showing errors here too!
- wing_dihedral value changed, to compensate for wing flex. When the FA-18 is static on the ground a dihedral of 2.5 degrees can be recognized (anhedral really, wing tips facing downward). But in flight even with no g-loads the wing tips get slightly lifted a little and the wings look almost to be leveled out, so I opted to change this value for more flight dynamics realism because the simulator cannot compensate for wing flex, which is just a visual thing. But then shouldn't this value be slightly negative by default for the FA-18? What do you think? References:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx
http://www.multiplyleadership.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Dihedral-Angle.png
http://previewcf.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/05/25__00_39_09/F-18_Front_400x400.jpg5218b422-12ae-462e-a067-0372e7187e5eLarger.jpg
(By the way, your visual wing flex effect is awesome!)

- A few posts before I suggested a change of the wing sweep to 26.7 degrees which is obvious, but I ever wondered why the original developers had chosen 20 degrees? Now I found a source mentioning the Hornets wing sweep being "20° sweep at the quarter-chord". See here: http://what-when-how.com/military-weapons/fighters-military-weapons/
Especially with the LERXs' considered, in order to represent correct flight dynamics, I still would suggest a more 'realistic' assumed wing sweep of 26.7 degrees in the simulator being closer to the real deal than the originally choosen 20 degrees. But at least we know now where they got this number from, and I think I know why. When you take a 747 for instance, large parts of the leading edge flaps extract from inside and under the wing, changing the wing sweep over all during an approach, so when trying to compare airliners' wing sweeps it is being measured at the quarter-chord. But since the FA-18 does not extract and retract flaps that way and considering LERXs' I would go here with 26.7 degrees. In a Hornet A/B, C/D, E/F comparison ( http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/FA18.pdf ) 26.7 degrees for wing sweep (for C/D versions) are stated too. I hope this cleared things up.

- As for the design g load tolerances 8.0 vs. 7.5 I have read somewhere that the 8.0 were newer structurally enhanced wings/fuselage components compared to the older original ones, which can be retrofitted, but I cannot remember the source right now. I personally will stick with the 8.0 values here.

Thanks for the valuable thoughts concerning the landing gear values mentioned above, I will adjust them as soon as I get to it.

Best regards,

Peter

[dreaminsight]

Pyroperson87, This would be the top.

[jimi08]

hd764jvgd843,

- I have checked some of the flaps values you provided with references (page 127 of 902 on F18-ABCD-000.pdf) and changed them accordingly: Leading Flaps do NOT move full out when on the ground or approach, etc. They only do so in Auto mode. Have a look at the changes in the .cfg file I have included.
- The extending-time values seemed much too slow. From a youtube video someone linked here where they are tested pre-flight, it seems they can be moving very quickly.
- I have corrected the span-outboard values too, by adjusting values in relation to each other via visual comparison (e.g. measuring the pixels from a detailed sketch and a screen shot). They should be closer the the real deal now.

-Roger.  If the original values were off, they shouldn't have been off by much.  
-As far as the speed, I did the same thing.  I took a look at the preflight checks done on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksmHlQtaW4Y video and matched.  At about 1:53, the flap movement came out to about 5 or 6 seconds from up to full.  The other movements are tested with flaps as a function of control system (i.e. flaperons, etc).  Though I included that in this one, but it might have been on another aircraft.cfg that I've been working on.  I'll check when I get home.  Also keep in mind, that you have to be carefull with the auto flaps as it is an easy way to cause packet flooding in multiplayer servers.  I remember a while back, I had to intentionally extend the times so that it reduced the packed flooding and allowed for better performance on multiplayer mode.
-I did something similar IRT calculating the  flap span length.

As a starting point for the performance (Vmax and drag) adjustments I have taken the default fsx drag coefficients (from within .air under 'Primary Aerodynamics' section 'Drag') and their relations to each other and made a series of tests concerning Vmax with different parasitic drag scalars (in .cfg file) representing different loadouts. As reference parasitic drag scalar values I took the ones from different CaptainSim D version loadouts, and adjusted the drag values inside the .air file accordingly to match Vmax at high altitude. You can test the results if you like for yourself. I have attached the latest .air and .cfg files. If do not want to adjust paths etc. you can work with this version here: http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,10839.0.html ('New FSXBA Hornet' version)
For better understanding of the calculations I have added a screen shot of them below. The results seem to be promising.

-A while back, I was provided some performance data from SLUDGE about Legacy Hornet data.  It showed different variables such as speed based on altitude and power setting.  Acceleration timess and speeds with same power setting, but at different altitudes.  I calculated thrust and drag tables based on the following steps (simplified)
1.  Started out with a slick, drag free jet.
2.  Took the Thrust specific fuel consumption of the GE-F404s and calculated thrust per given fuel flow and throttle setting
3.  After matching thrust curves, I referenced the data given to me by SLUDGE and matched the speed provided, given the fuel flow and altitude.  As you can imagine, the jet was pretty fast due to having no drag assigned to it.  This is where I adjusted the drag values to lower the speed to match what was provided with the data.
4.  Found the ratio for speed rate of decay at altitude and adjusted power output values at altitude so the jet would keep speed at altitude versus losing it  (unlike most jets in FSX).
5.  Tweaked a few other .air files to adjust for Supersonic thrust and drag.
6.  Used the same basic technique to match flap lift and drag values in the landing configuration.  Getting the FULL flap values right, should directly translate to HALF flap values.
I understand I don't have it all the way down yet.  Believe me, still working at it.

- really like the new AB effects, looks more realistic to me.

Thanks.

- C version model error: in Trainer & BA model, pilot's heads are not moving and are looking funny, something with the hair/helmet seems to be wrong.

-Hmm.  I'll take a look at that.

- I really like to work with the D version, but the blue color on internal parts of cockpit and canopy error is annoying. DX10 error? I'm still working with P3D 1.4, DX9 is showing errors here too!

-Hate to say it, but the two seater is pretty low on the priority list at this point.  We have come to a stop on this one until I can get a dedicated modeler to help out.

- wing_dihedral value changed, to compensate for wing flex. When the FA-18 is static on the ground a dihedral of 2.5 degrees can be recognized (anhedral really, wing tips facing downward). But in flight even with no g-loads the wing tips get slightly lifted a little and the wings look almost to be leveled out, so I opted to change this value for more flight dynamics realism because the simulator cannot compensate for wing flex, which is just a visual thing. But then shouldn't this value be slightly negative by default for the FA-18? What do you think?

-Since the sim doesn't compensate for wing flex and it is normally around zero in flight, why not just keep it zero?  Wing performance in the air takes priority over wing performance on the ground.

- A few posts before I suggested a change of the wing sweep to 26.7 degrees which is obvious, but I ever wondered why the original developers had chosen 20 degrees? Now I found a source mentioning the Hornets wing sweep being "20° sweep at the quarter-chord". See here: http://what-when-how.com/military-weapons/fighters-military-weapons/
Especially with the LERXs' considered, in order to represent correct flight dynamics, I still would suggest a more 'realistic' assumed wing sweep of 26.7 degrees in the simulator being closer to the real deal than the originally choosen 20 degrees. But at least we know now where they got this number from, and I think I know why. When you take a 747 for instance, large parts of the leading edge flaps extract from inside and under the wing, changing the wing sweep over all during an approach, so when trying to compare airliners' wing sweeps it is being measured at the quarter-chord. But since the FA-18 does not extract and retract flaps that way and considering LERXs' I would go here with 26.7 degrees. In a Hornet A/B, C/D, E/F comparison ( http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/FA18.pdf ) 26.7 degrees for wing sweep (for C/D versions) are stated too. I hope this cleared things up.

-Good to know.  We'll keep it at 26.7.

- As for the design g load tolerances 8.0 vs. 7.5 I have read somewhere that the 8.0 were newer structurally enhanced wings/fuselage components compared to the older original ones, which can be retrofitted, but I cannot remember the source right now. I personally will stick with the 8.0 values here.

-Roger.  I will stick with 5.5 (over 44K lbs), 7.5 (under 44K lbs) and 10 (limiter off)

Thanks for the valuable thoughts concerning the landing gear values mentioned above, I will adjust them as soon as I get to it.

-No problem.


-Jimi

[Hanimichal]

Hey Jimi..
First off.. I love the Legacy Hornets!!!
 Kinda off the topic I guess, but I was wondering if there was a paint kit for her....

Here, I sharing my paint kit, there are two models I recommend to have the both, is what I used in my works, many layers and details, it will be very helpful for any beginner in this model , please read the text included
download first from here https://e-nautia.com/hanimichal/disk/FSX FA-18c FSXBA/FA-18C_FSXBA2014_Hani_Paintkit1.zip
and the second from here https://e-nautia.com/hanimichal/disk/FSX FA-18c FSXBA/FA-18C_FSXBA2014_Hani_Paintkit2.zip

[Dman]

Thank you Hanimichal !!!!

[hd764jvgd843]

Thanks for sharing the paint kit Hanimichal, it is really great!

I dug up my old CorelDraw and had a look at the files. It will get some time to get used to working with all those layers - at least for me! It took me a while to get to know my way around the textures for the fsx and CS models, right now I am fairly confident, although my work is not nearly as detailed and sophisticated as the paint kit you have provided. But I will definitely give it a try in my future textures for Jimi's New Hornet models.

Best regards

Peter