F16C vs F/A 18
-
Ok…it should also be noted that the G limit is also based on external configuration and a number of other factors. But I’ll wait for the movie…
straitght from NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL
A1-F18AC - NFM-0002.8.2.3 G Limiter. The g limiter prevents exceeding the aircraft positive g limit under most
conditions while permitting full symmetrical and unsymmetrical (rolling) maneuvering. The reference
for symmetrical pilot commands is the aircraft design load (+7.5 g at 32,357 pounds gross weight).
Unsymmetrical pilot command limits are dependent on lateral stick position and vary from the
symmetrical limit with small lateral stick displacement to 80% of the symmetrical limit with full
lateral stick displacement. A g limiter override feature allows an increase in the command limit g for
emergency use.
Below 44,000 pounds gross weight, the positive symmetrical command limit is calculated based on
fuel state and stores loading. Above 44,000 pounds gross weight, the positive symmetrical command
limit is fixed at +5.5 g. The negative symmetrical command limit is fixed at -3.0 g at all gross weights
and stores loading. Longitudinal stick displacement required to achieve command limit g varies with
airspeed and gross weight. When the command limit g is reached, additional aft stick does not increase
g. The positive command limit g is reduced when decelerating through the transonic region. This
reduction may be as much as 1.0 g providing the available g is not reduced below +5.0 g.
Rapid aft stick movement, with or without g limiter override, commands
a very high g-onset rate. This high g-onset rate can cause immediate loss
of consciousness without the usual warning symptoms of tunnel vision,
greyout, and blackout. Consciousness may not return for more than 20
seconds after the g level is reduced to near 1 g.
The g limiter may be overridden by momentarily pressing the paddle switch with the control stick
near full aft. Command limit g is then increased by 33%.Override is disengaged when the control stick is returned to near neutral.
All of this is coded in 4.33 U1 , YES ALL OF IT, including G reduction with lateral stick displacement
-
Very. ****ing. Cool. I’m testing it and it works exactly as advertised. The video is in the process of being corrected.
-
Nice job mate. The Viper is truly an awesome AC. The paddle switch is a great little trick during a DF, but don’t miss your shot or you will be a pin cushion….
Still love my little bug though…hehe
-
straitght from NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL
A1-F18AC - NFM-0002.8.2.3 G Limiter. The g limiter prevents exceeding the aircraft positive g limit under most
conditions while permitting full symmetrical and unsymmetrical (rolling) maneuvering. The reference
for symmetrical pilot commands is the aircraft design load (+7.5 g at 32,357 pounds gross weight).
Unsymmetrical pilot command limits are dependent on lateral stick position and vary from the
symmetrical limit with small lateral stick displacement to 80% of the symmetrical limit with full
lateral stick displacement. A g limiter override feature allows an increase in the command limit g for
emergency use.
Below 44,000 pounds gross weight, the positive symmetrical command limit is calculated based on
fuel state and stores loading. Above 44,000 pounds gross weight, the positive symmetrical command
limit is fixed at +5.5 g. The negative symmetrical command limit is fixed at -3.0 g at all gross weights
and stores loading. Longitudinal stick displacement required to achieve command limit g varies with
airspeed and gross weight. When the command limit g is reached, additional aft stick does not increase
g. The positive command limit g is reduced when decelerating through the transonic region. This
reduction may be as much as 1.0 g providing the available g is not reduced below +5.0 g.
Rapid aft stick movement, with or without g limiter override, commands
a very high g-onset rate. This high g-onset rate can cause immediate loss
of consciousness without the usual warning symptoms of tunnel vision,
greyout, and blackout. Consciousness may not return for more than 20
seconds after the g level is reduced to near 1 g.
The g limiter may be overridden by momentarily pressing the paddle switch with the control stick
near full aft. Command limit g is then increased by 33%.Override is disengaged when the control stick is returned to near neutral.
All of this is coded in 4.33 U1 , YES ALL OF IT, including G reduction with lateral stick displacement
That’s only part of the story - the part that covers basic system design, and the point for one base configuration; re: the 7.5 G limit. As stated, that limit changes to other fixed numbers based on store loading…you need more than the NATOPS to get the whole story. Great that you’ve coded this much, though…
…and BTW - the G limiter will NOT prevent you from over-G-ing the aircraft…even if you don’t pull the paddle switch. Oh - and what version of the NATOPS, and what version FCC OFP? Because things change…often.
-
That’s only part of the story - the part that covers basic system design, and the point for one base configuration; re: the 7.5 G limit. As stated, that limit changes to other fixed numbers based on store loading…you need more than the NATOPS to get the whole story. Great that you’ve coded this much, though…
…and BTW - the G limiter will NOT prevent you from over-G-ing the aircraft…even if you don’t pull the paddle switch. Oh - and what version of the NATOPS, and what version FCC OFP? Because things change…often.
it is written here :
"
Below 44,000 pounds gross weight, the positive symmetrical command limit is calculated based on
fuel state and stores loading." -
…and BTW - the G limiter will NOT prevent you from over-G-ing the aircraft…even if you don’t pull the paddle switch. Oh - and what version of the NATOPS, and what version FCC OFP? Because things change…often.
and btw who said it is not the casz as well in BMS ?
just test it, you can overG the AC as well in BMS
anyway as stated many times i will not code the real f18 FLC line by line like the f16 because most people would not see the difference. I just want to make a quite realistic FM than can be on of the best on the market of public sim.
what is important is to witness that now the f18 fm is not at all a f16 disguised
-
Can’t see, private vídeo.
-
it is written here :
"
Below 44,000 pounds gross weight, the positive symmetrical command limit is calculated based on
fuel state and stores loading."I’m not saying that’s “wrong” I’m saying that’s only part of the way it works. Unless you have both the NATOPS and the TACMAN (or NATIP, as it’s now known) you only have part of the story. And no - I’m not going to provide what’s missing.
-
I’m not saying that’s “wrong” I’m saying that’s only part of the way it works. Unless you have both the NATOPS and the TACMAN (or NATIP, as it’s now known) you only have part of the story. And no - I’m not going to provide what’s missing.
Stevie, I’m not saying that what you’re saying is “wrong.” I’m saying that you only know part of how it works. Unless you have the additional operations manual besides NATOPS and NATIP, you only have part of the story. An no - I’m not going to provide, or even hint at what you’re missing.
-
Stevie, I’m not saying that what you’re saying is “wrong.” I’m saying that you only know part of how it works. Unless you have the additional operations manual besides NATOPS and NATIP, you only have part of the story. An no - I’m not going to provide, or even hint at what you’re missing.
ROFLMAO
-
I’m not saying that’s “wrong” I’m saying that’s only part of the way it works. Unless you have both the NATOPS and the TACMAN (or NATIP, as it’s now known) you only have part of the story. And no - I’m not going to provide what’s missing.
so as maybe 0.01% of simmers have acces to more detailed doc than flight manual my approach is correct
and just in case you dont understand the message, there is a reason that BMS does not implemented everyrhing, even for the f16…
-
…nevertheless I’d like to watch the video. And I assume many other guys as well. Otherwise we can only guess what was depicted.
-
Yep, I second that. Didn’t get the chance to watch it, so…please?
-
I do agree with Mav, this is the best comparison video I ever seen.
So, may I make some comments / suggestion ?- Chose a/c configurations that are closer to the one usually chose for performance measures and charts, something like 50% internal fuel and at least 2 wing tip AAM
- in BMS an a/c without wingtip missiles drag less than with, and IRL it’s not true, a clean F-16 or F-18 have the same Drag Index than one with 2 wing tip AIM-9
- 50% internal fuel, because with 100%, a long range a/c is to much penalize, and also because you rarely enter a DGFT with 100%
- Usual measure of roll rate is ‘Time required to roll 90 bank’ (TQ90 in french), not peack roll rate or average on 2 full roll
- ITR (Instantaneous Turn Rate) is measured few second after stick is set full backward (as soon as G load has reached is maximum) and not along a long turn, ITR is measured for different starting CAS, and MaxITR is the one reached from the CAS that give the best result. Another way to measure ITR is the time required to make a true 90 or 180 deg turn: start FPM on horizon head on 0 (N), stop clock when FPM reach 90 (W) or 180(S). Repeat the test for different starting speed, keep the one that gave the shortest time, divide it by 90 or 180….
-
I do agree with Mav, this is the best comparison video I ever seen.
So, may I make some comments / suggestion ?- 50% internal fuel, because with 100%, a long range a/c is to much penalize, and also because you rarely enter a DGFT with 100%
That would require a total scrap of all the work I’ve done. I also disagree philosophically about entering a dogfight with a low fuel state. In my opinion, you’re in big trouble if you’re just starting a turn and burn with only 1/2 your internal gas. Hell, I usually set an RTB/bingo for around 3000 lbs when I’m in the Viper, so I’m definitely not looking to get into any phone booths at 3600 lbs. I’m usually thinking “it’s almost time to wrap this up”. Also, anyone who spars online in the dogfight module usually begins the fight with full internal fuel. I’ve never sparred with someone in a situation where we both agreed to alt+d down to 1/2 capacity. For those reasons that’s why I deliberately chose to run all tests with as close to 7200 as I could get. (Or 10,800 in the Bug). So yeah, performance is going to be a little lower than what you’d see in most typical performance charts, but I did this study for me, and I’d personally rather understand the performance characteristics at full internal fuel than 1/2.
- ITR (Instantaneous Turn Rate) is measured few second after stick is set full backward (as soon as G load has reached is maximum) and not along a long turn, ITR is measured for different starting CAS, and MaxITR is the one reached from the CAS that give the best result. Another way to measure ITR is the time required to make a true 90 or 180 deg turn: start FPM on horizon head on 0 (N), stop clock when FPM reach 90 (W) or 180(S). Repeat the test for different starting speed, keep the one that gave the shortest time, divide it by 90 or 180….
I thought about that too. At first I was going to try to find where the optimal 90-degree slice of the pie exists, but the process of that was making my head hurt. Also, I asked myself “what’s the difference?” For example, if I’m starting the pull at 550 and pulling down to 200, then the turn rate recorded at 350 is not going to be any different than the turn rate I’d record at 350 if I started the pull at 450. I figured I might as well just get as fast as I can, initiate a max pull, and chart the turn rate at every 50 knot interval until energy is depleted. Then I can look at the charted curve and use a little bit of logic to figure out where I’d probably want to begin my pull at each general altitude.
- Chose a/c configurations that are closer to the one usually chose for performance measures and charts, something like 50% internal fuel and at least 2 wing tip AAM
Good point. In retrospect, I do regret not adding some weapons to the loadout. That would’ve been logical. But I reached a point of no return before it occurred to me. And I think it’s also interesting to know how these things perform in a totally pure state. I think we can apply some logic to guestimate how these machines will perform with a little more weight strapped to them. Knowing how they perform in a pure state gives us a good starting point, I hope.
Anyway, I’m finished with the edits. I’m currently in rendering with about 24 hrs to go. Then I’ll upload shortly after.
-
This post is deleted! -
For the purpose of comparison, wouldn’t the addition of the same load out give you the same results as not having the addition of the same load out? Meaning, besides the additional weight, aren’t all things the same. (i’m throwing “drag is different on aircraft 1 for weapon a vs aircraft 2 for weapon a”. Which might not be a valid thought…)
Is the “use the paddle luke” a typical expectation in combat? ( I would have never thought it affected, only thought it overrode AP, not flcs)
Why not “MPO Override” too? or turn off flcs, etc etc. -
….
Is the “use the paddle luke” a typical expectation in combat? ( I would have never thought it affected, only thought it overrode AP, not flcs)
Why not “MPO Override” too? or turn off flcs, etc etc.The paddle over-ride in the F/A-18 doesn’t disable or override the FLCS per se, it allows a higher G-limiter within the flight control system. It’s completely different, and serves a different purpose, than MPO. If I recall correctly NATOPS says for Emergency Use Only, so I’m not sure it’s use is a ‘typical expectation’.
-
For the purpose of comparison, wouldn’t the addition of the same load out give you the same results as not having the addition of the same load out? Meaning, besides the additional weight, aren’t all things the same. (i’m throwing “drag is different on aircraft 1 for weapon a vs aircraft 2 for weapon a”. Which might not be a valid thought…)
Is the “use the paddle luke” a typical expectation in combat? ( I would have never thought it affected, only thought it overrode AP, not flcs)
Why not “MPO Override” too? or turn off flcs, etc etc.no, MPO and paddle overide are two things completely different.
MPO is used ONLY when flat stall, and by the way is only active above 30deg AOA which is not possible without a flat stall anyway, so MPO is not operative and will bring nothing during a combat
Though paddle switch for f18 is not standard flying but can be used in combat.
-
….
Anyway, I’m finished with the edits. I’m currently in rendering with about 24 hrs to go. Then I’ll upload shortly after.
Any news on the updated video?