Threshold Speed
-
Been playing around in Falcon a bit and realised that the ‘E’ bracket is backwards!!! (to what I’m use to and some other aircraft) Which means I don’t want to use it or I’ll start getting it backwards! Plus, it’s interesting information
SO to combat this I’ve devised a cunning plan. Use the indexer instead of the E bracket and nominate a threshold speed for coming down finals. This is a standard practice for lots of places anyway in order to check the AoA probe is functioning correctly. Plus not everyone has a VV.
Every jet has its rules and tables to work this stuff out, so I’ve made a “rule of thumb” for when you’re below ~6000lb combined fuel/stores weight. I’ve made this by flying at different weights in game and recording the “on speed” IAS (13 degree AoA which is centre of ‘E’ bracket) for the corresponding weight and graphed them. Yes, there is probably a real F-16 one, but this works for BMS.
So if you’re less then 6000lb combined stores weight use the following “rule of thumb”……
Threshold speed = 121 + 3knots per 1000lbs combined fuel/stores weight
Eg you have 2000lb of fuel and 2 Mk84’s:
2000+(300x2)+(2000x2)
|fuel| |pylons| |bombs|Combined fuel/stores weight = 4600
4.6 multiply by 3 = ~14
Add 121 = 135k Threshold speedThis works out to be just 1knot off the actual threshold speed in game. So its close enough for a video game.
Or you can just use this table:
Questions, queries, comments?
Exhibit A:
-
See, the cool thing is that the real F-16 one does work for BMS.
Sorry, I dont see what makes you think that the staple is backwards?
Looks like your graph is close enough for a video game. Your final approach speeds are about that of the touchdown speeds on the chart. I guess it doesnt help that the indexer is slightly off in BMS. Building your rule of thumb to the indexer has ironically meant that you got it backwards anyway.
-
Nice, where do I get the stores and pylon weights?
-
OK Andy now I know what you were talking about, When you said E bracket I thought you were talking about something else. My bad.
-
Nice, where do I get the stores and pylon weights?
Definitive location would be the appropriate -1-2 for the block you are using, with a general chart being found in part 1 of the appropriate -1-1 for the block you are using. For BMS, its more accessible by going to the loadout screen, and altering the loadouts at random to determine the weights of individual stores and suspension equipment.
-
Definitive location would be the appropriate -1-2 for the block you are using, with a general chart being found in part 1 of the appropriate -1-1 for the block you are using. For BMS, its more accessible by going to the loadout screen, and altering the loadouts at random to determine the weights of individual stores and suspension equipment.
I don’t see the point of going to all that trouble. Just jettison stores on approach and then you have the fuel gauge to give you your weight in order to look it up on the chart. Simples.
It’s really too bad you can’t just fly the staple and the indexer ‘cause that might be even easier …. but I’m just spit-ballin’ here.
/sarcasm
-
Why make it harder than it is ?
-
Have a look in the Tac Ref for the weight of the store, then go to the loadout screen and add that store to the jet. Work out how much weight was added, subtract the store weight and then you have the pylon weight. The pylons do weigh a fair bit and the game factors them into the all up landing weight.
I haven’t been bothered to do this for everything yet haha. If you do, please post the results!
-
Of course flying the bracket/aoa is easier and the preferred way with or without jettisoning your stores.
I’m more interested in the weights of the stores and the formula in general. Seeing that some weights have been changed in ITO for example I was wondering where all this data was -
Guys can you help me?
I looked at it 3 times now, but I don’t get it what is wrong.can you paint also what should look like differently?
-
Wow, some of these are bang on to the performance manual… others are WAY off. This surprises me.
For BMS (this is what is useful for you):
16S301: 95 lbs
16S1700: 320 lbs
16S951: 172 lbs
LAU-88/A: 468 lbs
LAU-117: 406 lbs
LAU-118: 120 lbs
LAU-129: Included in the base aircraft weight for stations 1/9, and in the 16S301 weight for stations 2/3/7/8.From the manual (this is more useful to devs {maybe}): the 16S301 is heavier than it should be, but that makes sense, seeing as it includes the weight of the LAU-129 as well. Its still short of where the manual reckons it should come out though.
16S301 + LAU-129: 113 lbs, vs BMS 95 lbs.
The 16S1700 is a little overweight, at 320 lbs in BMS vs 289 lbs per the manual. Not quite bang on, but closer than the last one on the list of confusion;
The LAU-117 is horrendously overweight, at 406 lbs in BMS, vs 130 lbs in the manual. The similar sized and weighted LAU-118 is bang on, at 120 lbs in both BMS and IRL. This certainly messes with A/G stores somewhat, given the number that use the LAU-117. It also explains why its so much better always to go for the TER for mavericks - the single maverick launcher rail weighs almost as much as a TER.
Any insight on what is going on here would be much appreciated. Its the sort of thing that could be messed with easily enough using the BMS editor, but I would worry about how it might affect the FM to stuff with those.
Is this an already known bug?
Of course flying the bracket/aoa is easier and the preferred way with or without jettisoning your stores.
I’m more interested in the weights of the stores and the formula in general. Seeing that some weights have been changed in ITO for example I was wondering where all this data wasdata from the sim, you can get some of it from the loadout screen and some careful maths. To work out the masses of specific parts of the suspension (for instance, the weight of just a weapon pylon (16S1700) without the rack or adaptor) takes some browsing through the database.
data for the real jets, requires some basic google-fu (and knowing what terms to look for, like T.O. 1F-16CM-1-1 for instance).
-
This post is deleted! -
Guys can you help me?
I looked at it 3 times now, but I don’t get it what is wrong.can you paint also what should look like differently?
It’s just different ways to display the angle of attack, neither is more right or wrong then the other. Some aircraft have it so when the box is above the VV you’re fast, other aircraft same picture means you’re slow. I was just poking some fun at it and playing with some other ideas to get around using it. I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with the game.
The whole reason is that you make instinctive corrections to the VV/bracket picture and if you make the wrong correction, you’d be making the problem worse!
-
Why make it more complicated than it is…
Put the FPM (or VV, as you call it) on the threshold, maintain a 3° slope, and use the throttle to adjust your AOA as to have the FPM at the top of the bracket (or the E indexer… which isnt a E, BTW). Fly the AOA, not the speed… When its time to flare, pull up to put the FPM on the middle of the bracket.
With your method, you need to do all kinds of computations when you are either flying the ATC approach, leading a flight to an overhead, or flying in formation. Just fly the damn AOA and you’ll be fine…
AOA also works in combat, BTW : if the indexer is in the red, you pull up too hard, your drag is to the roof and your lift isnt optimal.
-
Why make it more complicated than it is…
Put the FPM (or VV, as you call it) on the threshold, maintain a 3° slope, and use the throttle to adjust your AOA as to have the FPM at the top of the bracket (or the E indexer… which isnt a E, BTW). Fly the AOA, not the speed… When its time to flare, pull up to put the FPM on the middle of the bracket.
With your method, you need to do all kinds of computations when you are either flying the ATC approach, leading a flight to an overhead, or flying in formation. Just fly the damn AOA and you’ll be fine…
AOA also works in combat, BTW : if the indexer is in the red, you pull up too hard, your drag is to the roof and your lift isnt optimal.
+1 L3crusader. FPM + proper glide slope (I use the dashed lines on the hud at the threshold as a reference) … then you just fly the indexer to the flare. This approach “self computes” landing weight for any fuel/ordinance combination and keeps you right in the sweet spot for any landing.
-
You both missed the the point of the original post.I think -1x2
" and realised that the ‘E’ bracket is backwards!!! (to what I’m use to and some other aircraft) Which means I don’t want to use it or I’ll start getting it backwards! Plus, it’s interesting information"
And its really not that complicated. After all realism has some value here and I learn’t something from it.
-
You both missed the the point of the original post.I think -1x2
" and realised that the ‘E’ bracket is backwards!!! (to what I’m use to and some other aircraft) Which means I don’t want to use it or I’ll start getting it backwards! Plus, it’s interesting information"
And its really not that complicated. After all realism has some value here and I learn’t something from it.
Same here
-
Ony almost all fighter jets, the reference is the AOA, not the speed. Approach speed computation is only to sort a AOA probe failure or a bad AOA indication.
-
Please take aloo here: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?18086-F-16-Viper-Cockpit-Tour&p=294862&viewfull=1#post294862
Edit: last info: the AOA indexer and AOA gauge indication is comming from the AOA probe, the AOA in the HUD is inertial.
-
Did you read the original post. He was not talking about “almost all” He was referring to His personal experience…