Speed issues and HTS Pod question
-
Hey folks,
I was flying in the Balkan TO, going buster speed/5° nose up/Angels 17. Loudout: centreline fuel tank/6x Mk20D/ 2x HARM missiles/2x AMRAAM/2x AIM9x in an F16CM Bl.50
I was barely going 240kts and had to drop my nose to level flight before losing even more speed.
Prior to this I extended my boards briefly to not overshoot in a formation, yet after closing them I could never pick up speed again and the flight lead left me behind(same loadout,same power setting). Is this totally normal in a Bl. 50 with those loads or did my extending the speedbreak trigger something that didn’t revert back once I closed them again?Second question:
Is there, or will there ever be, a possibility to slave the TGP to an emission source that I previously locked up in the HAD display? I’m asking because once I was out of HARMs and down to the rockeyes, my only option was to pickle them from high altitude onto the PPT(it was an SA6 site). GM radar mode didn’t get me far either, because all the vehicles look the same on that screen, obviously. I’m not confident enough to go classic wild weasel on SAMs yet so I didn’t dare go down to draw out his fire.Cheers
-
No to the second question. The HTS is very very accurate in BMS without any of the limitations of the real pod… The real pod is actually very accurate under very specific circumstances, but still not accurate enough to cue the ATP. You could search the area using the ATP though, as the HSD displays the SPI position, which the ATP is looking at, and you can compare the HTS position against the HSD position very easily. That will not pinpoint the target, but it will get you in the area.
For the first question, 240 knots is very slow, and that is a draggy loadout. Id have thought you should be able to accelerate level in MIL, though. Probably not enough to catch up with lead, if he has the same power setting. Boards were definitely closed?
-
Actually as far as I understood, as of update 1 the HTS itself isn’t 100% (some deviation is applied) accurate anymore and can be used to point you to the general area of the emission, but not to the exact point.
-
Its no longer perfectly accurate in BMS, no. That said, it doesnt model the HTS capabilities with much fidelity. Would need some very dedicated code work to do that though, and to the best of my knowledge, there is not good documentation on how it works on the real jet. Some rumors, some marketing, but not much hard info.
-
I remember a while back someone mentioning that it shouldn’t flash when a sam site fires at you. Why not though? if the radar is using guidance emissions (older sams), with proper sigint you should be able to have the HTS symbol flash. Like the rwr launch tone. Don’t really know though, just speculating.
-
Hey folks,
I was flying in the Balkan TO, going buster speed/5° nose up/Angels 17. Loudout: centreline fuel tank/6x Mk20D/ 2x HARM missiles/2x AMRAAM/2x AIM9x in an F16CM Bl.50
I was barely going 240kts and had to drop my nose to level flight before losing even more speed.
Prior to this I extended my boards briefly to not overshoot in a formation, yet after closing them I could never pick up speed again and the flight lead left me behind(same loadout,same power setting). Is this totally normal in a Bl. 50 with those loads or did my extending the speedbreak trigger something that didn’t revert back once I closed them again?
….Cheers
Once your AoA gets too high, you’ve dug a hole you need to get out of. I wouldn’t be at 5* pitch up at 240 KIAS in that load out, it’ll just keep your AoA way to high for ‘cruise’. If I find something similar happening (and my lead is pulling away), nose level, AB to at least 280 - 300, then MIL to build speed. Once the speed is back up, then I’ll worry about altitude. Along the way, if you have the opportunity to ‘cut corners’ on steer points and/or turns, do so to close distance on your lead.
Also lead should pretty much always leave a little top end RPM for his wingmen. 1.) MIL fuel flow for one is not the exact same for someone else. In BMS that depends, at least partly, on where the AB Detent is set. 2.) Wingmen need to burn more gas to maintain position and need a little ‘catch up’ room just for basic formation management/changes (like going a bit faster if you’re on the outside of 30* LAB Check turn). If Lead is at always at MIL, all else equal, wingmen can never ‘catch up’ in formation.
-
Once I noticed my inability to regain speed I notified my lead and slowed down.
What do you mean with you AB detent? I have the TM warthog with a profile. Not sure if it’s the profile or the natural axis, but it feels like the axis lingers for a moment at a point where the throttle would hit the detent(I removed it because I use it fly prop warbirds and the warthog as well),
But I marked the 3mm zone that translates to Mil power and I’m pretty sure I hit the spot nicelyGesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Below 300 KCAS the jet will recover speed more slowly. Push the sidestick forward to maintain 0G and it will accelerate faster in MIL, then once you have enough speed climb to recover lost altitude. Push the throttle forward into AB only if you’re impatient and have lots of fuel to burn.
-
the engine needs a certain airflow going in to get optimal thrust levels. once you are behind that curve it’s hard to get ahead of it while still climbing.
5 degrees nose up with that load out is on the steep side of things though so i wonder what the throttle position of your lead was.
-
Once I noticed my inability to regain speed I notified my lead and slowed down.
What do you mean with you AB detent? I have the TM warthog with a profile. Not sure if it’s the profile or the natural axis, but it feels like the axis lingers for a moment at a point where the throttle would hit the detent(I removed it because I use it fly prop warbirds and the warthog as well),
But I marked the 3mm zone that translates to Mil power and I’m pretty sure I hit the spot nicelyGesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
I mean this:
Depending exactly where that is set for each person in your flight changes the fuel flow available in MIL. Test it. Have each person in a 4-ship flight go to MIL …. as far as possible without AB kicking in. Then ask each flight member to give their current fuel flow. I’m guessing you’ll get four different answers. Normally this won’t matter much. But with a heavy load out, if your lead can get 6900 pounds/hour and you can only get 6500 pounds/hours, eventually, at MIL, he’ll start walking away from you.
-
I mean this:
Depending exactly where that is set for each person in your flight changes the fuel flow available in MIL. Test it. Have each person in a 4-ship flight go to MIL …. as far as possible without AB kicking in. Then ask each flight member to give their current fuel flow. I’m guessing you’ll get four different answers. Normally this won’t matter much. But with a heavy load out, if your lead can get 6900 pounds/hour and you can only get 6500 pounds/hours, eventually, at MIL, he’ll start walking away from you.
Golly, I would never have known. I’ll try this ASAP.
-
I mean this:
Depending exactly where that is set for each person in your flight changes the fuel flow available in MIL. Test it. Have each person in a 4-ship flight go to MIL …. as far as possible without AB kicking in. Then ask each flight member to give their current fuel flow. I’m guessing you’ll get four different answers. Normally this won’t matter much. But with a heavy load out, if your lead can get 6900 pounds/hour and you can only get 6500 pounds/hours, eventually, at MIL, he’ll start walking away from you.
Are you quite sure? If so, thats a bug. That should only set the position of MIL on your throttle, not affect the fuel flow rate at MIL.
-
Once I noticed my inability to regain speed I notified my lead and slowed down.
What do you mean with you AB detent? I have the TM warthog with a profile. Not sure if it’s the profile or the natural axis, but it feels like the axis lingers for a moment at a point where the throttle would hit the detent(I removed it because I use it fly prop warbirds and the warthog as well),
But I marked the 3mm zone that translates to Mil power and I’m pretty sure I hit the spot nicelyGesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
If you use Morpheus’ profile, he built that dead spot into the throttle axis for the transition to AB.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Are you quite sure? If so, thats a bug. That should only set the position of MIL on your throttle, not affect the fuel flow rate at MIL.
Yes and No. I am quite sure that something affects difference in MIL fuel flow amongst a single 4-ship flight with the same load-out, flying in the same air space at the same time (i.e. in formation).
We had a very similar situation as the OP - heavy load out, lead slowly powering away from other flight members. We queried each flight member, “What is the max fuel flow you can get before reaching AB?” Amongst the flight there was a 300 - 500 (don’t recall precisely) pound per hour difference. Once we got re-gathered, lead had to reduce throttle to a little below the lowest fuel flow for everyone to keep up.
I assumed it had to do with the AB detent in setup.
-
There should not be a difference… hmm.
Im used to seeing lead slowly powering away from the other flight members. Of course RL formation docs advise that lead should have a slightly lower power setting than briefed anyway, to allow his wingman a power advantage - necessary for stationkeeping. Given that the lead and the wing have identical fuel flows, and weights, and airspeeds, they should have identical acceleration. A slightly sucked position will worsen over time given identical fuel flows and weights, as the faster aircraft will accelerate better. If you get into the groove though, what you describe shouldnt happen.
Everyone should have the same fuel flow at MIL as each other. Not something Ive looked at before, so that might warrant closer investigation.
-
MIL climb with that load is 340/0.73. I notice a lot of people will turn on the TOS caret and pitch steeply to fly the 1-2 leg which is often far too slow. If your lead is flying the caret to TOC tell him to knock it off. In a climb situation like that below 300 is hard to come back from by throttle alone. The jet makes more thrust with more airflow and less drag at lower AOA. Almost universally it’s better to get the knots first then worry about altitude. Also double check the speed brake indicator shows fully closed.
One fun demonstration of “knots first” energy management is to get two jets, moderately loaded, slow about 15,000’ and 200 KIAS. Then you have a race to 30,000’ 350 KIAS. The smart pilot will instantly lose about 5,000’ in a 0G bunt for acceleration before a MAXAB climb and will get there clearly ahead of the other jet which just level accelerates and climbs.
In BMS the HTS doesn’t provide SPI-able information. If you’re going after a static SAM system precision targeting the radar set is best done in planning. Picking one out on the fly is what HARMs and TGP are for.
-
A little off topic but IRL, each aircraft usually has a slightly different fuel flow. There is a range that is acceptable. Some aircraft even have to be signed off because they are out of limits. We had one A/C that had a really high FF and we tested the fuel system, the engine, the DECUs and eventually we had the MO sign off as SFF.
-
If thats intentional by BMS then all is good, but if its the result of a bug thats less than ideal.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
-
You shouldn’t expect reality to be dead accurate and have two aircraft at the exact same setting in MIL.
It’s called tolerancesAs said above, some différences will be accepted
This issue dépends on many aspects, outside the scope of BMS.
The most obvious one would be the quality of the Hotas, the type of detent, the way the user set his AB line.
All aspects are outside the scope of BMSWe fly MP quite often and we don’t have any issues maintaining formation. So this is a non issue unless really has a bad throttle or screwed up his calibration. (by the way, throttle can also loose calibration data, or chnage from manual to auto cal (COugar) which would exactly create this issue as well
-
It shouldn’t. The position of the throttle is agnostic in this case; the users are setting their throttles as high as they can without afterburner engaging. The only thing that could affect that is either AB being set by fuel flow (which should not be a variable) or by having low resolution on the throttle (which should also not be the case).
The calibration of the cougar is 100% irrelevant as the discussion is not about the matching of the AB engagement with the physical detent on the throttle, but about the corresponding fuel flow when increasing throttle position causes a change in nozzle position.
While it makes sense for tolerances to exist in RL, they do not in BMS. otherwise I would see different idle fuel flows and RPMs between missions and computers. I would not be opposed to seeing this modeled, provided it was not modeled by a bug in the code.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk