Speed issues and HTS Pod question
-
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
-
You’re wrong
I had the very issue with the same throttle but by setting wrong the calibration -
And for that to be possible indicates that the way BMS sees dx throttle position and the way it translates that to F-16 throttle position, is both unituitive and incorrect.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
-
No BMS will be reading the resistance value from the Pot (the numbers you see when calibrating/ looking at the axis). If you’ve set you throttle so AB comes in at lets say 12000 (and you’ve set your detent as such) and the max range for the throttle is 15000. If the calibration of the throttle then “slips” we might report 11500 at the AB detent and the max range is now 14500. So in the case where the range has moved down at the AB detent we haven’t actually got to Max Mil yet (we are 500 short). Also we can NEVER get full power as at full throw the throttle is only reporting 14500 (500 short of what we told BMS was the top of the range).
BMS hasn’t got a clue where your throttle is positioned only the resistance value it is reporting. Think about spikes you get from a worn pot …
-
Irrelevant. The detent has nothing to do with this. We are talking about fuel flow when throttle is increased as high as it can be without going into afterburner - we could test this without a physical throttle even, using the keyboard.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk