Jump to content

F404 Spool Times?


HawkDCS

Recommended Posts

On 2/6/2021 at 4:45 AM, HILOK said:

today's finding:   [III-7-27]   "Avoid overcontrolling the throttles as thrust response is immediate"

 

Hehe... no danger of 'immediate' in our Hornet. 

In UA mode, I love the way our Hornet handles. I have not spent any time verifying the flight envelope or checking exact numbers but I know enough about Hornets to make general statements...  In any of the typical A/A configurations in handles great.

In PA mode... it's a pig, even at light weight. Even if the spool up was a second or 2 faster, the way the jet responds (light weight) seems a bit sluggish. Well, it's not just my opinion😉.

Especially doing carrier approaches, I had to really focus on 'seesawing' the throttles in the mid to upper range of travel. If I went too low for a moment and VV started dropping, it would take forever for it to come back up. Of course, in a zeal to bring it up quicker I would shove the throttles to MRT, then anticipating the VV jump, I would back the throttles too far but the VV was still going up, so... I had to nudge the stick. It was a mad cycle. I learned how to deal with it quick but it took a lot of cursing. 


Edited by Gripes323
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

So this was reported already many times and according to NATOPS and video evidence posted here, the spool times are too slow. 

And it makes sense that the Hornet can't really be the only airplane of the era that has spool times 3x longer than any other (e.g. F-16 ~3 seconds, F-15 ~3 seconds, Mirage etc.). F-18 currently takes 10 to 12 seconds from Idle to full A/B.

@NineLine has this been raised with the team? 

 

Thanks

  • Like 2

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And include a track where you move the throttle from idle to burn quickly...  Just in case they need that too...

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/14/2021 at 11:30 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

It might be better to aggregate the evidence a bit and put this in the bugs section. If this really is incorrect, and it looks like it is, I'd say it belongs there.

Would indeed be nice for a mod/dev to see this and put it in the bug section.
If there actually is a difference to IRL, that is a huge thing in ball-flying.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I don't remember where it was, feel free to toss it in there if you want. The thread in question was about FM in general, IIRC.

There has been stated that there will be a FM review, but AFAIK that will mostly encompass the AoA and FCS of the jet.
I have not seen a dev acknowledge/refute the engine spool times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Hi,

 

the team are discussing it internally, but I have no news to share currently. 

 

thanks

  • Like 4

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The technical term from delay between a change in the power lever angle and the engine thrust is called transient time. The delay between the engine response is often done purposely, as a way to prevent compressor stalls, or excessive temperatures.  

 

There is actually quite a bit of public data on the F404-400 and it’s engine control unit. Which regulates fuel flow and nozzle exhaust area by monitoring, various pressure, temperature and rpm speeds.   


 

This is from a NASA experimental fitting of fiber optic sensors to a Hornet’s F404 engine. So the sensor type isn’t representative of a production engine.  However it provides a good overview of their placement.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19980219005/downloads/19980219005.pdf


 

5bSRKWjFNdglkF24D0bwRXMR2zr3oi0qMTXs6AOM

 

 

 



 

This from NASA bench test of the F404 and shows where the sensors are located internally. 

b9LJ9dJwBGJ6Ew9wYRicLzkRwhbTP9jb86NbdOF8


 

And another from a NASA paper on real time engine monitoring.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88244main_H-1750.pdf

UzEa5X6n1t4s-tEi2Y3Zuyq5FrTku_tmvv6Fe4Kf

 

An evaluation of F404 by the Aussies provides us with a glimpse of how the Engine Control Unit,  ECU, on the 404 operates.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164562.pdf

X9txQNgMqNqt-hina9CihpK0QN40sj3G72U1_y_R




 

Power level angle (PLA) break outs. 

Ground ilde 16 degrees, flight idle, 37 degrees, Intermediate power setting ( full mil), 87 degrees. Min AB, 90 degrees,  Full AB 130.

 

A8 Nozzle Area.

TI inlet temperature

TT5 low pressure turbine discharge temp

 

(NL)N1 inlet Fan Rotor Speed rpm

(NH)N2 Compressor rotor speed.,  High pressure compressor rotor speed

 

PS0: Free stream static pressure (also noted as P0)

PS3: Compressor discharge pressure.

PS6: Afterburner inlet static pressure, absolute

PS7: Exhaust nozzle inlet static pressure absolute

PT5: Turbine discharge pressure absolute. 

Wp Fuel flow.

 

That’s probably a lot of static to most people, but that chart is showing us what defines the operating limits of the F404. 

 

We can see the fan inlet RPM NL (N1) varies with power level angle below mil. However the ECU regulates N1 RPM based on T1 temps and pressures (PS1A) when the throttle is above a Mil, PLA> 87 degrees. Also evident is compressor surge protection. As the afterburner schedule is overridden when Compressor discharge pressures (PS3) are 425 psi and above. So if you dive in full after burn you won’t explode the engine.     

CxV_5z8mIbS0Wb3anHC_9_L_rDcmBrxqIZNXETA2

What’s probably most interesting about the chart is variation of nozzle area (A8) with power level angle below Mil. The implication is that the thrust response to the power level angle is not linear throughout the range of motion. The thrust response to power level angle varies depending on the position of the power level angle. “Loiter” and “Flat Cruise” power level angle settings will have different  variations in ratio of thrust per degree of power level angle.  R_iBKAE0UBnY_6TYUG2VskosFJP_CnKw4VonST_U 

 

NASA recognized this when they were developing their Dynamic Engine Model for The F/A-18 HARV simulation.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88204main_H-1643.pdf

 

 They came to the conclusion that they could get a pretty good simulation of the engine response by interpolating thrust from a look table. 

NhX_DfEK8RUPrpMRwxPPGhG9Bw47Wvi4SDNoHA9N

And applying a rate limiter and low pass filter to the power level angle position to mimic the nonlinearity and transient response of the engine. SfrWHsdfCGgCA69dFUs1zlxfAQW8bmwJ2b5Z1zxx

There however was flaw with the approach. The model was missing 20% of thrust for a brief period around 8 seconds. 

NUJeOy0y2fRBGXTGJBWXj3Tx5Oim9p78CxrhNvXp

 

Since there seems to be a fixed delay in the DCS Hornet, it seems like we have version of NASA HARV engine model in DCS. Where there is a fixed delay in thrust. If the delay is made variable with static pressure the model would be realistic and avoid the problem NASA had with their fixed schedule.  

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a466188.pdf

 

I know you're probably saying, Curly we have F404-GE-402. What the hell are you talking about again? Back to the engine at hand then.Lets look at how the F404-GE402 got it’s increased power. It’s on the order of a 20% increase in Ps, specific excess power. 

 

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1990/79054/V002T02A006/2399359/v002t02a006-90-gt-149.pdf

“On the Leading Edge F404 Turbofan Engine” S.F. Powel,   F404 Advanced Programs Manager GE. 1990.

 

“The increased thrust of the -402 model will be achieved by increasing fan speed up to 2%, improving afterburner efficiency and raising turbine inlet temperature by +100°F (+5K) at intermediate rated power, increasing to +175°F (+97°K) at maximum power.”


 

The increased performance of  -402 could only be realized with a more aggressive ECU schedule. AXppj_sWDiakQlqlI8jPoJBsmSV5USSr-YROmHqh

 

To  create more power the ECU of the 404-402, would allow for an increase in the pressure in the combustion chamber. This could only be accomplished by the increased inlet temps by 100F. Which also would drive RPM higher. That and the increased afterburner efficiency are why the 402 has a lower specify fuel flow than the base line model despite generating more thrust. 

 

These changes also brought some other interesting performance changes  to the engine and aircraft. Flight testing of the 404-GE-402 in the Hornet shows faster after burn light times than the base line model. Flight testing of the engine shows afterburner light times from Mil to MAX A/B below a second. 

From:

F/A-18A/B/C/D F404-GE-400/402 ENGINE SLOTTED SPRAYBAR INLET FLAMEHOLDER FOLLOW-ON FLIGHT TEST EVALUATION 

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a407860.pdf


 

-BtqKkYNsxYQNk5lzhPRFDaQmmmIlwWGQCVumLSq

 

0xxa1CbZ83DFIoPBPKQ16Diu3YIp80wknthooPMB

 

This disagrees with the afterburn light time and charts in the NFM 000. The one in the NFM 000, with light times of >6 seconds, look like they may be from the base F404 engine not the 404-GE-402 the DCS hornet models.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Curly said:

 

The technical term from delay between a change in the power lever angle and the engine thrust is called transient time. The delay between the engine response is often done purposely, as a way to prevent compressor stalls, or excessive temperatures.  

 

There is actually quite a bit of public data on the F404-400 and it’s engine control unit. Which regulates fuel flow and nozzle exhaust area by monitoring, various pressure, temperature and rpm speeds.   


 

This is from a NASA experimental fitting of fiber optic sensors to a Hornet’s F404 engine. So the sensor type isn’t representative of a production engine.  However it provides a good overview of their placement.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19980219005/downloads/19980219005.pdf


 

5bSRKWjFNdglkF24D0bwRXMR2zr3oi0qMTXs6AOM

 

 

 



 

This from NASA bench test of the F404 and shows where the sensors are located internally. 

b9LJ9dJwBGJ6Ew9wYRicLzkRwhbTP9jb86NbdOF8


 

And another from a NASA paper on real time engine monitoring.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88244main_H-1750.pdf

UzEa5X6n1t4s-tEi2Y3Zuyq5FrTku_tmvv6Fe4Kf

 

An evaluation of F404 by the Aussies provides us with a glimpse of how the Engine Control Unit,  ECU, on the 404 operates.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164562.pdf

X9txQNgMqNqt-hina9CihpK0QN40sj3G72U1_y_R




 

Power level angle (PLA) break outs. 

Ground ilde 16 degrees, flight idle, 37 degrees, Intermediate power setting ( full mil), 87 degrees. Min AB, 90 degrees,  Full AB 130.

 

A8 Nozzle Area.

TI inlet temperature

TT5 low pressure turbine discharge temp

 

(NL)N1 inlet Fan Rotor Speed rpm

(NH)N2 Compressor rotor speed.,  High pressure compressor rotor speed

 

PS0: Free stream static pressure (also noted as P0)

PS3: Compressor discharge pressure.

PS6: Afterburner inlet static pressure, absolute

PS7: Exhaust nozzle inlet static pressure absolute

PT5: Turbine discharge pressure absolute. 

Wp Fuel flow.

 

That’s probably a lot of static to most people, but that chart is showing us what defines the operating limits of the F404. 

 

We can see the fan inlet RPM NL (N1) varies with power level angle below mil. However the ECU regulates N1 RPM based on T1 temps and pressures (PS1A) when the throttle is above a Mil, PLA> 87 degrees. Also evident is compressor surge protection. As the afterburner schedule is overridden when Compressor discharge pressures (PS3) are 425 psi and above. So if you dive in full after burn you won’t explode the engine.     

CxV_5z8mIbS0Wb3anHC_9_L_rDcmBrxqIZNXETA2

What’s probably most interesting about the chart is variation of nozzle area (A8) with power level angle below Mil. The implication is that the thrust response to the power level angle is not linear throughout the range of motion. The thrust response to power level angle varies depending on the position of the power level angle. “Loiter” and “Flat Cruise” power level angle settings will have different  variations in ratio of thrust per degree of power level angle.  R_iBKAE0UBnY_6TYUG2VskosFJP_CnKw4VonST_U 

 

NASA recognized this when they were developing their Dynamic Engine Model for The F/A-18 HARV simulation.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88204main_H-1643.pdf

 

 They came to the conclusion that they could get a pretty good simulation of the engine response by interpolating thrust from a look table. 

NhX_DfEK8RUPrpMRwxPPGhG9Bw47Wvi4SDNoHA9N

And applying a rate limiter and low pass filter to the power level angle position to mimic the nonlinearity and transient response of the engine. SfrWHsdfCGgCA69dFUs1zlxfAQW8bmwJ2b5Z1zxx

There however was flaw with the approach. The model was missing 20% of thrust for a brief period around 8 seconds. 

NUJeOy0y2fRBGXTGJBWXj3Tx5Oim9p78CxrhNvXp

 

Since there seems to be a fixed delay in the DCS Hornet, it seems like we have version of NASA HARV engine model in DCS. Where there is a fixed delay in thrust. If the delay is made variable with static pressure the model would be realistic and avoid the problem NASA had with their fixed schedule.  

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a466188.pdf

 

I know you're probably saying, Curly we have F404-GE-402. What the hell are you talking about again? Back to the engine at hand then.Lets look at how the F404-GE402 got it’s increased power. It’s on the order of a 20% increase in Ps, specific excess power. 

 

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1990/79054/V002T02A006/2399359/v002t02a006-90-gt-149.pdf

“On the Leading Edge F404 Turbofan Engine” S.F. Powel,   F404 Advanced Programs Manager GE. 1990.

 

“The increased thrust of the -402 model will be achieved by increasing fan speed up to 2%, improving afterburner efficiency and raising turbine inlet temperature by +100°F (+5K) at intermediate rated power, increasing to +175°F (+97°K) at maximum power.”


 

The increased performance of  -402 could only be realized with a more aggressive ECU schedule. AXppj_sWDiakQlqlI8jPoJBsmSV5USSr-YROmHqh

 

To  create more power the ECU of the 404-402, would allow for an increase in the pressure in the combustion chamber. This could only be accomplished by the increased inlet temps by 100F. Which also would drive RPM higher. That and the increased afterburner efficiency are why the 402 has a lower specify fuel flow than the base line model despite generating more thrust. 

 

These changes also brought some other interesting performance changes  to the engine and aircraft. Flight testing of the 404-GE-402 in the Hornet shows faster after burn light times than the base line model. Flight testing of the engine shows afterburner light times from Mil to MAX A/B below a second. 

From:

F/A-18A/B/C/D F404-GE-400/402 ENGINE SLOTTED SPRAYBAR INLET FLAMEHOLDER FOLLOW-ON FLIGHT TEST EVALUATION 

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a407860.pdf


 

-BtqKkYNsxYQNk5lzhPRFDaQmmmIlwWGQCVumLSq

 

0xxa1CbZ83DFIoPBPKQ16Diu3YIp80wknthooPMB

 

This disagrees with the afterburn light time and charts in the NFM 000. The one in the NFM 000, with light times of >6 seconds, look like they may be from the base F404 engine not the 404-GE-402 the DCS hornet models.


Just holy smokes, wau. Thanks for the input. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curly said:

 

The technical term from delay between a change in the power lever angle and the engine thrust is called transient time. The delay between the engine response is often done purposely, as a way to prevent compressor stalls, or excessive temperatures.  

 

There is actually quite a bit of public data on the F404-400 and it’s engine control unit. Which regulates fuel flow and nozzle exhaust area by monitoring, various pressure, temperature and rpm speeds.   


 

This is from a NASA experimental fitting of fiber optic sensors to a Hornet’s F404 engine. So the sensor type isn’t representative of a production engine.  However it provides a good overview of their placement.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19980219005/downloads/19980219005.pdf


 

5bSRKWjFNdglkF24D0bwRXMR2zr3oi0qMTXs6AOM

 

 

 



 

This from NASA bench test of the F404 and shows where the sensors are located internally. 

b9LJ9dJwBGJ6Ew9wYRicLzkRwhbTP9jb86NbdOF8


 

And another from a NASA paper on real time engine monitoring.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88244main_H-1750.pdf

UzEa5X6n1t4s-tEi2Y3Zuyq5FrTku_tmvv6Fe4Kf

 

An evaluation of F404 by the Aussies provides us with a glimpse of how the Engine Control Unit,  ECU, on the 404 operates.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164562.pdf

X9txQNgMqNqt-hina9CihpK0QN40sj3G72U1_y_R




 

Power level angle (PLA) break outs. 

Ground ilde 16 degrees, flight idle, 37 degrees, Intermediate power setting ( full mil), 87 degrees. Min AB, 90 degrees,  Full AB 130.

 

A8 Nozzle Area.

TI inlet temperature

TT5 low pressure turbine discharge temp

 

(NL)N1 inlet Fan Rotor Speed rpm

(NH)N2 Compressor rotor speed.,  High pressure compressor rotor speed

 

PS0: Free stream static pressure (also noted as P0)

PS3: Compressor discharge pressure.

PS6: Afterburner inlet static pressure, absolute

PS7: Exhaust nozzle inlet static pressure absolute

PT5: Turbine discharge pressure absolute. 

Wp Fuel flow.

 

That’s probably a lot of static to most people, but that chart is showing us what defines the operating limits of the F404. 

 

We can see the fan inlet RPM NL (N1) varies with power level angle below mil. However the ECU regulates N1 RPM based on T1 temps and pressures (PS1A) when the throttle is above a Mil, PLA> 87 degrees. Also evident is compressor surge protection. As the afterburner schedule is overridden when Compressor discharge pressures (PS3) are 425 psi and above. So if you dive in full after burn you won’t explode the engine.     

CxV_5z8mIbS0Wb3anHC_9_L_rDcmBrxqIZNXETA2

What’s probably most interesting about the chart is variation of nozzle area (A8) with power level angle below Mil. The implication is that the thrust response to the power level angle is not linear throughout the range of motion. The thrust response to power level angle varies depending on the position of the power level angle. “Loiter” and “Flat Cruise” power level angle settings will have different  variations in ratio of thrust per degree of power level angle.  R_iBKAE0UBnY_6TYUG2VskosFJP_CnKw4VonST_U 

 

NASA recognized this when they were developing their Dynamic Engine Model for The F/A-18 HARV simulation.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88204main_H-1643.pdf

 

 They came to the conclusion that they could get a pretty good simulation of the engine response by interpolating thrust from a look table. 

NhX_DfEK8RUPrpMRwxPPGhG9Bw47Wvi4SDNoHA9N

And applying a rate limiter and low pass filter to the power level angle position to mimic the nonlinearity and transient response of the engine. SfrWHsdfCGgCA69dFUs1zlxfAQW8bmwJ2b5Z1zxx

There however was flaw with the approach. The model was missing 20% of thrust for a brief period around 8 seconds. 

NUJeOy0y2fRBGXTGJBWXj3Tx5Oim9p78CxrhNvXp

 

Since there seems to be a fixed delay in the DCS Hornet, it seems like we have version of NASA HARV engine model in DCS. Where there is a fixed delay in thrust. If the delay is made variable with static pressure the model would be realistic and avoid the problem NASA had with their fixed schedule.  

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a466188.pdf

 

I know you're probably saying, Curly we have F404-GE-402. What the hell are you talking about again? Back to the engine at hand then.Lets look at how the F404-GE402 got it’s increased power. It’s on the order of a 20% increase in Ps, specific excess power. 

 

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1990/79054/V002T02A006/2399359/v002t02a006-90-gt-149.pdf

“On the Leading Edge F404 Turbofan Engine” S.F. Powel,   F404 Advanced Programs Manager GE. 1990.

 

“The increased thrust of the -402 model will be achieved by increasing fan speed up to 2%, improving afterburner efficiency and raising turbine inlet temperature by +100°F (+5K) at intermediate rated power, increasing to +175°F (+97°K) at maximum power.”


 

The increased performance of  -402 could only be realized with a more aggressive ECU schedule. AXppj_sWDiakQlqlI8jPoJBsmSV5USSr-YROmHqh

 

To  create more power the ECU of the 404-402, would allow for an increase in the pressure in the combustion chamber. This could only be accomplished by the increased inlet temps by 100F. Which also would drive RPM higher. That and the increased afterburner efficiency are why the 402 has a lower specify fuel flow than the base line model despite generating more thrust. 

 

These changes also brought some other interesting performance changes  to the engine and aircraft. Flight testing of the 404-GE-402 in the Hornet shows faster after burn light times than the base line model. Flight testing of the engine shows afterburner light times from Mil to MAX A/B below a second. 

From:

F/A-18A/B/C/D F404-GE-400/402 ENGINE SLOTTED SPRAYBAR INLET FLAMEHOLDER FOLLOW-ON FLIGHT TEST EVALUATION 

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a407860.pdf


 

-BtqKkYNsxYQNk5lzhPRFDaQmmmIlwWGQCVumLSq

 

0xxa1CbZ83DFIoPBPKQ16Diu3YIp80wknthooPMB

 

This disagrees with the afterburn light time and charts in the NFM 000. The one in the NFM 000, with light times of >6 seconds, look like they may be from the base F404 engine not the 404-GE-402 the DCS hornet models.

 

Imagine, just for a second, that I have NO IDEA what all that means. Can you hand out a reader's digest on that? 😄

  • Like 2

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

I usually have to reserve an entire day after Curly posts... Hey ED, are we flying HARV?  We need that 20% Ps now:biggrin:  

 

You already have it, thats why the Hornet has such a good sustained turn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Spurts said:

You already have it, thats why the Hornet has such a good sustained turn

 

Perhaps we do, I have no idea. I have no reason to complain about UA mode in any part of the envelope. Possibly... because I have no idea, hehe.

Most folks here gripe about the effects of slower spool up/down in PA mode. TBH, I got so used to the current model that it doesn't bother me that much... except this 'ballooning' thing and couple of other FCS related quirks that I think the devs are reviewing now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff, Curly! This is exactly how you prove a point and build a rock-solid case (especially in this realm). Good docs you have found there as well! Another thing to note is that our DCS Hornet burns substantially less fuel in max AB than it should (even for the slightly more efficient 402 engines).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

Great stuff, Curly! This is exactly how you prove a point and build a rock-solid case (especially in this realm). Good docs you have found there as well! Another thing to note is that our DCS Hornet burns substantially less fuel in max AB than it should (even for the slightly more efficient 402 engines).

 

So what you are saying is those of us in the Tomcat gang who already give Hornet drivers grief for needing three bags of fuel to get off the carrier deck are about to have more... err... fuel for the fire? 😄

I'm glad the F/A-18C's engines are getting looked at... before the Tomcat, when I was flying Bugs to scratch the naval itch, I used to hate the response of the engines behind the boat.  Took a LOOOOOONG time to get comfortable with them.  The F-14, even the -A has been a fresh breath of air in comparison.

  • Like 1

My YT Channel (DCS World, War Thunder and World of Warships)

 

Too Many Modules to List

--Unapologetically In Love With the F-14-- Anytime Baby! --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Whiskey11 said:

 

So what you are saying is those of us in the Tomcat gang who already give Hornet drivers grief for needing three bags of fuel to get off the carrier deck are about to have more... err... fuel for the fire? 😄

I'm glad the F/A-18C's engines are getting looked at... before the Tomcat, when I was flying Bugs to scratch the naval itch, I used to hate the response of the engines behind the boat.  Took a LOOOOOONG time to get comfortable with them.  The F-14, even the -A has been a fresh breath of air in comparison.

 

A bit offtopic here but according to some SME feedback I got directly our Hornet has a bit too much thrust (sustains too well and reaches too high of a top speed) compared to the real jet. The current spool times are a non issue, quite frankly and you can simply adapt to it and fly the ball just fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can, but it's much harder than it should be. If you're more than just a little low, you might as well wave off, and quite often when I've got a waveoff call in close, I ended up trapping despite immediately firewalling the throttle. That would not be a very safe thing to happen on a real carrier.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2021 at 12:43 PM, Skysurfer said:

 

A bit offtopic here but according to some SME feedback I got directly our Hornet has a bit too much thrust (sustains too well and reaches too high of a top speed) compared to the real jet. The current spool times are a non issue, quite frankly and you can simply adapt to it and fly the ball just fine. 

4 sec spool time vs 6 sec spool time is 50% degraded performance and that makes a huge difference on an approach. If top end needs a fix then that should be addressed too. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...