Setting realistic expectations for the Hornet

I have been perusing some of the threads here with regards to hopes and desires for the f18 performance model. Having flown a decent amount with the f-86, f5 and mig-15 products, I am convinced that DCS and it's partner will nail it with the hornet performance model.

Their attention to detail so far has been impeccable in my eyes.

Those that think the FA18C is some uber fast jet are in for a shock.

Since the Hornet was designed for the dual role of Fighter/Attack the designers never planned to have it be an interceptor, so the aerodynamics of the jet are not conducive to fast supersonic flight.

The F15 and F16 are examples of aircraft made for speed and of course the F14 interceptor with those massive engines was just made for the speed of heat.

But throw some bombs on those birds and watch the speeds plummet.

In fact once a C Hornet is fully configured with a bomb payload, it's really dirty and struggles to go supersonic at wings level.

Sure a slick hornet is pretty fast but not realistic for combat.

The one thing the hornet does well is maneuver at slow speed. It will do circles around the F16 and the F15 just runs away when the fight is in close and slow, it knows when it's outmatched :). One just needs to study the publicly available turn performance numbers for all these birds to figure that out.

The tomcat could hold it's own with the Hornet in a slow and close fight thanks to that massive wing spread but my biased opinion based on real-life encounters says all things being equal (pilot skill wise) the hornet had the edge thanks to being lighter and more nimble.

By the way I have BFMd against the F16,15 and 14 so I speak from experience.

Those that want a realistic representation at how the FA18C performs in a flight sim should look for the FA-18D_FSXBA2015 15.6 Training simobject assuming you have FSX or P3d. I have been using it in p3d and I am amazed at how realistic it performs. The drag is about right and the speed is definitely in the ball park.

To recap, don't expect to beating airspeed races against the F15 when the Hornet comes out but do expect to be amazed at how great a dogfighter it is.:joystick:

Oh and don't think you can slap on 8 missiles on the killer bee and expect to be running down anything supersonic. Like I said, loaded down it's a dirty bird. Most jets are in real life.

-Retired F18C pilot (lots 10-20) back in it's heyday before the E/F came on the scene.

Very nice writeup - thanks for that. Always nice to have a real pilot around here to chime in and share some insights! :thumbsup:

Well written.

In other hand some of us wouldn't trade a thing from the bird performance like you described and it's very well documented.

It's limitations and features combo is what actually draws me into it. For my taste it's the perfect bird for a simulator MP&SP. I wouldn't even change it from a C to other variant.

Good idea to post this. It's true a lot of people tend to blend the most iconic jets in the same category very often. Someone's taste might be more fit into a MiG 29 or the F-15 and unaware that the F/A-18C is a completely different kind of a deal.

I have no idea what to expect, but that is what the DCS F/A-18C module will eventually teach me. But thx for the heads up. Always great with first hand intel.

Oh, and I really like dirty birds ;)

nice and welcome.

I am not concerned about its top speed but understand your point and agree.

I hope to get all the A/A functionality from the plane, able to press all the buttons~ A radar that isn't just basic with 3 simple modes like the f-15 & su/migs. A full working a/g radar with all the different settings. I think this plane will have a lot to offer. If its just like the fsx module that would be great. But im pretty sure it will be better.

Can't wait to try out this slowpoke! :-)

We should all start to brush up on our air to air refueling skills, as even with three bags of gas, the Hornet is a bit short legged. :-)

Sedlo, Sedlo, Sedlo, Delta Echo Ivory Eagle, Close to Territory, over.

Thanks

(...)

First of all, welcome and thanks for your words.

I think that whoever thinks serious about this DCS module will have that knowledge by now. I just love DCS: A-10C for its simulated complexity (PFM, ASM) and I am looking for at least matching level if not better for Hornet.

Your comments add value to the community, I am looking forward to seeing more of those ;)

When it comes to gas, the charlie is a thirsty dog.

The centerline tank was practically glued to the C. During my combat missions in Iraq it was dual wing tanks as the standard with mid-flight refueling to boot.

All the charlie pilots were expert mid-air refuelers thanks to all the practice. You live and died by it.

Even back at the boat, the trusty S3 was there to tank if needed. I never thought I would need to but one night it happened.

The ship waved me off from landing due to something going wrong with the wires from the previous trap. It was pitch black and I was at bingo and it was blue water ops, so naturally I was told to tank overhead. Thankfully I had good skills when it came to tanking and had no problem with the viking. I remember later that night talking to the S3 pilot and telling him how grateful I was that he was a smooth stick because I was running on vapors by the time I finally plugged in.

The charlie had the shortest legs of all the modern gen planes and it could be painful sometimes.

Thank you for the first hand sharing. Looking at the numbers I tried to keep the expectations in regard of thrust performance low.

I personally expect it to be a pimped up F-5E3, as it was delivered by BST. Pimped up internally and in its system, but not so much in thrust performance. I really like the F-5E, but flying it I sometimes miss the thrust of the MiG21 and I guess I will have the same feeling in the F/A-18C. ;)

When it comes down to range I expect more time in the tanker track than on station.

Sounds like ED is going to need to seriously revamp the AAR AI performance.

The centerline tank was practically glued to the C. During my combat missions in Iraq it was dual wing tanks as the standard with mid-flight refueling to boot.

 

All the charlie pilots were expert mid-air refuelers thanks to all the practice. You live and died by it.

 

Even back at the boat, the trusty S3 was there to tank if needed. I never thought I would need to but one night it happened.

 

The ship waved me off from landing due to something going wrong with the wires from the previous trap. It was pitch black and I was at bingo and it was blue water ops, so naturally I was told to tank overhead. Thankfully I had good skills when it came to tanking and had no problem with the viking. I remember later that night talking to the S3 pilot and telling him how grateful I was that he was a smooth stick because I was running on vapors by the time I finally plugged in.

 

The charlie had the shortest legs of all the modern gen planes and it could be painful sometimes.

Having done it for real, what are your concerns about how the carrier ops should be modeled with DCS? What is important to get right in the simulation so that its is an adequate representation of what its like to try to get the hornet back aboard the boat?

I know we aren't supposed to compare other sims, but as a point of reference, with the FSXBA and the nimitz (and maybe VLSO), is that a good representation, or too hard...or too easy...and can DCS make it better?

My dad has 400 traps in A-3's, A-7's, A-4's and F-4's. He says the visuals look right in FSX with the nimitz but it's hard to fly a good pass without the seat-of-pants sensations. He tried out my oculus with the F-15 in DCS and said VR made it much better.

Hmm.... did you ever notice the difference between the standard and EPE engines?

Also thank you for your service!!

It's been twenty years so memories fade. I don't remember the EPE being a discussion topic amongst the pilots. I can't remember when they were introduced into the fleet inventory to be honest.

The only time I noticed engine performance was switching jet platforms. The mighty guppy T2 was my first jet then I switched to the T45, I saw a modest gain in performance but of course going to the F18 was a whole new ballpark.

I biggest memory with regards to performance was how you really don't feel or hear anything when going supersonic. The only visual cue was the huge white jet vapor cone building on the wings and tail when I looked in the mirrors. What a sight.

It's been twenty years so memories fade. I don't remember the EPE being a discussion topic amongst the pilots. I can't remember when they were introduced into the fleet inventory to be honest.

 

The only time I noticed engine performance was switching jet platforms. The might guppy T2 was my first jet then I switched to the T45, I saw a modest gain in peformance but of course going to the F18 was a whole new ballpark.

 

I biggest memory with regards to performance was how you really don't feel or hear anything when going supersonic. The only visual cue was the huge white jet vapor cone building on the wings and tail when I looked in the mirrors. What a sight.

Really looking forward to experiencing this in VR.

Having done it for real, what are your concerns about how the carrier ops should be modeled with DCS? What is important to get right in the simulation so that its is an adequate representation of what its like to try to get the hornet back aboard the boat?

 

I know we aren't supposed to compare other sims, but as a point of reference, with the FSXBA and the nimitz (and maybe VLSO), is that a good representation, or too hard...or too easy...and can DCS make it better?

 

My dad has 400 traps in A-3's, A-7's, A-4's and F-4's. He says the visuals look right in FSX with the nimitz but it's hard to fly a good pass without the seat-of-pants sensations. He tried out my oculus with the F-15 in DCS and said VR made it much better.

Yes seat of the pants feel is a huge feedback factor missing in flight simulation. For daytime landings it is big factor combined with sight picture. It's what makes landings at day much less stressful because you feel you have full situational awareness as you land.

This is the reason why night landings are extremely stressful, seat of the pants can be so misleading at night since you lost most of your peripheral vision. You feel like you are in a (moving) flight simulator at night. I remember many times at night getting a surreal feeling that I was in a flight sim and not actually flying (I use to be a huge flight sim player before I actually started flying).

VR: It is simply put the future and if I was in charge of naval aviation I would be doing everything in my power to secure cutting edge vr technologies for training. It is huge even with out seat of the pants (g effects etc) and motion. I really really appreciate what DCS and their rivals 777 studios (IL-2 series) and Gaijin (warthunder) have done with their flight sims with regards to VR.

It is truly impressive how optimize VR is in this game. I am running with max settings on the Rift in this game and loving it. It is a huge step forward in providing a realistic flight experience. TrackIR can only go so far. In fact I have easily flown formation with the AI with VR and it's very satisfying.

Now about Carrier landings,

There are two ways DCS can go with this 1: Hollywood 2: realistic.

Visually it's easy to nail down but aerodynamically so far, no one is getting it right. I haven't tried carrier landings with prepare3d but so far the only one that comes close is warthunder and that's easier because they are using slower prop planes but even that's hollywood because no one is modeling turbulence in close on landings.

I reallly really hope that DCS/Belsimtek are consulting their real-life pilots and getting the info on the "burble". The burble is the disturbed air coming off the island off the modern carrier flight deck.

The burble is the single biggest factor that separates carrier landings from airport landings.

You can easily mimic the carrier box on a landing strip by painting a mock up but you can't replicate the burble at an airfield.

Why is the burble so critical for simulating carrier landings? Simply put, it randomizes each and every landing you make on a carrier. One day you come in and you have nothing but smooth air and a small drop (add a little power) 1 second before touchdown for the easy 3 wire.

The very next time a few hours later you come in and you are dropping like a rock just 200 ft away on approach going full throttle hearing LSO (screaming "POWER") catching the 1 wire and getting a no grade or missing the wires and boltering. This is due to the thermals going on near the ship and the burble. A wicked combination no doubt.

This is why navy pilots can brag about being in a class of their own compared to air force pilots.

Each and every carrier landing is incredibly harder than landing at the airfield.

I hope DCS studies this but I will not be surprised if they don't implement it because they may wish to focus on what most flight simmers want which is shooting guns and missles and dropping bombs.

That already is a lot on their plate to get right. And also it takes a lot of math to simulate turbulence and get it right which might be too much for the flight engine for now.

I will go on with a part 2 on visuals shortly.

We all have heard through shows and the movies about how small the carrier looks as you approach for a landing. Well believe it or not once you are inside a quarter mile the carrier and flight deck start to look real big.

Sure the landing area is still relatively small but the ship is huge and fills up your periphery real fast. It's is this peripheral picture that continues to be missing in flight simulators that attempt to model carrier landings.

I know getting the scale right between aircraft and ship (by the numbers) is a no brainer for modern flight sims but getting that sight picture scale when sitting in the cockpit continues to elude from what I have seen.

It's hard to get this right because all references come from camera footage at a given FOV setting. On top of this the FOV setting for the first person perspective in the cockpit does not do a good job of representing peripheral human vision.

This is where VR goes a long way in rectifying and time will show it getting better once FOV expands with next gen vr tech.

Yeah my Dad said the burble was the worst when trapping on the enterprise because of the size of the island. He also talks about how day traps in good weather are fun but not night traps in the A-3.

The A-3 was tough to get aboard generally because it was so big and he would get asymmetrical trust on the engines. They are pretty far apart on the wings so it would induce unwanted yaw to the other considerations. You had to get a really good start on that jet and be really smooth. When he transitioned to A-7's, the LSO said he was trying to be too smooth. He could make more aggressive adjustments that you wouldn't get away with on the A-3. The F-4 was something all together different again but he said it was easier because of all the instantaneous power available. It was like the meatball was attached directly to the throttle. You didn't notice as much of a lag as the engines spooled up.

in close perspective

Here is a good video showcasing the turbulence as you are about to touchdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhZnly5q--Y

It starts with old school footage but eventually shows modern footage.

at 3:14

This is a hornet hud I believe.

Notice the hud symbology. The AOA indicator is represented by the lines that look like a big E right alongside (on the right) the velocity vector pipper (circle with 3 lines) as the jet approaches the threshold you will see the AOA indicator bouncing up and down, this is the turbulence caused by the burble with thermals adding to it as well.

As you can clearly see the plane is being affected constantly and rapidly making it hard work for the pilot to maintain proper glideslope and just as importantly maintaining the proper orientation of the craft via the AOA indicator. Oh and btw, the plane is slowly drifting to the left of the ship due to the landing zone being aligned off center to the ship thus forcing the pilot to occasionally dip the wing to maintain centerline while on the glideslope.

Just before this hud footage you see what I believe is the inside of the E2 cockpit where you see the pilot moving that throttle like mad. This happens because of the turbulence raising and lower the craft from the ideal glideslope line. E2s are notorious for this because of it's huge wingspan and lift.

It's the same thing for jets, the throttle and not the stick is used to maintain proper glideslope descent while the stick is used to maintain the AOA (orientation of the plane) and centerline because it's essential for the plane orientation to stay fixed for the hook to grab the wire on touchdown. Moving the stick up and down to maintain glideslope would eliminate any chance for the proper landing on the carrier.

When you look at the OLS you will see the pilot does a good job at maintaining a center ball, he is doing this by constantly and rapidly adjusting power countering the rising and falling caused by the turbulence.

I really hope DCS can pull this off with the simulation but it won't be easy. Like I said earlier it may be too much for the sim to handle.

As we get closer to early release of the hornet and assuming carrier landings are available I will talk about the carrier landing pattern, something of which nobody gets right in the flightsim youtube videos.

Even better E2 cockpit video at 4:30, notice all the work the pilot on the left is doing. Both pilots as you can see are stressed and focused because it's never ever easy. Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar.

 

By the way I have BFMd against the F16,15 and 14 so I speak from experience.

 

Always great to hear and see some RL fighter pilots commenting on the RL performance of fighter jets. KUDOS :thumbup:

what a great thread and what a pleasure to count with people like you "neofightr", trying to help to improve flight simulation with your real life experience... really appreciated!:thumbup:

about the "burble", well, I definetely am one of those "weird" flight simmers that would prefer ED to model it more than dropping bombs, although I understand that this is also very important and that many simmers could be more interested on that than even naval aviation in general... lets hope ED is aiming at that quality/realism level :)

Many thanks for giving us a realistic sight of things and hope you continue doing it (maybe you can even chat a bit with ED? :music_whistling:) , very interesting reading your opinions and visions thanks a lot! :thumbup:

This is the coolest thread I've read in a while!

Thank you very much!

This info is informative, well thought out and a welcome addition!

It will make the carrier landing much more fun!

Reminds me of trying to land on the carrier in MS CFS2.

More often that not I would crash into the superstructure and end up a ball of fire! lol

Great fun!

Can't wait for the Hornet!

Been waiting for this since Wags worked on Jane's F18!

(Which still runs in win 7 64bit with tweaks)

Thanks and keep up with the info!

Much appreciated!

Hawkeye

This is the coolest thread I've read in a while!

 

Thank you very much!

 

Agree! +1

Thanks a lot neofightr ! :thumbup:

vLSO is the only application that has successfully added the "burble" into a flight simulation environment (FSX and P3D), not to mention all of the LSO functionality (verbal calls and grading).

https://vlso.blogspot.com/

In addition to the burble, I am really hoping for a crisp IFLOLS ("meatball) for VR users, set at correct angle, that also works for pitching deck (corrects for pitch and roll of ship). Also accurate night lighting (very low lighting) to include sequenced center line lights (rabbit) for night traps.

Looking at the video, looks like it was a T-45 HUD.

I think many of use here are excited for the future of simulated naval aviation ops with the addition of the Hornet, Tomcat, and new carriers. I think overtime all these things will become available in DCS, or at least I can hope.

Sounds like ED is going to need to seriously revamp the AAR AI performance.

not so relevant for basket refuelling.

anyone who can't hold steady formation only has themselves to blame.

---

i don't think accurate carrier ops out of the box are a realistic expectation to have for this module. 1.5, 2 years down the line, then we can talk.

Here is an outstanding video made by an enthusiast about the carrier pattern.

Really great and thorough but with some much needed corrections. I highly recommend the video because it's a complete picture on carrier ops from the training perspective. Below are my corrections for the video.

_____________________________________________________

"I know this is very late feedback, good presentation but a couple of corrections for you. Never correct a high or low position with the stick, always with the power. You use the stick to correct alignment to centerline and maintaining the proper AOA.

"At the 45" is not past the carrier wake it's before it (edit: on it or slightly before it). The 45 position is halfway between the 90 and rolling out on the groove. Rolling out on the groove is just that rolling out on the groove all lined up with the centerline.

The reason why you said it was hard to see the ball initially when talking about your "starting the groove position" slide is because based on your position you were really long in the groove. When you roll out in the groove you are actually pretty close to the carrier and it shouldn't be hard to see the meatball assuming you are at the proper glideslope position. If you are hitting your numbers you should clearly see a center ball when when leveling your wings at the start of the groove.

You were starting your turn at the abeam way too late, you need to start that turn before you pass the fantail. This will have you much closer to the carrier on roll out. A better reference for the abeam is when you can see the hangar deck opening clear through and are lined up with it, start the turn right then do not go past the ship before starting the turn.

You should not be referencing the wake at all. The last reference checkpoint is the 45. If that wake reference call is in natops then that's news to me, since it's only an unnecessary distraction for the pilot. Keep in mind my flying days were twenty years ago.

The position calls are only for training by the way, by the time you are flying the hornet those comms are no longer necessary. The only call you make is your ball call. Typically the LSO says nothing other than acknowledge your ball call with lights or by voice so you intialize comms with your ball call. Oh and its not "4 decimal 2" it's "4 point 2".

You do not wait until you are a mile past the carrier to start the break turn, the break turn starts about 2 seconds after passing the bow. The mile thing might be a training thing but if that was practiced in fleet ops it would stretch out the carrier pattern and really screw things up.

Oh and one last thing, if you really want to do it like in real life make sure you are not looking at the carrier deck when the meat ball is in sight, you only make very quick glances at the centerline to make sure you are lined up with it but 95 percent of the time you are looking at the meatball and scanning your AOA indicator and that's it. If you are getting in the habit at staring at the deck and using the velocity vector to point yourself to the deck then you are doing it wrong."