Sign in to follow this  
remilton

F/A-18 landing gear wrong in Acceleration

Recommended Posts

Based on the screenshots I've seen of the F/A-18 sitting idle on the carrier deck and tarmac, seems it sits too high in the back, the rear landing gear should be compressed more, the plane looks to be in a nose down postion even with the launch bar up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Yep i'm with you Jim...BUT..i did notice there were NO dead flies on it!! not one anywhere...outrageous!!!!!:-smile12 steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is only observing! sheesh what's up with people lately.. :-rollI bet if the add-on was by PMDG or whatever people would have jumped right on top of it saying it didn't look good or it should be this or it should be that.But since it is by Microsoft and only 30$ bucks critisism is suddenly not allowed anymore.. :-waveshocky :-hahhttp://img7.exs.cx/img7/5379/Banner21.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>He is only>observing! sheesh what's up with people lately.. :-roll>>I bet if the add-on was by PMDG or whatever people would have>jumped right on top of it saying it didn't look good or it>should be this or it should be that.>>But since it is by Microsoft and only 30$ bucks critisism is>suddenly not allowed anymore.. Actually, all three new models and gauge systems were created by contracted, professional third-parties......all of whom are well-known and respected folks from extremely popular companies... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>He is>only>>observing! sheesh what's up with people lately.. :-roll>>>>I bet if the add-on was by PMDG or whatever people would>have>>jumped right on top of it saying it didn't look good or it>>should be this or it should be that.>>>>But since it is by Microsoft and only 30$ bucks critisism is>>suddenly not allowed anymore.. >>Actually, all three new models and gauge systems were created>by contracted, professional third-parties...>>...all of whom are well-known and respected folks from>extremely popular companies... :)>Shame they did not contract out the MULTIPLAYER system as well :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope! The real aircraft also sets up high in the rear. There are two reasons. One, on the catapult, if the aircraft were not high in the rear, the inertia from being "tied down to the deck" for takeoff would cause the aircraft to bottom out in the back.Two, when you land the F-18 there is a tremendous force on the rear on the aircraft - something like a "controlled crash." In addition, there is very little flair in the landing so you want the main gear to get on the deck ASAP. If you view a landing in slow motion you can see the main gear compress quite rapidly and the tail hook protrudes between the wheels to catch the wire.fb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it's been a few years since I worked on a carrier flight deck - but my memory of the F-18 was that it did sit up in the back.The compression for the main gear is built to take 4, 5 or more G on landing on the carrier desk. Of course ready to take that compression load, the gear do not compress much when the aircraft is empty on the deck. With a full load of fuel and weapons, it goes down a bit, but no more than 20-25%.If my memory is right - one of the design goals for the F-18 was to have a lighter, but highly compressible, landing gear as opposed to some traditional Navy fighters. Trying to increase the number of carrier landing cycles this model aircraft could take before major inspections and rebuilds. That was a real issue on the F-14.It's a 10,000 kg aircraft with 5,000 kg of fuel internal, 3,000 kg of fuel external and 7,000 kg of external weapons.I'd have to see some screen shots super imposed over read aircraft photos in similar weight configurations to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>In addition, there is very little flair in the landing so you>want the main gear to get on the deck ASAP. To be more exact, there is NO flare on a standard F/A-18 landing, regardless of whether landing on a carrier or a normal runway.Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jymp,IANA Boing engineer ... however, given the reduced weight by removing the weapons infrastucture, the rear struts would not sit quite as low, seems to me.And lemme tell you something ... this baby is FUN TO FLY. I have a whole new respect for the military guys who can put this thing down in a 50-foot box and get her stopped without damaging those rear struts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a small point, but it looks more like the gear is in the unloaded pre-touchdown position.Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The struts do, indeed, appear to be deloaded. That said, and in general, I see nothing exceptional about this external model.Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The struts do, indeed, appear to be deloaded. That said,>and in general, I see nothing exceptional about this external>model.Of course, the lossy, highly-compressed, 582pix wide screenshot does it justice... NOT!In sim at 1280x960x32 it is simply stunning. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,I think you make a very good point. The comparison shot that I made was intended to, as closely as possible, match the angle and distance the airplane was sitting in, so that someone could make a comparision of the rear struts.I chose that particular paint because it most closely matched the real life paint in the shot I chose for the live comparison. There are 14 different paints included (counting the 6 variants of the Blue Angels paint.)I am not biased when it comes to the enjoyment I've gotten out of this aircraft, primarily because I had nothing whatsoever to do with its development (although I did participate in the development of FSX: Acceleration.) I'd be the first to be critical of something I perceived lacking (and you can search my posts for examples of cases in which I think improvements can be made.)The developers did an excellent job with this simulation. Having purchased some third-party aircraft over the years, I can definitely attest to the value proposition of $30 USD just for this single aircraft.When you toss in fully-realized Carrier Ops, a rescue-enabled EH-101 with functional lift capability, a turbo-charged Mustang with realistic engine performance requirements placed on the pilot ... then it seems very difficult to make a case that there isn't value here.Now toss in 38 new professionally designed missions and tutorials in 9 differnet languages.For $30 bucks??? How do these guys stay in business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison shot. Far be it for me to belabor such a small point, but note the weapons infrastructure attached to the wings of this model, and the resultant added weight on the rear struts.Also, does this paint seem too shiny? All the photos I can find demonstrate that the F-18a, even in direct sunlight, doesn't seem to me to glint (maybe I just haven't run across the right shot at the right angle in the right sunlight.) It has a very matte-like finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very good quality but look at the back wheel in each of these cases and compare them with the simulator shot. These shots are from a video taken during an airshow so the drop tanks are very unlikely to be full. 1. F18 taxing the lower wheel strut is pretty well horizontal. 2 and 3 On take off the strut starts to gradually straighten out until 4. aircraft leaves the runway and the strut is pretty well near vertical but with a slight knick.If the sim shot is how the f18 is actually depicted then I'll leave it to you to decide.Cheers WOZhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178663.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178664.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178665.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178666.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me say having been around F/A-18A's & C's in the US Navy for 4 yrs as a AMS3 at NAS Oceana & USS Coral Sea CV-43 AIMD I know excatly what F/A-18 struts look like all too well, loaded unloaded whatevever, the Lomac stuts are correct the FSX struts aren't, now having said that, its a very small detail, but noticeable nontheless, Now getting all this in one package for 30 bucks is a great deal and I'm not complaining it was just an observation, jeez whats happening to freedom of speech in this country ?, someone says something someone doesn't agree with and they flip out, although you do have the right to be offended, get over it, there are many men and women who have died for the right of freedom of speech, you don't like it, move to another country. Off the soap box, end of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably would have been best, to provide your F-18/Navy background in the first place, with the initial posting.And then something along the lines of an observation that might be needing changing.I once did this with a well known small aircraft model regarding the batt/alt switch operation, just because I'm familiar with the exact operation, as I've installed them. They fixed it...L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread an comparision shots.IMHO, the exterior model of the F/A-18 Hornet in Lock On - Modern Air Combat (LOMAC) is still the best virtual representation of the real thing seen to date in any simulation. The model of the upcoming FSX pack seems to have shape errors on the forward fuselage, the vertical stabs' root fairing to the fuselage look too rounded and the canopy's curves do not exactly look right (e.g. the sill of the main canopy frame is too low, making the canopy glass look too large in height).I've been hoping for a decent flyable Hornet for FS for quite some time as regrettably the Hornet has never been included as a fully flyable fighter in LOMAC.In respect to the original poster's criticism, I concur the oleo struts should be more compressed. It rarely happens that they remain uncompressed like shown in the screenshots. Another thing is the deflection of the flaps. Those screens over at the flightsimworld forum show the Hornet approaching the carrier or on the catapult show the flaps always in cruise speed condition. If T/O flap is selected, the leading edge slats droop down 25 degrees, the trailing edge flap to 30 degrees and both rudders move inward by 20 degrees to increase the "downforce" on the tail to enable rotation at lower speeds (which they do on landing as well). When LAND flap is selected, the leading edge droops to 30 degrees and the trailing edge flap to 47 degrees, the ailerons to 45. All of course slightly variable depending on the pilots roll control input and the aircraft's angle-of-attack. Wait... on the real Hornet a "weight-on-wheels" microswitch sends a signal to the FCC (Flight control computer) to switch from ground to flight mode as soon as the landing struts are fully compressed, perhaps this is modelled in the FSX pack Hornet - since the gear isn't fully compressed the flaps always show these cruise deflections? well...Nevertheless, the VC of the Hornet in the upcoming FSX acceleration pack, looks fan-double-tastic to say the least, a job very well done by "virtuali" (member of the cloud9 team, they know how to do great FS stuff!).In the end, it is true to keep in mind the prize of the upcoming pack, and that we cannot expect everything taken fully care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this