AKarhu

Well, the discussion is hardly providing any conclusions, but yeah, I figure. :) The thing to understand is this: the spring force on the stick is not altered (except by the stand-by trim motor, when used). It takes that (my guess on the force!) 40-or-so lbs / 20 kgf to pull the stick to the aft stop regardless of the flight conditions. What is altered is the airplane's response to any given flight conditions, requiring you to pull back farther in particular when forcing high alphas.

Precisely. It doesn't.

You misunderstand on purpose. AoA feedback increases stick forces per g by requiring you to pull the stick further back when active for the same g response. High-AoA flying is one of the few areas where almost full-aft stick is needed at all in Hornet. Force required to pull the stick full aft to the stop is modestly strong, albeit at least I can pull it to the stop with one hand relatively easily. I'd only guess by feel it is maybe around 40 lbs, but I don't know - on ground it also depends where the stand-by trim motor has left the feel springs; if you test the motor when doing ground crew's daily check for instance, you typically don't bother to center it to neutral.

There are no forces moving the stick from the neutral, or altering the force required to displace it, in the Hornet. There is only spring centering. The airplane response is what is altered to provide a simulation of control feel. The trim motor is used to drive the stick's neutral position, to which the springs center it, in flight control modes which provide a direct relationship in between the stick position and the stab angle, to provide a physical trim. In regular modes, the trim is electrical, with no effect on the spring centering.

Only variable thing physically acting on the stick forces is the stand-by trim motor, which re-positions the neutral when normal trim acting through FCS gains is not available. There is no force feedback, as in actuators driving the stick, in the Hornet. Control forces are simulated by requiring you to move the stick in different amounts, depending on the flight parameters. Control laws and stick function is explained in reasonable detail in NATOPS for instance. It can be force-per-g, but at lower speeds/higher alphas, pitch rate and alpha feedbacks are thrown in the mix. Essentially the control force simulation works in a Hornet precisely the same way they work in a simulator when flying with non-FFB stick.

Thanks, interesting! Finnish Hornets were assembled locally as well, aside the first few two seaters. I don't know whether they differ in any significant structural details from the Navy ones, albeit they do have several differences from the baseline (such as afterburner flame holder inspired by Saab Gripen, as the GE original did show some cracking and pieces shedding issues), originally a local data link system, since replaced by Link 16, metric stand by instruments, and so on). As I've read the public articles available, the wings weren't the issue noted in the major mid-life inspections around here, but the central fuselage structure was. Some reinforcement was reportedly incorporated at that stage at least.

That I believe is the regular, dynamically computed g limit as per weight.

Okay, that's interesting. I didn't know there were different designs of the wing (even if g-limit can of course be configured). Any idea what export batches are affected by this mod, and what are the differences to the USN?

Yea, I wonder that too, never heard of such version (not at all saying that there couldn't be one somewhere). For a fact, at least Finnish and Swiss C/D-models retain their wing fold function and it is used for a good benefit. One nice touch in Hornet, in comparison to many other fighters of the era, is its dynamically computed G-limit, depending on the computed actual gross weight. This provides some protection against structural overstress

That's interesting, where are those used? I didn't know such existed.

While not directly related to the g-limiter override, but to the Euro Hornets anecdotally, there was some minor hubbub here on the European side of the pond (Finland) that was noted in the local public press as well, when the fatigue life of the center "barrel" structure (the center fuselage portion to which the wings attach) turned out to be less than expected. I've not gone any deep into it, but mainly from what I've read about it, the level of cracking found during major mid-life inspections was more than was expected, and necessitated some specific repairs and reinforcements at least in some air frames. Reportedly, the issue was analyzed and reasoned together with the manufacturer so that basically the flight hour accumulation (by which the inspections were mainly scheduled) did not match the expected stress accumulation. Around here, the training areas where the air combat maneuvering and all takes place are almost immediately next to the air force bases. Supposedly, the disproportionately low hours of positioning, simple transit flying, in comparison to the maneuvering flight, skewed the aging of the air frame some. I don't know if Swiss guys had any similar experience.

They ought to come pretty similarly loaded in what comes to avionics and stuff: where something that would be Navy specific for instance is left out, something local or civilian equivalent is put in, and they have their own share of extras (such as identification light that is missing from the Navy ones). To my eye, the current European (Finnish/Swiss) standard appears to be newer than the specific model simulated in DCS; for instance, at least some of the UFCs have been replaced with E/F-style touch screens. Anyways, what comes to W&B, I'd expect there to be only minute differences, perhaps among the most significant ones being such as Finns using M61A2 cannon instead of A1, affecting more the balance. G-limiter function is the same, I understand.

I'd guess he's pointing out that the NVGs don't generally go together with the HMD.

At least around here it is only used when needed, apparently. The regular helmet is apparently more comfortable in ways, plus it is a costly piece of equipment to knock around.

One guy flying these things, when guiding me in the WTSAT, noted that he found it more comfortable to fly on DDI ("Digital Display Indicator", the name for the two upper displays), as you keep your eyes in when doing so. The HUD symbology is in distance, so it wasn't as comfortable to eyes to glance just quickly. Of course, that was just his opinion. What may also matter is the video recording: Hornet has two cameras on the canopy frame, recording the DDIs and a camera recording the HUD. In the original config, there were two 8 mm magnetic tape cassettes to store the feed from any two of those at time, the left DDI camera or the HUD camera being selectable for the video record, and right DDI being recorded constantly. Apparently the DDI image was better for some purposes than the "gun camera". I can't remember -even if I should!- if the recording scheme was updated by the time the memory unit brick block was changed to the memory cards...to some annoyance as they are easier to drop into a difficult-to-reach place in the cockpit...

Actually I think the CAT IIIC is not in common operational use, as you say, as it implies zero visibility, for which the surface ops are not equipped as of today, in what comes to taxiing and so on. Autoland, or a certified HUD (there can be some other substitutes to the autoland I forget!) is required for all CAT III approaches I understand. Comparing to civilian requirements, the HUD in F-18C is a primary flight display, but seems to lack much of the stuff that CAT III certified HUDs show. Certainly it isn't CAT certified as an autoland substitute in an airplane which even lacks the ILS unless a custom option. PAR used to be an excellent tool around here when it was commonly used, easily on par ;) with ILS. But they say it really meant you had to be on your needles, and steady while at it. The good thing was that it wasn't much airplane-dependent. One suggested technique indeed is marking up the end(s) of the runway as one can show them up on the HUD - hardly an official technique, but some say it works. The automatic carrier landing system is an interesting one. It is a kind of semi-active remote control in function. :)

If they don't include an ILS option, or PAR simulation, you'd pretty much be on clever thinking and illegal actions. :D

Ah, now I see where the confusion is. :) We are mixing some terms here. If the landing and the final part of the approach is flown visually doesn't make it VFR - in fact, huge majority of ILS approaches are finished visually (they have to be, from the approach minima) but that doesn't make it VFR; often one doesn't meet VMC criteria to allow any VFR flight. One can actually fly a visual approach while under IFR. But back to the topic: Re. ILS, I think remembering the ILS in Hornets was not certified to any 'Category approaches', or in other words, that it was CAT I certified only, I believe. So not quite "Whiz-bang zero-zero system" either where equipped. Re. NDB: I'm not sure if Hornet was certified for that either. The ones I recall did not have NDB receivers specifically, but were equipped with radio direction finders. It essentially does the same thing, and its frequency range overlapped at least some of the NDB range I think, but don't remember for sure.

TACAN approach is a non-precision instrument approach exactly like the VOR/DME for instance is, it specifically allows you to land in conditions not allowing for "VFR" approach. Obviously, minima are higher than in ILS approach, but it still is an instrument approach. Lack of precision approach capability does not mean VFR only.

And unless there happens to be a published TACAN approach available. :)

Yes, and more to my point (I need to state that the discussion is purely academic in what comes to the DCS product most likely!), is that the Link 16 apparently was in many ways inferior to some datalink(s) it actually replaced, except in what comes to compatibility. There were other, non-US/NATO solutions that were in some areas, reportedly of noticeably higher performance. Details of course remain mostly classified, and these systems were not, to my understanding, exported much at all, so I'd expect them to remain relatively little-known area of telecommunications in technical terms up until they maybe are disclosed in a decade or so on. What comes to the airframe, the F/A-18 is somewhat underrated, IMO. It is a brilliant design in many aspects, almost as easy as a big GA airplane to handle on ground, carries a huge span of weapon and sensors systems, and reportedly flies beautifully in the air, especially if one likes high alphas. The fixed inlet design somewhat restricted the high Mach number performance, and it has some relationships to the centerline stores config, but my understanding from the data of it is that at the usual airspeeds, it is a nimble, powerful, point-and-shoot kind of a jet, not any shy of MiG-29 or Su-27, and with sensible A2A loadouts for close engagement, not loosing too much in vertical neither.

Yep, purely out of curiosity, and of interest regarding the type. :) Indeed, interesting how they model this thing. As I understand, it is far from being the most capable data link system out there, but being so widespread and common, it makes a sensible choice even for the export customers.

Yes, exactly. :) The question is more that if all the current operators of F-18C actually do use the Link 16 as of today, and have it installed & employed. Not all "foreign" operators included this datalink system when the airplanes were initially delivered, but the question stands if all have switched to the Link 16 by now.

What DL systems non-US operators use, btw? In Finnish Hornets, Link 16 is used today. It replaced an earlier, locally made system at some point before 2010 I think - and supposedly was not all improvement in performance, but NATO compatibility was more important. I'd guess the Swiss Hornets would use Link 16 as well, but what about the others?

I'd figure the ICLS is fairly unique to the US fleet, it would perhaps make sense to model an ILS set as well, even if the rest of the layout would be USN?