El Chapo

In fact French planes work in kg/min, so it's not really a west/east difference. It's like mbars vs inHg for altimeter settings. For me, all comes down to speed in kts and Mach. If your reference speed is 420kt for example, you are flying at 7 Nm per minute, so that airfield 70 Nm away will be reached in 10 minutes, hence your fuel on arrival 10xFF in lbs/min. Same if you fly M 0.6, it's roughly 6 Nm per minutes, so you'll reach the same airfield in 11,5 minutes, hence another fuel. If I have a TGT 100 Nm away from push point, it will be an 11 minutes flight at 540kt, 22 minutes in and out, hence my fuel. Etc... I don't see myself working in tens of hours.

In the end it's certainly a question of habit. Having worked for ever in kg/min, I did not even thought that working in lbs/hour might even be possible Fuel management on older aircraft is done at a 10kg precision after several hours of flight, without any fancy FPAS page, so I intend to reach the same precision with the F18. I'll have to adapt the math, but in the end since I now understand where my mistake come from, I will get away with it. Learning the x 1,66 multiple table should not be that hard

Usually we're flying to waypoints that are minutes away, not hours away...

In that case it makes sense since 100/60 is around 2... But I wonder who invented it... On the M2000 you have it in kg/min which makes the calculation straightforward.

Hi, I've been struggling for a while for fuel management. I always came lower than expected, and I could'nt figure out why. Eventually, the issue seems to be quite simple: fuel flow seems bugged... When you take (left fuel flow + right fuel flow)*(time duration), you end up with approximately 50% of actual fuel consumption during that same duration. Is this a known issue? Is it an misunderstanding from my side due to units conversion? Is fuel flow not indicated in lbs per minute? Thanks

The recent additions to weather realism are great, and could be usefully pursued to the night sky. The thing that I miss the most: being able to watch galaxies and nebulae through NVGs! Once you've seen M31 galaxy or M42 nebulae through NVG, you don't look at the sky the same way anymore. It was particularly true on dark nights over cloud layers or in desert environments: night flight can then become true astronomy sessions. I'd be so happy to spot them through NVGs in DCS as well

Hello, As I mentioned it earlier in MP, very interesting work. I just had time to look at it deeper, and try to understand more clearly what you did. I still however have a doubt about your drag and lift coefficients, do you mind discussing it? I am just plainly looking at other available sources, for different missiles. Regarding the old V-625 rocket, we have Cx0 = around 0.2 at M 1.5 (per square meter) With ED's model from the paper shared before, we have Cx0 = around 0.15 at M 1.5 (per square meter) With V2 rockets, we have Cx0 = around 0.42 at M 1.5 (see here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254288747_Early_Warning_in_South_Asia-Constraints_and_Implications) (per square meter) With your own models: We have Cx0 around 0.8 at M1.5 for R-27 (both versions) and Cx0 above 1 for R-73. So my question is: why would these Cx0 coefficients be that much higher than for other missiles, even older ones that have not been optimized for supersonic speed (eg: V2) . Do you think that aerodynamics is that different that it could explain a times two Cx0 coefficient? Thanks for your hard work! I'd love to see that type of research done on more missiles

As you said above, FBW trim the aircraft for 1G. As soon as you are in a sustained turn or pull (e.g. you are circling around a target, or you are doing a loop) the aircraft will need trimming. It's also true when configuration is changing: a trimmed aicraft before lowering the gear will need re-trimming once the gear is down. Another case is when you are in a high angle of slope. It's because, I belive, the aircraft is not "path stable" as you said, but "G" stable. The auto-trim is for "1G" on aicraft axis. Moreover, auto-trim is only around the lateral axis (pitch). There is no auto trim for roll. Maybe you feel like that there is no need for trimming in DCS, but be assured that nobody would fly the real plane without a trim, even without failure.

The auto trim only works while AP is green. When it's orange or off, you have to trim manually. As for any other aircraft, as long as flight conditions are not varying much, there is no real need for trimming. But in the break, speed is changing a lot, the aircraft needs a lot of trimming to be in a fine condition for landing. It's good habit to do it manually on a regular basis instead of going through the AP, otherwise when you'll have to land with AP failure you'll be very surprised.

It's interesting to know that the main issue with this kind of device is the false alarm rate. If it's too high, you get accustomed to alarms while you perfectly know there is no danger, and stop reacting accordingly. Even if in theory only missile engines are detected, false alarms can be triggered by most heat sources (sun, engines, ground fires, etc...). Hence the idea that D2M should only be used on missions where they are useful : low level and high MANPAD threat.

The above procedure is what the 2/5 sqn teaches new pilots. It's the Truth as revealed by the Holy Father. Everything else is not official procedure, even if it works, whether you like it or not.

Yes, that's what I mean. Standar procedure is: Initial at 2000' QFE 350kt Descend 1500' QFE Break (middle of runway) 60°, idle, airbrakes on 220kt: check TNS warning, airbakes off Check engine response by slightly increasing RPM Gear down APP mode Check 3 greens no red light Check SPAD (frein light off) Trim plane At AOA 13° increase RPM Stabilise AOA at 14° and keep note of speed Check hydraulic pressure Turn when runway is 45° aft Slope - 7 to - 8° AOB around 40° Check 900' at 90° from runway AOB on demand to get on axis AP off at 200' VVI on runway threshold Idle when overflying the runway threshold, nose on runway end Once touched down: keep nose up until 110kt, unless in case of drag chute use (nose down ASAP) Nose wheel on runway: DIRAV on Check engine on ground idle Braking action : check - 0.2<Jx<-0.3 Once feeling at ease with this procedure, it can be expedited : Break beginning of runway at any speed (540kt+) Maximum G break Start final turn abeam threshold Some people use Airbrakes when wheels on the ground.

This part is not correct : "Slow down until 200 kt. - Maintain 200 kt" You should slow down to 14°AOA and keep in mind this reference speed. You'll have to maintien it in short final while on axis.

By the way, normal procedure checklist says that during engine test on runway before take-off, you must have RPM 95-103% and T7>800°C. Usual FF is around in 80-85 kg/min at that time. I had only 650°C, which is another hint that your temperature model has to be slightly tuned up.

When you check your start up sequence, you check that you have around 200° at 10%, 400° at 20%, 600° at 30%, etc... It increases to around 1000° and then falls back to lower temperatures. I agree with you that you should not expect 1200° at 60%... But it works really well up to 40%. If you have for example 500° at 20%, you know that you are "hotter than usual" and you prepare yourself for an aborted start up in case of overheat. Overheat might not happen, but still, better be prepared... Regarding RPM and fuel flow: I'd say that you idle fuel flow is slightly low. It was 15kg/min in normal regulation, while it's usually closer to 18. It might explain the low RPM in emergency regulation. But still fuel flow in emergency regulation is slightly higher than in normal one... Anyways, excellent job overall! Nice to see that your mode is still evolving.

Hello there, Thanks for the latest updates, much appreciated. Just in case it raises some interest, a few remarks regarding a few remaining issues: - when you put battery "on" before start up, you should see T7 and CALC lights flashing (self tests). If throttle is not off at that time, CALC light will stay "on". - the "engine fire" lights are push buttons that can be tested. - the "emergency landing gear down" is a "pull" command, not a "turn" command". It has a square shape that prevents it from turning around. - In my opinion fuel dump makes way too much "smoke". IRL fuel dump is more a faint "fog". - NWS seems to be put "on" by default (or keep its last state) on landing. I should always be "off" and require a pilot input to be turned "on". - start-up engine temperature is quite "hot". A rule of thumb is temperature = 20*RPM during start up (e.g.: 600°C at 30%). But fuel flow is far better than on earlier versions! - initial sec. carb. RPM without input at 42% is far too low. From 65% you should see a decrease to around 50% RPM, not that far below in the 40-ish% RPM. Engine might shut off at such a low RPM.

Even more on mode 1... that runs from 0 to 3. The real aircraft doesn't allow you to put the numbers above 3 (mode 1) and 7 (mode 3).

Hi, In fact this answer is partially correct. There is a Sec Calc + Sec Carb engine test that can be done on a regular basis upon mechanic's request. And the regular test on each flight is as follow: - put 65% rpm - sec. Carb down - check that RPM falls down around 50% - sec. Carb up - check that RPM returns to 65% _ put throttle back firmly to check that you don't cut off inadvertently or that RPM doesn't fall too much You're done. You don't use the RPM up and down in Sec Carb mode on regular test because it's a switch that not designed to be used too much, it's an emergency device.

For me it works only one way (up), not the other way (down).

Hi, Please find below some small issues still present at this time: Bingo sound still ringing only once, even without reset. Bingo sound ringing once when you put the AVER SONOR switch to on, even if you are far below the bingo fuel. With your logic, it should sound once at the bingo fuel, and if AVER SONOR is OFF it should not be heard at all. Bingo fuel setting: these are "infinite" wheels. You can go from 9 to 0 and from 0 to 9. Quickest way to go from 2 to 8 for example is 2-1-0-9-8, and not 2-3-4-5-6-7-8... Working only 1 way at this time. Radio: XFR not working. Normally recalls the last valid entry. (cockpit art) IFF: fault flag is always present with a weird orange color. Normal state is black, and if there is a fault then the color is white. IFF: mode 1 digits should go from 0 to 3 only. Mode 3 digits should go from 0 to 7 only. Alarm test 1/2: there should be an alarm sound if AVERT. SON. switch is on. Alarm test 1/2: PA/CDVE test panel lights should light up as well, same for IFF light. Alarm test 1/2: all lights don't light up on both tests. For example PC light is only on test 2. Fire alarm test: SEC/PC lights have to be pressed for the test. It lights them up and rings the alarm. SEC/PC light don't light up on alarm test 1/2. Fuel panel test: lights don't light up on the alarm test 1/2, they have their own test (L+J and TRANSF). Pressing DEMAR button with the throttle on idle doesn't launch the engine. It should begin the start-up sequence but result into an overheat. FREIN light is ON with the PARK brake active. FREIN light is only for rudder brake. Thanks

Hello, Not sure wether I should post it here or in the "objects" section. We made a mission where several bridges were the main targets. Planning accordingly to expert's advices regarding this type of target (e.g: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1293bridge ), we aimed at the abutment with a 2000 lbs GBU-10, on DLY1. Direct hits on those abutments made no visible damage, but a bomb hole was visible below the bridge. For the second runs, we went for an INST fuse, and this resulted into a visible destruction of the bridge, while it should have made a crater on the pavement. The question is: - can you detail how a (large) bridge is modelled, so that we can do advanced targeting on it? - more generally, where can we find details about target models (buildings, bunkers, hangars, etc...) in order to make some basic weaponeering? - bonus: is it normal that only the PWY III with a BLU-109 is available on the F-18C (sorry for that, I did not find the answer)? If needed, the .trk file of that mission can be provided. Thanks!

Hello, Please have a look at this topic: I hesitated between a F-18 and a weapon bug... It must come from F-18 way of computing release solution. Thanks.

Hello, We noticed an issue with GBU-16 in loft bombing on the F-18: the unguided ballistics is so long (2000') that the bomb never acquires the laser spot if we try to guide it. Therefore the bomb is always long and unguided. By comparison, an unguided GBU-12 in loft bombing is approximately 700' long, and can easily be lased to its target. Self-lasing loft bombing with GBU-12 is indeed quite effective. The attached tacview track will illustrate this issue: first pass is guided GBU-12 (direct hit), second pass is unguided GBU-12 (700' long), third and fourth passes are unguided GBU-10 (2000' long, laser ont target, climb 25° and 40°), last pass is guided GBU-12 (direct hit). Tests with GBU-10 are pending. Did anyone notice this issue already? Did anyone managed to do loft bombing with GBU-16? Thanks! Test GBU-12 and GBU-16.zip.acmi

Unfortunately it wouldn't help since M2000C can not carry and launch the Mica.

Same IRL experience as Chuck Henry. A/A bearing is exceptional. Most tankers only give a range. Bearing has to be obtained by other means...