On Mid Compression Bypass Circuit

[SuperSan]

  

Hi all,

 

I have some doubts concerning the mid compression bypass circuit.
To start, at the moment, the corresponding circuit breaker does not pop out, right? It's a bit awkward to test it, because the circuit breaker is on the right RIO panel (8D7), while the key binding is listed under the pilot section only. Wouldn't it make sense to add a key binding also for the RIO and animate it to pop out (and in)? If I'm not wrong, at the moment, there is no indication on the status of the bypass. As per NATOPS NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1 (p. 1-23), only planes after BUNO 160921 had a test panel for it.

 

A second doubt relates the potential use of the bypass. The chart showing its operation range (fig. 1-14 of the NATOPS manual, not classified, I purchased online a hard copy, but I'm not sure if I can post it here) shows the automatic range of operation for the bypass. The bypass automatically opens at high alpha and at high speed, to improve airflow quality downstream. My question is: how much thrust is gained keeping it close at high alpha? The manual only cautions against its use because of the increased risk of compressor stall at high alpha (p. 1-18) but does not quantify the potential benefit in terms of thrust (or I didn't find it yet).

  

[fat creason]

We have no plans to further expand upon the current MCB mechanics or functionality. The practice of pulling the CB itself IRL is questionable to point that I have considered removing the feature entirely. It's just not worth wasting my time on. Thrust loss can vary from 20-30% when it's active. Hope that answers all your questions.

Edited February 4, 2021 by fat creason

[SuperSan]

It does, thanks for taking the time to reply.

It's unfortunate that no further expansion is planned. At least a keybind for the RIO would make the system less awkward, since the CB panel is in its cockpit, and not in the pilots'.

[Uxi]

Dale Snodgrass said extra 2000 pounds of thrust.  

[fat creason]

50 minutes ago, SuperSan said:

It does, thanks for taking the time to reply.

It's unfortunate that no further expansion is planned. At least a keybind for the RIO would make the system less awkward, since the CB panel is in its cockpit, and not in the pilots'.

 

The entire situation is awkward because I'm pretty sure the RIO can't even reach the CB without really loosening all the straps on his seat, or at all. It's unfortunate that this embellished story was told in the first place. The whole story behind this CB is probably BS, hence it being a total waste of time to even discuss it. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by fat creason

[Quid]

There was apparently more than one way to do it - at least 4 other Tomcat pilots mentioned using the 16th stage bypass to get more thrust out of the TF-30 years ago at Tomcat-Sunset ("Hoser" Satrapa and "Turk" Pentecost both tested it during ACEVAL/AIMVAL workups).  It's also in Hoser's book, but he specifically states it was used for a bugout at low altitude.  He also doesn't mention a need to pull a circuit breaker.  Rather, the RIO switches the AWG-9 to standby, and the pilot changes the Air Source to OFF.  Per the NATOPS, this inhibits firing the gun, pressurization and air conditioning, so it is something you'd only do at low altitude to disengage, because you're essentially turning off all of your weapon systems and a life support system for a short burst of increased thrust to get out of combat.  He described it thus:

 

"Zone 6:  On command, the RO [sic] would go to standby on the AWG-9 as the pilot would punch "Air Source Off".  This produces between 850 to 1125 pounds of additional thrusties: cutting off the TF-30 16th stage bleed air used for AWG-9 cooling, pressurization, and a/c.  Simultaneously, the pilot would unload, roll in the droops [flaps] and manually sweep the wings to 68 degrees.  Why wait to let the wings blow back (drag) and the lifties were certainly not needed.  And of course, since the task at hand was getting the hell outta Dodge post haste and getting on the deck (thereby shrinking the 9L envelope), the radar was not in the equation since it did not look aft.  'Turk' Pentecost and I discussed these unique Turkey procedures with Monroe "Hawk" Smith (then CO of TOPGUN) and it was mutually decided that although it works, we should keep it close to the vest on a "need to know" level." ("Hoser Here, Shoot!," pg. 86)

 

I'd assume the circuit breaker is doing essentially the same thing, and if so, it should also have the same ramifications, so I'm not sure how you'd use it while still intending to engage an enemy.  As it stands, it's impractical under most circumstances, so if it stays as a very basic button interaction, great.  If it goes away, I'm not sure how many people would miss it.

[fat creason]

The MCB and bleed systems are entirely separate and have nothing to do with each other.

[Elliot]

On 2/4/2021 at 7:04 PM, fat creason said:

 

The entire situation is awkward because I'm pretty sure the RIO can't even reach the CB without really loosening all the straps on his seat, or at all. It's unfortunate that this embellished story was told in the first place. The whole story behind this CB is probably BS, hence it being a total waste of time to even discuss it. 

 

does it turn back on if you switch to the rio pit? i can't seem to get it to work as the MCB test switch lights always stay lit

Edited June 25, 2023 by Elliot

[r4y30n]

Responding to every thread that’s been written about the MCB is not going to get your questions answered any sooner. If you think it’s a bug then write it up in the bug forum with all the notes and logs/tracks and HB will have a look.

[Elliot]

k

[fat creason]

I'm leaning towards just removing the MCB keybind and associated code, it's pretty silly.

[Uxi]

3 hours ago, fat creason said:

I'm leaning towards just removing the MCB keybind and associated code, it's pretty silly.

Snort will haunt you if you do. 

[Jayhawk1971]

 

[Callsign JoNay]

23 hours ago, fat creason said:

I'm leaning towards just removing the MCB keybind and associated code, it's pretty silly.

I don't know why. I've heard lots of SMEs on youtube talk about how they pulled breakers to give themselves an edge. I think pulling breakers is part of the spirit and legend/lore of the Tomcat, and I wish HB would lean into that more. I'm sad that we never got a breaker for the main flaps.

[Naquaii]

5 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

I don't know why. I've heard lots of SMEs on youtube talk about how they pulled breakers to give themselves an edge. I think pulling breakers is part of the spirit and legend/lore of the Tomcat, and I wish HB would lean into that more. I'm sad that we never got a breaker for the main flaps.

Legend, sure! But the fact is that the more we delve into the stories and talk to SMEs the more obvious it becomes that the people who did that were the exception and that it's very doubtful that there were any real advantage from doing it.

[Kageseigi]

2 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Legend, sure! But the fact is that the more we delve into the stories and talk to SMEs the more obvious it becomes that the people who did that were the exception and that it's very doubtful that there were any real advantage from doing it.

 

Oh my, why am getting William Wallace vibes from the Tomcat all of a sudden?

That's ok. I still believe in the fire and lightning!  

Sure, Eagles can fly with only one wing, but Tomcats don't need any... just like Superman  

Edited June 28, 2023 by Kageseigi

[Callsign JoNay]

[FR4GGL3]

On 6/28/2023 at 10:54 PM, Naquaii said:

Legend, sure! But the fact is that the more we delve into the stories and talk to SMEs the more obvious it becomes that the people who did that were the exception and that it's very doubtful that there were any real advantage from doing it.

It might have no real advantage, but then again what advantage have modeled strings and patches on the instrument table to show the wear and tear? I guess both things are simply  part of the Tomcat fascination. And that's the reason why ppl want every single detail. If you would have only simulated the things you really need for a Tomcat, the Module wouldn't be such a great Module. And I can't thank you enough for it.

I get the fact that you need to choose which backlog items are worth it - especially if there is an entire F4 and a Eurofighter which have its on backlogs. But then we shouldn't discuss the "advantage" alone. No offense - I just want to get you an idea why people won't stop asking for it.

Edited June 30, 2023 by FR4GGL3

[Naquaii]

6 hours ago, FR4GGL3 said:

It might have no real advantage, but then again what advantage have modeled strings and patches on the instrument table to show the wear and tear? I guess both things are simply  part of the Tomcat fascination. And that's the reason why ppl want every single detail. If you would have only simulated the things you really need for a Tomcat, the Module wouldn't be such a great Module. And I can't thank you enough for it.

I get the fact that you need to choose which backlog items are worth it - especially if there is an entire F4 and a Eurofighter which have its on backlogs. But then we shouldn't discuss the "advantage" alone. No offense - I just want to get you an idea why people won't stop asking for it.

 

You're comparing something that adds visual fidelity that everyone will see to a non-intended function that does so little people actually thought it was bugged and not working while in fact it worked all along.

[FR4GGL3]

Ooookay. Visual Fidelity... it is nice and funny (despite the fact a lot of people asked how to disable it as soon as it was brought into the Module). But it is still not "important" in any way if you think of it from the standpoint of the users. And that is why I compared it to something that people are wondering about although it is such a small detail.

But I get your point. You are a developer of a Software. You might rank importancy on things like how many people will recognize feature X. The people here don't see it only as a Software, they love the plane and that is why they love your product and its detail. That is why they are so dedicated to the smallest things. I guess we have simply differnt views on the same thing. What I want to say is that all the questions and bug reports (even if they aren't bugs) are not here to upset you. The people here love your product so much that they want it to be polished as much as it could. And they/we also forget that we already got a lot for our money.

Again: thank you. But plz don't get upset about Questions about things that might be completely obsolete in your eyes.

Edited June 30, 2023 by FR4GGL3

[Naquaii]

41 minutes ago, FR4GGL3 said:

Ooookay. Visual Fidelity... it is nice and funny (despite the fact a lot of people asked how to disable it as soon as it was brought into the Module). But it is still not "important" in any way if you think of it from the standpoint of the users. And that is why I compared it to something that people are wondering about although it is such a small detail.

But I get your point. You are a developer of a Software. You might rank importancy on things like how many people will recognize feature X. The people here don't see it only as a Software, they love the plane and that is why they love your product and its detail. That is why they are so dedicated to the smallest things. I guess we have simply differnt views on the same thing. What I want to say is that all the questions and bug reports (even if they aren't bugs) are not here to upset you. The people here love your product so much that they want it to be polished as much as it could. And they/we also forget that we already got a lot for our money.

Again: thank you. But plz don't get upset about Questions about things that might be completely obsolete in your eyes.

 

I can assure you I'm not upset in any way. I was just a bit surprised by the comparison that's all.

Looking at it from the other side it's kinda hard to see why people are so single-mindedly chasing a circuit breaker that does so little it might as well just be a fidget spinner.

[FR4GGL3]

Because the Guys that talked about it are regarded to be some of the best. That ist why people want to try the same. We only have DCS. We aren't blessed by flying the real Thing back then. And we won't get any closer.

It might be foolish, especially from the point of your real Pilots. But it is at least my point of view. So taking such things out of the code would hurt a bit

 

[Naquaii]

23 minutes ago, FR4GGL3 said:

Because the Guys that talked about it are regarded to be some of the best. That ist why people want to try the same. We only have DCS. We aren't blessed by flying the real Thing back then. And we won't get any closer.

It might be foolish, especially from the point of your real Pilots. But it is at least my point of view. So taking such things out of the code would hurt a bit

 

Well, it's still there so feel free to press that button as much as you want!

[RustBelt]

13 hours ago, FR4GGL3 said:

Because the Guys that talked about it are regarded to be some of the best.

 

The best at not checking their damn control locks anyways. 

[FR4GGL3]

I should have written the Guys that talked about using the MCB in real life are regarded to be some of the best.

Nevermind.