correct as-is Current FM Thrust-Drag w/ 3 bags vs Real World

[wilbur81]

Since Wags and Wombat have a very entertaining and ever-growing YT buddy-ship happening, I thought I'd ask about this one and see if someone on the Team could follow up with Wombat about the real Legacy Hornet in order to get ours ever closer in this regard:

Though anecdotally, Wombat talks in this clip about a Carrier-Qual. take off with three full bags in the Legacy Hornet where he breaks the Mach at around 500 feet off the water:

"kept it in blower at 500 feet, a couple miles off the ship I went through Mach 1, and it shocked me."

https://youtu.be/APAEykrfUZs?si=_Gql1s7iqzHXUDEc&t=1110

I've done several tests at different altitudes at San Diego-like air temps: the best I can get with a three-bag-otherwise-slick Hornet between 500 and 1000 ft MSL is Mach 0.91 (as you can see in the track attached...it can't break 0.90M in DCS currently until the very end before gas has gotten really low). In my test, I even reduced the internal gas to 20% at takeoff to see if it made a difference, which it did not... 

Just wondering if Wombat and Wags could compare notes to see if we are where we should be with our -402 EPE simulation and drag model, in comparison to the real world rough conditions Wombat describes, with the current FM update.

Thanks for looking into it and all your INCREDIBLE work on this latest patch. DCS has never looked or ran better. Golden Age.

Wombat3bagsTEST.trk

Edited February 26 by wilbur81

[BIGNEWY]

I will mention it to Wags, but we need data to work with, as we have done for for all flight models. SME feedback is very helpful but not always accurate, which is why we rely on data more. 

If you have evidence that something is wrong please PM me. 

thank you 

[wilbur81]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I will mention it to Wags, but we need data to work with, as we have done for for all flight models. SME feedback is very helpful but not always accurate, which is why we rely on data more. 

If you have evidence that something is wrong please PM me. 

thank you 

Thanks for looking into it, BIGNEWY. I have no data, just this anecdote... I figured Wags and Wombat could sort it out for us when they get a chance. Cheers!

PS - This isn't necessarily 'data,' and I know that these condensation vapes can be produced slightly before going through the Mach... but thought I'd throw this in anyway. Some thoughts: Note the empty pylons in addition to the three tanks. This photo is most likely taken from the boat for a low alt. 'morale pass' as you rarely get those vapes at altitude. Currently, our Hornet will get no where near 0.97m-1.00m down low with three tanks (and that's without the extra pylons). Here's the caption and link: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_speed#/media/File:FA-18_Hornet_breaking_sound_barrier_(7_July_1999)_-_filtered.jpg

Off the coast of Pusan, South Korea: An F/A-18 Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron One Five One (VFA-151) breaks the sound barrier in the skies over the Pacific Ocean. VFA-151 is deployed aboard USS Constellation (CVN 64). This is an edited version (reduced grain).

...and here is another similar photo example with link and caption for reference:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supersonic_aircraft_breaking_sound_barrier.jpg

The Commanding Officer of the "Black Knights" of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron Three One Four (VMFA-314) performs a supersonic fly-by for Columbia's visual effects unit, while filming for the motion picture production "Stealth" on board USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). The Bremerton, Wash.-based nuclear powered aircraft carrier is currently underway for the first time since returning from an eight and half month western pacific deployment. Carl Vinson is conducting training with Carrier Air Wing Nine (CVW-9) and units of the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group.

Edited February 27 by wilbur81

[Tiger-II]

Not sure why it would be questionable that an aircraft can go supersonic with fuel tanks? Anything can go very fast; it's a question of whether it remains intact.

A flaw with many, many flight sims, is they have artificial walls of performance "because an aircraft can't go faster than x with y". That simply isn't true. What is an operational limit isn't an absolute limit.

[wilbur81]

2 hours ago, Tiger-II said:

Not sure why it would be questionable that an aircraft can go supersonic with fuel tanks? Anything can go very fast; it's a question of whether it remains intact.

A flaw with many, many flight sims, is they have artificial walls of performance "because an aircraft can't go faster than x with y". That simply isn't true. What is an operational limit isn't an absolute limit.

I totally see what you're getting at... but that is not the nature of the question or the bug report... It is this: The real Legacy Hornet can apparently (but that's why we're here in this thread) safely hit very close (per the photos) or even break (per pilot's anecdote above) Mach 1 down low with three bags... Our simulated Legacy Hornet in DCS currently cannot.

Edited February 27 by wilbur81

[KLaFaille]

On the other side of the altitude scale, there's definitely been a loss of performance as well.  I would often take off from land and do CAP in the Hornet on GreyFlag Syria or PG with 3 bags, 6x120C, and 2x9X and could quite leisurely hang out in an orbit up around 48k to 49k feet at mach 1, giver or take .1 either way. Have TacView acmi tracks showing it. After the update with the same load out I can only get up to a similar orbit at around 42k feet, with empty bags, and only hit around .98 mach. Above that the plane doesn't have the thrust to maintain altitude. Then there's the fuel consumption problem introduced with the update to contend with on top of it.

Edited February 27 by KLaFaille

[wilbur81]

53 minutes ago, KLaFaille said:

On the other side of the altitude scale, there's definitely been a loss of performance as well.  I would often take off from land and do CAP in the Hornet on GreyFlag Syria or PG with 3 bags, 6x120C, and 2x9X and could quite leisurely hang out in an orbit up around 48k to 49k feet at mach 1, giver or take .1 either way. Have TacView acmi tracks showing it. After the update with the same load out I can only get up to a similar orbit at around 42k feet, with empty bags, and only hit around .98 mach. Above that the plane doesn't have the thrust to maintain altitude. 

 

There may be a slight reduction on that side of the envelope too... but I have no knowledge of what a real  EPE Legacy Hornet could do at that altitude, especially with that particular (very draggy) configuration (and I'm VERY confident there's nothing available that isn't classified). To stay on topic though, I've started this thread because there is  available reason to believe that our DCS Hornet should quite possibly be able to get to (possibly exceed?) M1.0 with three bags and otherwise slick down low...which it currently cannot in-game. But again, all I have to contribute is some photos and the anecdotes of Wombat. 

Edited February 27 by wilbur81

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

A quick test in-game with 3 bags and nothing else but wingtip Sidewinders:

500ft: M0.99 (655KIAS)
3000ft: M1.03
30000ft: M1.5+ (I decided to RTB but was still accelerating)

[wilbur81]

Whoa... how did you manage M0.99 at 500ft!? Did you watch my track? I was at 700ft in my test and couldn't break M 0.90 until the final few miles when I got to Mach 0.91... and I didn't even have wingtip Sidewinders and started with 20% internal fuel at 14 deg Cel. air temp.

Are you on 9.2.3 and do you have a track of your flight? 

**EDIT** Well, I'll be darned!! I went back and tried my test again, Raven. But this time, I created a new mission from scratch (I believe my first test was the stock Persian Gulf Carrier Launch Supercarrier mission or some similar, older stock mission). Same config, same altitudes, air temps, and fuel loads...and got almost exactly what Wombat describes. 

BIGNEWY, unless we still want to do some testing with the extra pylons and the Mach passes as displayed in my two real world pics above (which I have not yet) to see how she does in-game, I guess you can go ahead and delete this thread...but I'm wondering if there is some mission corruption with the new update and stock missions?

Edited February 28 by wilbur81

[VFA41_Lion]

7 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

I totally see what you're getting at... but that is not the nature of the question or the bug report... It is this: The real Legacy Hornet can apparently (but that's why we're here in this thread) safely hit very close (per the photos) or even break (per pilot's anecdote above) Mach 1 down low with three bags... Our simulated Legacy Hornet in DCS currently cannot.

 

Did you put it in full afterburner as the quote says "blower" ?

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

(I believe my first test was the stock Persian Gulf Carrier Launch Supercarrier mission or some similar, older stock mission).

That’s what I did: the stock F-18 take-off single mission on the SoH map - I only edited the loadout.

[wilbur81]

4 minutes ago, VFA41_Lion said:

Did you put it in full afterburner as the quote says "blower" ?

Indeed...I had the controls indicator on as well just to confirm... I think it must have been a faulty mission as mentioned about. A freshly created mission and things looked good.

[oldcrusty]

I think someone needs to run some tests on how old some missions, certain mods, tweaks and hacks effect new builds.  Seriously, for a while I thought there was some sort of 'enhanced' beta testing going on with different code versions, lol.  Wilbur81 made me load up 3 bags and haul ass then make a short vid and scrap it after Raven confirmed what I saw in my test.   I think we also have similar situation with landing gear damage... I still can't get it through my head how I could dive for the deck at 1300f/min and let the exaggerated ground effect shave off 300f/min from my descent then slam on the deck at 900 and be happy and other folks breaking up at 700f/min.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Yup I slammed the thing down hard on purpose as well after those reports but the undercarriage just laughed it off

[KLaFaille]

On 2/27/2024 at 3:56 PM, wilbur81 said:

Whoa... how did you manage M0.99 at 500ft!? Did you watch my track? I was at 700ft in my test and couldn't break M 0.90 until the final few miles when I got to Mach 0.91... and I didn't even have wingtip Sidewinders and started with 20% internal fuel at 14 deg Cel. air temp.

Are you on 9.2.3 and do you have a track of your flight? 

**EDIT** Well, I'll be darned!! I went back and tried my test again, Raven. But this time, I created a new mission from scratch (I believe my first test was the stock Persian Gulf Carrier Launch Supercarrier mission or some similar, older stock mission). Same config, same altitudes, air temps, and fuel loads...and got almost exactly what Wombat describes. 

BIGNEWY, unless we still want to do some testing with the extra pylons and the Mach passes as displayed in my two real world pics above (which I have not yet) to see how she does in-game, I guess you can go ahead and delete this thread...but I'm wondering if there is some mission corruption with the new update and stock missions?

 

Well I'm glad you got it all worked out.  I loaded your track from the first post and the jet never went past of full MIL. Took control of the jet, touched nothing but putting it in AB and hit 1.04 mach.

Edited February 29 by KLaFaille

[wilbur81]

32 minutes ago, KLaFaille said:

Well I'm glad you got it all worked out.  I loaded your track from the first post and the jet never went past of full MIL. Took control of the jet, touched nothing but putting it in AB and hit 1.04 mach.

 

Gosh, I'm an idiot.  I was doing some MIL power top speed testing too and must have just crossed my i's and dotted my x's that day.

[KLaFaille]

Just now, wilbur81 said:

Gosh, I'm an idiot.  I was doing some MIL power top speed testing too and must have just crossed my i's and dotted my x's that day.

We all have those days.