Lockon 1.2.1 ...few thoughts on Flightmodel

[GGTharos]

Well, I know someone who knows someone who says that's exactly why they put it there... :D

 

..man, they havent put a gun on the raptor to simulate Lockon :D

[A.S]

:D ...go tell that the IAF ...

Edited May 9, 2010 by A.S

[159th_Viper]

WHAT!.........the Raptor as a gun!

 

 

Indeed - even Plinked a F-16 - Simulated exercise, of course. Then again, was Gunned by a Hornet.......:P

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/weapons.html#

[mikoyan]

The MiG-29 is good at dogfighting, but the reason why F15 pilots would and should not "get close" to them is that they would then be willingly leaving the regime where they are strong (BVR) and entering the regime where the MiG is strong (WVR) - with off-boresight missiles and such fun stuff a merge with a MiG-29 is quite simply a risk not worth taking when you have the fuel to use the burners to just re-gain separation and take a new AIM-120 shot.

 

So it's not really a case of "do this and you'll die", it's a case of "you have no reason to do this".

 

Mikoyan: I can. Well, I haven't tried the Flanker, but getting the Eagle to depart is real easy. Standard spin-control-crossing will do it if you're in a dangerous flight regime. (Basically, get slow, increase your AoA, then cross controls and voila!)

 

I was on game flight model :)

[Moa]

I have to agree with Fusion.

Ask ANY fighterpilot who finished UPT and is in active duty, what he will tell you about modern close combat doctrines and why it is STILL very important.

 

..man, they havent put a gun on the raptor to simulate Lockon :D

 

My point was not that learning BFM is a waste of time. Far from it. What I was trying to say was that learning WVR fighting should not be prioritised over learning BVR fighting when a pilot is just starting. Obviously, once they have some time up they should work on their WVR.

 

The lesson of Vietnam is less relevant than it used to be. Unfortunately, many new pilots seem to concentrate on practicing snap-shot gun and heater kills when they should be working on honing their BVR tactics. While WVR skills are excellent in training situations and the TCL arena, in multi-squad tournament games they are required far more rarely than BVR skills (it took me a long time for this to sink in). The newer players never get close enough to use their gun an heater skills in such events. I just didn't want those that are new and with limited time taking away the wrong lesson from history and this discussion.

 

Thanks for sharing your insights on the new flight models.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Moa

[GGTharos]

My point was not that learning BFM is a waste of time. Far from it. What I was trying to say was that learning WVR fighting should not be prioritised over learning BVR fighting when a pilot is just starting. Obviously, once they have some time up they should work on their WVR.

 

That's not right - but probably for non-obvious reasons. As a UPT pilot you will be practicing BFM type stuff often and you might not even know it. BFM is basic aircraft handling on one hand, and perception/knowledge on the other. You also BFM missiles (same principles) so while you're right that it should not be prioritized over BVR, I'm just adding this to say that both are pretty equal - I know you didn't mean to say that BVR is more important, it's just how these arguments are taken usually.

[3Sqn_TomAce]

Glad to see this has worked out.

 

My 2 cents on the BFM, ACM, WVR/BVR debate is yes they are both equally important should BFM come first on the training schedule... yes it should, it's an important building block towards becoming a well rounded fighter pilot. Skills gained during the BFM phase will be use over and over during further training. Additionally your ability to critique your own and others BFM performance can only be gained once you understand the concepts of applied BFM. As Moa said this comment is more for the new guys to take something away from this thread.

[Bearitall]

Pilots are learning things even when they don't realize it. They have so much info thrown their way it is impossible to understand it all at that point. It's not until later that they see "why that happened or that's why they thought that". If any of you guys seen the schedule, hours in the books and briefings that pilots go through, you would really appreciate the crap that they go through. It's not an easy road and takes a long time to get through. Everything goes hand in hand with everything.

 

If you guys could find the 11-F16 Multi-command handbook, read that a few times and then do it again. I can upload it if some of you want to give it a go.

 

I would like to see the handbook, as far as the members here, well most of them do understand the undertaking of what pilots go thru from one flight to the next..most here are real life pilots..I fly with several Retired Naval pilots and some new recruits..so we hear all about it..the intense manuals having to log and read..but thanks worth noting....:thumbup:

[3Sqn_TomAce]

Hey Hawk would like a look also if you don't mind cheers.

[104th_Crunch]

F16 Multi-command handbook

http://www.388th.org/files/wing_docs/16v5.pdf

Easy to find this one

[104th_Crunch]

I printed this out and put in a binder probably 10 years ago :) That was when I could print things at work during lunch when no one was looking :)

[Sarge55]

Wow, just started reading it. This is great info and structured nicely to, thanks for the link Crunch.

[A.S]

:)

[A.S]

Test F-15 in numbers

 

Test in numbers

(slighty tolerances probably due to test accuracy, although i tried to be very precise.)

 

Test was executed according to given F-15 real EM-chart:

37000lbs Grossweight, F-15Clean, PW-220, Sea-level..no Flaps

 

Testpoints: (sustaining)

 

Mach 0.290 = 15,8 deg/s 2.956G

Mach 0.350 = 16,3 deg/s 3.630G

Mach 0.400 = 16,8 deg/s 4.210G

Mach 0.500 = 18,0 deg/s 5.530G

Mach 0.600 = 18,6 deg/s 6.800G

Mach 0.700 = 19.2 deg/s 7.880G (Lockon G/AoA limiter, but still fine)

 

As you can see, lockon 2.0s latest patch is - in terms of F-15 - pretty accurate, which is nice and worth a compliment.

Further regimes i havent tested (also no other yets, well, i have but...not this way) anyways....just shows the errors from previous release are nicely

fixed. With full AB and max pull mach 0.290 was the slowest speed i could sustain, slower just doesnt fly (under that testconfig), which is also nice.

 

 

 

Next thing im going to do, is testing other jets in comparsion (grossweight etc etc), their performances and "handligns" in different regimes, rates, radius, accellaration etc....that shall give enough picture to see how to fight with them.

Whatsoever- drifting off here- Good Job so far DCS !

Edited May 12, 2010 by A.S

[FLANKERATOR]

Kudos A.S, amazing job...

[Scudslaker]

agree,) rep inbound

[RvEFuSiOn]

There is a small issue with the nose bobbing on the F-15C that makes for very rough turning. I'm hoping this issue will be resolved or looked at. YoYo i was hoping to get some comments from you on this.

I have posted about this by mistake on another post but I did want to mention this over here.

 

Peace

[Pilotasso]

you mean nose bouncing? AFAIK its there IRL. Not even fly by wire aircraft escape it.

[RvEFuSiOn]

Not like how it is in the current F-15, it's very violent, and inaccurate. The rate at which the nose goes in to a sort of negative pitch is the same in all conditions and currently its not correct by any stretch.

Peace

[IvanK]

Pilotasso can you define what you mean that "nose bouncing" is in real aircraft ?

 

Fly By wire aircraft by the very nature of the control laws pretty much counter all trim changes due to things like configuration changes etc.

Edited May 14, 2010 by IvanK

[71st_Mastiff]

this is true I work out near NAF and watch the F18's go by and they will give us on the area a nose bounce. as if to say I see ya down there. I think the pilot was interested to see what was down were I was at, in the middle of no where. ( A prison ) lol

 

you mean nose bouncing? AFAIK its there IRL. Not even fly by wire aircraft escape it.

[Pilotasso]

Pilotasso can you define what you mean that "nose bouncing" is in real aircraft ?

 

Fly By wire aircraft by the very nature of the control laws pretty much counter all trim changes due to things like configuration changes etc.

 

 

I was not talking about trim. But even then yes, FBW must be trimmed (ever wondered what that top hat swich is for? ;) ) because there are no 2 airframes alike (bending etc), just not so much as non FBW.

 

I was talking about changes in input translated into movement. You really cant avoid nose bouncing then. Just watch any HUD tape from any FBW aircraft you'll see some nose drifting up and down and even sideways. Making aircraft fly in rails is just impossible, its not like star trek inertial dampers. Not only that FBW system must have a reaction time and some tolerances defined or it would return errors all the time.

 

 

Pilots often describe "flying in rails" sensation but general public mistaken it for something else: They mean the computer provides predictable behavior in an automated fashion to imputs inside the controlable limits as compared to previous aircraft where you had to compensate everything yourself by using different control surfaces and even engine (gyro couples+roll for example) where departure depended only on piloting skill. Thats it.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Pilotasso

[IvanK]

Pilotasso said:

 

"I was not talking about trim. But even then yes, FBW must be trimmed (ever wondered what that top hat swich is for? ;) ) because there are no 2 airframes alike (bending etc), just not so much as non FBW.

 

I was talking about changes in input translated into movement. You really cant avoid nose bouncing then. Just watch any HUD tape from any FBW aircraft you'll see some nose drifting up and down and even sideways. Making aircraft fly in rails is just impossible, its not like star trek inertial dampers. Not only that FBW system must have a reaction time and some tolerances defined or it would return errors all the time"

 

I disagree completely, having flown 4 different FBW types (2 fighters) and 2 transport types. Of these only one ... the F18 required trimming and then only when on approach with the gear down and this only to provide AOA feedback cues to the pilot. All these types I would describe as on rails with no slip skid or pitch bouncing as you describe. Pitch response and ability to place the nose precisely where you want is impeccable in these aircraft .... far more so than in conventional non FBW types. Sure the flight control surfaces are wiggling away but the flight path and aircraft attitude is rock steady. The very essence of most FBW Flight control laws is to provide stable zero sideslip flight ! Even asymmetric stores or a "bent" aeroplane is handled (within reasonable limits) by a FBW system automatically.

 

In the current type I fly pilot inputs are basically select the attitude required (both pitch and bank) and then remove all stick pressures. The attitude is maintained exactly as demanded.

 

Getting back to FC2, FC2 has an inherent pitch instability issue that can lead to Pilot induced oscillations particularly at the higher speeds.. it was there in all versions of Lomac previously as well. The cure is smooth control inputs and trimming as accurately as you can. Setting Joyrange value to a higher number (like 1024) imo reduces this tendency.

 

In conventional aircraft imprecise trimming results in the pilot holding stick forces and that tends to reduce precision and increases the pilots difficulty in maintaing a precise attitude. The key to accurate precise flying in these types is TRIM.... as the saying goes "Trim or die". In FC2 Pitch trim is not very precise and trimming accurately is quite difficult and hence adds to the problem. If physical trim inputs could be smaller and more precise I think things would be a whole lot better. In most FBW types the trimming is done for you so as a result fight path control is always precise and the pilot workload dramatically reduced.

Edited May 14, 2010 by IvanK

[Pilotasso]

Interesting read Ivan, I would also like to know what aircraft you flew. Though I have to say the F-15 is not FBW.

 

You said you disagreed completely but looking at what you and I wrote, there is not much actual difference. oh well... :)

Edited May 14, 2010 by Pilotasso

[EtherealN]

If physical trim inputs could be smaller and more precise I think things would be a whole lot better.

 

Question here: in my own experience trim is extremely precise - all I did was reduce saturation to 20 on the trim axes.