F/A-18F Super Hornet (New Model) V1.9

+***EricJ*** · March 6, 2009

View File

F/A-18F Super Hornet (New Model) V1.9

READ THE README

requires 7z to open:

http://www.7z.org

Adobe PDF for the readme:

http://www.adobe.com

Has weapon additions, and skin templates.

Falls under the Combatace.com Freeware License Agreement :good:

Version 1.9 Fixes:

-Improved Textures from the SF2 Version used.

-Fuel capacity adjusted from the US Navy NATOPS manual.

-SHARP Pod also included including weapondata additions.

It should be advised that this was designed for SFP1/WOV/WOI/WOE, not Strike Fighters 2 as issues from that game will affect gameplay to varying degrees.

If you wish to use this in SF2 DO NOT use this version, go here: http://combatace.com/files/file/9401-super-hornet-package-for-sf2-v19/

Submitter

EricJ
Submitted

03/06/2009
Category

F/A-18 Hornet

**gbnavy61** · March 6, 2009

Well, it's no Tomcat, but it's all I got right now.

A preemptive BZ, boys! Thanks for all the hard work.

**GASCAN39** · March 6, 2009

This should be an outstanding addition......Tango Mike

+**Spectre_USA** · March 6, 2009

You Horrible, horrible men!

I have another 4 hours to go here on the help desk, and you release not just one but 3 tasty insects!

Ah, well, at least it's my Friday, so when I do get off, I'll have the whole weekend to release my inner Hornet. :biggrin:

Many thanks guys, I am pretty sure there are going to be many Su's, MiG's, SAM's and ZSU's burned in your honor this fine weekend...

:good:

**topcat II** · March 6, 2009

Just A Great job guys!! Thank YOU

**gbnavy61** · March 6, 2009

After a couple test sorties, I can say she's a treat to fly. There's a few less MiGs in the sky and a few more ships at the bottom of the Med.

Only a couple gripes, but one of note: seems my A/G radar is inop. Any suggestions? (Using WOI w/ latest patch.)

(Other minor, minor gripes:

- HUD AOB indicator is misaligned as in the AC-130U - it's way off to the left and only visible when banked over to the right.

- front pilot's seat is too high relative to rear pilot's seat.)

Overall, great work, everyone! I'll by you guys a round if I ever get the chance. Great jet, fun to fly and I love the attention to detail.

Edited March 6, 2009 by gbnavy61

+**X RAY** · March 6, 2009

Great work!

I've found a problem on ground,not much in the E but F and G are suffering cause their landing gears are below ground level is a way to fix it?

**Vader2** · March 6, 2009

:notworthy:

Thank you gents!

+***EricJ*** · March 6, 2009

Great work!
I've found a problem on ground,not much in the E but F and G are suffering cause their landing gears are below ground level is a way to fix it?

I'm not sure if it's a PC issue. Vampyre reported it but didn't think much of it because it doesn't happen on my computer, so that's what I chalked it up as....

gbnavy61:

Ehh.... this is off of the MF A HUD, so not too sure if it's just the model setting and the A HUD being incorporated. Gotcha on the seats.

And thanks all :good:

**FastCargo** · March 6, 2009

Great work!
I've found a problem on ground,not much in the E but F and G are suffering cause their landing gears are below ground level is a way to fix it?

On an airfield or on the carrier? Also, X RAY, if I remember correctly, you have a Oct 08 install and a previous version install. The way the engine handles shock values has changed between versions. This aircraft was flown in the Oct 08 version.

FC

+**X RAY** · March 6, 2009

On an airfield or on the carrier? Also, X RAY, if I remember correctly, you have a Oct 08 install and a previous version install. The way the engine handles shock values has changed between versions. This aircraft was flown in the Oct 08 version.

FC

Airfield,all new mods like these are installed in Oct 08 version

+**X RAY** · March 7, 2009

Airfield,all new mods like these are installed in Oct 08 version

Fixed,was the "Belly landing" entries!

**gbnavy61** · March 7, 2009

Okay, not sure if this is a boo-boo or just me not grasping some aerodynamic concepts.

I push left rudder. The nose swings a little to the left, then the bird starts to roll to the right and yaw to the right. And vice versa.

Is this the correct response? If so, please elaborate for me.

On deck, NWS inputs work just fine.

**mdatelmi** · March 7, 2009

Great Bug! :good:

+***EricJ*** · March 7, 2009

Okay, not sure if this is a boo-boo or just me not grasping some aerodynamic concepts.

I push left rudder. The nose swings a little to the left, then the bird starts to roll to the right and yaw to the right. And vice versa.

Is this the correct response? If so, please elaborate for me.

On deck, NWS inputs work just fine.

Well honestly not sure, I don't use rudder at all (shock to the "purists" but I like my plane relatively stable) but will have to investigate. Hasn't been reported by anybody else other than the stability when landing or otherwise.

Again thanks!

**serverandenforcer** · March 7, 2009

Okay, not sure if this is a boo-boo or just me not grasping some aerodynamic concepts.

I push left rudder. The nose swings a little to the left, then the bird starts to roll to the right and yaw to the right. And vice versa.

Is this the correct response? If so, please elaborate for me.

On deck, NWS inputs work just fine.

This is a common issue with ALL the hornets (inlcuding the legacy hornets) here at CA. I did some serious experimenting on them when the other F/A-18F was released last year to see if I could find a solution to the problem but wasn't able to come up with one.

**gbnavy61** · March 7, 2009

I thought I remembered the old A model doing that too. Weird.

**FastCargo** · March 7, 2009

Yep, SaE and I went round and round trying to figure that one out. There is one other option I'd like to try, but I'm a little leery since my video card has been showing signs of giving up the ghost.

FC

**serverandenforcer** · March 8, 2009

Is it possible to have the left elevon pitch up for left rudder input to compensate for the right roll that would be made without it, and visa versa for the right elevon for right rudder? I don't think we experimented with that yet.

EDIT: The idea works! With minor elevon compensation, it counter-balances the opposing roll when applying rudder input.

Copy this and replace it for the entries for LeftStab and RightStab...

[LeftStab]
ParentComponentName=Fuselage
ModelNodeName=LeftElevator
DestroyedNodeName=
ShowFromCockpit=TRUE
DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE
DamageRating=DISABLED
MassFraction=0.007
HasAeroCoefficients=TRUE
LiftSurface=TRUE
CL0=-0.0185
CLa=0.1809
CD0=0.0004
CDL=0.0001
Cmq=-2.4983
Cmad=-1.1778
Clp=-0.0038
CL0MachTableNumData=6
CL0MachTableDeltaX=0.40
CL0MachTableStartX=0.00
CL0MachTableData=1.007,1.000,0.379,0.200,0.179,0.136
CLaMachTableNumData=6
CLaMachTableDeltaX=0.40
CLaMachTableStartX=0.00
CLaMachTableData=0.903,1.000,0.831,0.772,1.000,0.932
CD0MachTableNumData=6
CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.40
CD0MachTableStartX=0.00
CD0MachTableData=1.420,1.000,1.066,1.820,1.890,1.972
CDLAlphaTableNumData=15
CDLAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
CDLAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
CDLAlphaTableData=27.547,19.958,13.589,8.441,4.512,1.804,0.316,0.048,1.000,3.172,6.564,11.177,17.009,24.062,32.335
CmqMachTableNumData=7
CmqMachTableDeltaX=0.40
CmqMachTableStartX=0.00
CmqMachTableData=0.971,1.000,1.110,1.244,0.866,0.689,0.571
ClpAlphaTableNumData=15
ClpAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
ClpAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
ClpAlphaTableData=1.475,1.368,1.274,1.194,1.128,1.076,1.037,1.012,1.000,1.002,1.018,1.047,1.090,1.147,1.217
XacMachTableNumData=7
XacMachTableDeltaX=0.40
XacMachTableStartX=0.00
XacMachTableData=-7.160,-7.168,-7.188,-7.599,-7.766,-7.866,-7.955
Ymac=-1.20
MovingSurface=TRUE
ControlSystemID=1
StructuralFactor=1.2
MinExtentPosition=-3.613,-8.422,-0.02
MaxExtentPosition=-1.002,-4.399,0.097
CollisionPoint[001]=-3.613,-8.422,-0.02
CollisionPoint[002]=-1.002,-4.399,0.097
DummyComponent=TRUE
SystemName[001]=LeftStabilizer
SystemName[002]=LeftStabilizer_Aileron
SystemName[003]=LeftStabilizer_Rudder
HasArmor=TRUE
ArmorMaterial=ALUMINUM
Armor[FRONT].Thickness=4
Armor[RIGHT].Thickness=4
Armor[LEFT].Thickness=4
Armor[REAR].Thickness=4
Armor[TOP].Thickness=4
Armor[BOTTOM].Thickness=4

[RightStab]
ParentComponentName=Fuselage
ModelNodeName=RightElevator
DestroyedNodeName=
ShowFromCockpit=TRUE
DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE
DamageRating=DISABLED
MassFraction=0.007
HasAeroCoefficients=TRUE
LiftSurface=TRUE
CL0=-0.0185
CLa=0.1809
CD0=0.0004
CDL=0.0001
Cmq=-2.4983
Cmad=-1.1778
Clp=-0.0038
CL0MachTableNumData=6
CL0MachTableDeltaX=0.40
CL0MachTableStartX=0.00
CL0MachTableData=1.007,1.000,0.379,0.200,0.179,0.136
CLaMachTableNumData=6
CLaMachTableDeltaX=0.40
CLaMachTableStartX=0.00
CLaMachTableData=0.903,1.000,0.831,0.772,1.000,0.932
CD0MachTableNumData=6
CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.40
CD0MachTableStartX=0.00
CD0MachTableData=1.420,1.000,1.066,1.820,1.890,1.972
CDLAlphaTableNumData=15
CDLAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
CDLAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
CDLAlphaTableData=27.547,19.958,13.589,8.441,4.512,1.804,0.316,0.048,1.000,3.172,6.564,11.177,17.009,24.062,32.335
CmqMachTableNumData=7
CmqMachTableDeltaX=0.40
CmqMachTableStartX=0.00
CmqMachTableData=0.971,1.000,1.110,1.244,0.866,0.689,0.571
ClpAlphaTableNumData=15
ClpAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
ClpAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
ClpAlphaTableData=1.475,1.368,1.274,1.194,1.128,1.076,1.037,1.012,1.000,1.002,1.018,1.047,1.090,1.147,1.217
XacMachTableNumData=7
XacMachTableDeltaX=0.40
XacMachTableStartX=0.00
XacMachTableData=-7.160,-7.168,-7.188,-7.599,-7.766,-7.866,-7.955
Ymac=1.20
MovingSurface=TRUE
ControlSystemID=1
StructuralFactor=1.2
MinExtentPosition=1.001,-8.422,-0.02
MaxExtentPosition=3.612,-4.399,0.097
CollisionPoint[001]=1.001,-8.422,-0.02
CollisionPoint[002]=3.612,-4.399,0.097
DummyComponent=TRUE
SystemName[001]=RightStabilizer
SystemName[002]=RightStabilizer_Aileron
SystemName[003]=RightStabilizer_Rudder
HasArmor=TRUE
ArmorMaterial=ALUMINUM
Armor[FRONT].Thickness=4
Armor[RIGHT].Thickness=4
Armor[LEFT].Thickness=4
Armor[REAR].Thickness=4
Armor[TOP].Thickness=4
Armor[BOTTOM].Thickness=4

Copy this and paste it under the Control Surface section (I place it as the next entry under RightStabilizer_Aileron).

[LeftStabilizer_Rudder]
SystemType=CONTROL_SURFACE
InputName=YAW_CONTROL
MovingSurface=TRUE
MaxDeflection=1.0
MinDeflection=-1.0
HasGearDownSetting=TRUE
GearDownMaxDeflection=10.0
GearDownMinDeflection=-10.0
CDdc=0.0191
Cldc=0.0249
Cndc=-0.0011
CldcAlphaTableNumData=15
CldcAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
CldcAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
CldcAlphaTableData=0.433,0.685,0.913,0.999,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,0.999,0.913,0.685,0.433
CndcAlphaTableNumData=15
CndcAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
CndcAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
CndcAlphaTableData=1.076,1.532,1.817,1.741,1.495,1.247,1.000,0.753,1.000,1.247,1.495,1.741,1.817,1.532,1.076
ControlRate=5.0
//MaxControlSpeed=205.8
ModelNodeName=LeftElevator
ReverseModelOrientation=TRUE
MinExtentPosition=-3.613,-8.422,-0.02
MaxExtentPosition=-1.002,-4.399,0.097

[RightStabilizer_Rudder]
SystemType=CONTROL_SURFACE
InputName=YAW_CONTROL
MaxDeflection=1.0
MinDeflection=-1.0
HasGearDownSetting=TRUE
GearDownMaxDeflection=10.0
GearDownMinDeflection=-10.0
CDdc=0.0191
Cldc=0.0249
Cndc=-0.0011
CldcAlphaTableNumData=15
CldcAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
CldcAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
CldcAlphaTableData=0.433,0.685,0.913,0.999,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,1.000,0.999,0.913,0.685,0.433
CndcAlphaTableNumData=15
CndcAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00
CndcAlphaTableStartX=-28.00
CndcAlphaTableData=1.076,1.532,1.817,1.741,1.495,1.247,1.000,0.753,1.000,1.247,1.495,1.741,1.817,1.532,1.076
ControlRate=5.0
//MaxControlSpeed=205.8
ModelNodeName=RightElevator
ReverseModelOrientation=FALSE
MinExtentPosition=3.613,-8.422,-0.02
MaxExtentPosition=1.002,-4.399,0.097

Disregard, I forgot I was flying in a normal flight model difficulty level.

Edited March 8, 2009 by serverandenforcer

+***EricJ*** · March 8, 2009

Well you're not the only one who's brain is not there yet. Spent yesterday in the sun supporting a mission and a bit drained still. Regardless, I applied them to the SH's and it seemed a bit more stable, maybe a little more "tighter" feeling but overall not bad :good:

**serverandenforcer** · March 8, 2009

Found out what the problem is...

The values for the integers for the ClbAlphaDataTable and the ClrAlphaDataTable for both vertical tails needed to be reversed (switching the negatives to be positives and visa versa) except for 1.000 - that has to remain as a positive integer, and everything after it has to be a postive integer

The same issue for the rudders... reverse the value of the integers for CldcAlphaDataTable.

However, there is another problem... The integers for those entries (and possibly others) are set to such a high value, that the aircraft will now roll immediately to whatever rudder input that you will apply, untill you go over 400 knots. Then it becomes a lot tighter and less crazy like. Since these are the same values for the other hornets, including the legacy hornet, fine tuning these integers will give us the solution that we've been looking for.

I was able to figure this out by comparing with other aircraft that were similar to the hornet with a twin "V" vertical tail (I used the eagle and the tomcat as references). I will also note that both the tomcat and the eagle have values under the entries for their vertical tails at a significant lower value than whats in the hornets, but at the same time have values that are higher for the entries for the rudders. So I would say that the values for the Super Hornet should be less than those of the eagle and tomcat but not by a significant degree, and the legacy hornet should be less than the super hornet. However, this will take a lot of understanding on what those entries are supposed to be, and what would be the ideal setting for the aircraft - and I'm not the person that can do that... yet.

EDIT: Ugh... this is going to take more work than I thought. A lot of entries throughout the entire data file have values that need to be reversed. There are even some entries that need to be added that were never entered in. Most of it is pretty similar to the legacy hornet, so once this is figured out, it can easily be used to replace the legacy hornet's data.ini file.

Edited March 8, 2009 by serverandenforcer

**serverandenforcer** · March 9, 2009

OK, here is my update to fix the opposing roll syndrome when appling rudder input. This should effectively take care of any opposing roll no matter what your AOA is and if you're pulling postive or negative G's. This fix should be considered as a BETA, meaning that you want to save the orignal data.ini for your hornets prior to moving this one into your hornet folder untill EricJ approves of this fix and recomends it as an official over-write for the current FM.

Now when I mentioned that this should be the replacement for all the hornets, this is originally setup for the F/A-18F. So you will want to delete the section for the WSO for any A, C, and E variants that you intend to use this fix for.

During experimentation, and making adjustments and corrections to data table values, I wasn't able to correct the opposing roll syndrome when rudder input is applied. So right now, it is a strong hypothetical assumption that the Third Wire engine takes into account of the positon of the pivot points. Due to how the "V" tail of the hornet is setup, rudder input, causing lift on one side of the slanted tails can induce a roll towards the opposing direction of yaw.

What I did to fix this is use the ailerons and elevators, without using their nodes (so it doesn't look like anything else is being used to assist the rudder), to operate during rudder input to counter act the opposing roll. Even though this stops the opposing roll, the aircraft will roll towards the driection that you would want to yaw to. I couldn't find a "perfect" balance in between to keep this from happening. However, I found this roll to be evident with other "V" tail aircraft (with significantly more dramatic role rates with rudder input) and some single tail aircraft (F-16 and F-4) when applying rudder input for them. So I'm not going to consider it as a serious issue.

I hope this takes care of all your rudder input needs.

Report any issues or negative side effects other than the ones that I've posted.

FA_18F_DATA.rar

Edited March 9, 2009 by FastCargo

**FastCargo** · March 9, 2009

Accidently hit the Edit button on SaE's post...no editing actually done.

Anyway, folks, please test this out and let us know how it works at the limits.

FC

+***EricJ*** · March 9, 2009

I'll take a gander at it SaE and more than likely within a couple weeks I'll reupload with the modded FM. I've liked your work. But honestly I've gotten used to the roll rate due to just taking it easy on the stick, but will check it out sometime. A bit under the weather at the moment.

**gbnavy61** · March 9, 2009

"What I did to fix this is use the ailerons and elevators, without using their nodes (so it doesn't look like anything else is being used to assist the rudder), to operate during rudder input to counter act the opposing roll. Even though this stops the opposing roll, the aircraft will roll towards the driection that you would want to yaw to. I couldn't find a "perfect" balance in between to keep this from happening. However, I found this roll to be evident with other "V" tail aircraft (with significantly more dramatic role rates with rudder input) and some single tail aircraft (F-16 and F-4) when applying rudder input for them. So I'm not going to consider it as a serious issue."

Well, ideally you should have some roll into the direction of yaw. When you push the left rudder pedal, you're now pivoting the a/c around the CG - moving the right wing through the air faster, and the left wing through the air more slowly. That pivoting creates a difference in the amount of lift being produced by the wings, with the right wing now producing more lift which creates a roll to the left. That's called proverse roll.

I'd been thinking about it the past couple of days - perhaps FC or another aerodynamics guru could help me out on this one. Say you have a tail config like the F/A-18 and you deflect the rudders (yaw, in the same direction). Does the force on the rudders from the airstream act 90 degrees to the plane of the deflected rudder? If so, I could see how that might produce a opposite rolling moment. The question, then, would be whether or not the magnitude of the proverse roll would be less than, equal to, or greater than the opposite roll from the rudders. Whichever is greater should tell you which way you are going to roll.

(My somewhat educated guess is that you wouldn't deliberately design your rudders to work backwards, so left rudder will cause a left yaw. So, it makes little sense to have your aircraft roll opposite to the yaw - it'd probably not be aerodynamically desireable.)

Then again, with the Hornet, when you make a control input, about eight control surfaces interact to give you what you asked for through the flight control computers. So, on the real jet, I'm sure all these things are taken into account. I'm just curious, from an "it'd be cool to understand how it worked" perspective, rather than a "the model should be exactly like the real thing" perspective.

In any event, thanks for the work SaE. I'll give it a test sortie or two.

(EDIT: Sorry, SaE, wasn't trying to lecture you on aerodynamics. I pretty much said what you said. Guess I didn't read your post thoroughly the first time.)

Edited March 9, 2009 by gbnavy61

F/A-18F Super Hornet (New Model) V1.9

Recommended Posts

+EricJ 4,237