Snailman

This was the stock, original method... not good. And there is no other decrease-increase type control available. Anyway it would be way too difficult to manually control both main and lift engines. The thrust balance on the real plane was controlled by automatics, and was still very hard to fly...

Yak-41M "Yellow 73" - 244. OKShAP, Heavy Aircraft Cruiser Riga, Northern Fleet of the Soviet Union, 1994

These are the stock data, I have not changed it yet. I was happy with the flyable and playable result )) I undestand your idea, and it's good. I'll see what value I need first, for the correct consumption, to achieve the range I want, then I distribute that value between the engines. My idea is to use 8 engines, instead of 6.... Two nozzles of the main engine (for exhaust effects' sake), two lift engines, 2 fake lift engines for the exhaust effect in the correct position, and another two fake engines to produce excess fuel consumption when thrustvector controls are active. Original controls from SF2 NA used the lift engines differently, they were fixed position non-vectored engines, where the thrust was controlled by THRUSTVECTOR_CONTROLS. So if you have set thrust vector to 90degs, you also gave 100% thrust to your lift engines. It was a problem controlling thrust on hoover, because lift engines were always on full throttle. It was not a user friendly method. Also, the lift engine exhaust effects were always active, because if the Controls=Thrustvector_controls are active in the ini, it activates the effect anyway. And, at a place where the thrustposition is. The stock Yak-38 had its lift engines in the center of gravity, so there were problems also with balance, but I solved that too. My method uses the thrust_controls for all engines. This provided easier handling, although also had negative effects. First, the lift engines are fixed ones, and if the main engine thrust vector is not set to 90degs, and the plane makes a salto to the back. Thus the lift engines had to be set to vectored control, too. If you take off conventionally, it gives you unwanted thrust force, until the plane reaches the step on the MachTable, from where I set the thrust to zero. Second, because of vectored thrust, the exhaust effect had to be removed from them and planted on fake engines which are fixed downwards BUT not thrust vectored so they produce no effect in level flight. Third, the fuel consumption has doubled because the lift engines are always active even if their thrust output is zero due to altitute or Mach tables. It would not be a problem, because the plane consumes far less fuel than real. So after having the correct values, I will make two extra fake engines, which are vector controlled. This way they will produce thrust percentage equal to the degree of thrust vector, so they will consume horrible amount of fuel but only on hoover mode.

OK, I put the pack together, a day or two. I'm almost done with the skin, already fixed the lod and decal bleed. Thanks in advance!!!

R-29 (Yak41) or R-28 (Yak38) ? But the values are bad anyway... or I had mistaken... 0.60 per engine is way low. 2x 0.6 for the main engine (2 separate nozzles) + 2x 0.6 for the lift engines (which are always on by my method) so thats 2.4 But still the result is bad.... whats wrong then? In addition, the autopilot uses only 30-40% thrust only to fly at about 750km/h. Data ini just gives me closer targets, but I get home with 70% fuel... PS.: Just found official data, Yak-38M used 280liters on vertical take off, including engine start and warmup, 260 liters on vertical landing. PS2, Yak-41M R-29V300 TSFCM0=0.794 TSFCM1=1.260 AfterburnerTSFC=2.011 + 2 times RD-41 (on by FM) TSFCM0=0.815 TSFCM1=1.357 = 3.974 alltogether when at 90% thrust, also at about M0.95

Such ground support comes from a far away airfield, most of the time, but with bigger payload and waits out the opportunity and call. I see your point... It makes sense from that viewpoint. It depends on doctrine and how we understand terms ) I was the one below, praying for Birdie to give me a light, when "gotta smoke".

kg.... per second I suppose... so 2.4 means all my fuel 2750kg should have burned in 1134 seconds. if on full throttle all the way... 19 minutes. Am I right? I guess thats way too much

Thanks for the declaration! Well I did a test, (of course on Hard Difficulty for Fuel). Straight flight at 3000 meters.. I flew for almost 15 minutes on 99% thrust at a speed of 0.97M and burned only 750kg.... Stock TSFC values are 0.6 for M0 and 0.78 for M1. But my flight model however, uses 4 engines at the same time (actually 6, but two are fake). Thats twice of the stock AI craft, when at 99% that means I should burn at least 2.40-2.80 alltogether (more than a F-14 tomcat) Where is my mistake in the calculation? Are these units in kilograms or grams?

Ah so it IS Mach related value)) My guess was right) Yes, I have such data, no prob. Yak-38... )) long story. Many different data and opinions... Most crucial problems some people used to bitch about were solved after the first tropical tour, and with Yak-38M. Bad reputation remained.... But there are flame wars even between russians themselves :D I don't want another here)) What I do accept as fact, that it could take off with full arms (1.5-2 tons) and max fuel from a 300m "long" "mobile runway" without taxiing, loitering and other delay. And for CAS, delay and reaction time is critical. Its pilot who flew it in Operation "Romb", said himself, that the plane was more "economical" than the Su-17, at 50% tanks the Sukhoys were already on bingo fuel. But, no words about combat range indeed. If it is 50 or 100km, with full payload still excellent for the CAS role there. What we should not forget, that, Yak-38 and their service were considered experimental, the "messiah" they were waiting was already under development from 1975 (Object-48, aka. Yak-41)

Thrust specific already means it is dependant on thrust. So, kg of fuel for every kN of thrust per hour. I would put my bet on Mach0 and Mach1... but then it is still strange how planes without AB would go over Mach1 to get a M1 value... Tomcat has AfterburnerTSFCM0 and M1, but many other aircraft have only simple AfterburnerTSFC When I've done with the skins and the other To-Do this and that, I'll make a test with specific fuel amounts, starting from air and from ground. It is important to set the range of new craft, because of campaign usage... where range is vital (Falklands or the case of Yak-38 )

Thrust specific Fuel Consumption... yep I know what it is. But what M0 and M1 means? Empty plane and at Max weight ? There is MinFuelFlow for Idle engines...

Include Me . Please :)

I almost finished making the skin ... and suddenly encountered with a texture bug in the LOD ... and its a real show stopper. A major one... Both wings use the same texture file. I mean, there is 2.bmp and 3.bmp, and both wings use the same 2.bmp for texture mapping... Yea... I know it is LOD stuff... but I do believe there is something in the LOD file, a value or more that could be changed so the component or material would look for the different file for mapping... the map positions are the same in both files... I swapped the file names at the end of the LOD file, but I could only achive that both wings use the 3.bmp instead ((( Please someone who knows something, tell me what to do... Damn the biggest issue comes out only in the final moment when I was almost done with the plane (((

Umm... well. Wings are different meshes... For now I go with symmetrical skins. I get back to this later. I want to release the pack ASAP. Dozens of entries on the to do list for the next version, anyway )))) At least I could fix the intake decal bleeding, in an elegant way, so I have reason to be happy for now )) Thanks for the help to all of you guys!!!! Decals in the air.... oooo )))

Yea... thanks for helping.... I found out which component uses which texture during my work on skins. But since my other two skins I've done for this plane was symmetrical... It did not appear only for the last one :S Never mind, I try something else.

Yea... thats what I am trying... I just don't know which that character is :((( Releasing... I don't want the credit at all, I just want to finish the skin and make it work.... a week's job down the toilet if I can't make it work((( Never give up never surrender :D

Hi... I need a little help with this. The plane is apparently having a little FM bug... I admit I changed a lot, and not a specialist of it. A mixture of aerodynamic from similar planes. But so far everything else is OK with the plane, but this. The leading edge slats are wobbling, shaking while the plane is on ground. When it is on a carrier, and the carrier is moving (50-60kmh) there is also a little wingtip wortex visible. I believe there is something angle of attack related.. It would be also better if the plane would not stall that much at low speeds (VTOL mode) because it is too sensitive to thrust settings ((( Thanks in advance... PS. skin is only 50% complete.

Huh... I had some experiments.. Yes it is indeed something induces G-force in the plane. It is not coming from ship data, it does in on runway too. First I thought that the undercarriage does it, because I had to fix the spring factor due to carrier take-off crash bug. But no, the original unfixed plane does it, too. so, the symtoms... if I give about 50% thrust, the wobbling stops... so it is indeed a stall/ AoA problem. Also it causes the plane to stall easier when flying very slow (VTOL). But what makes it?? And where to look and what else to change? I tweaked almost all variables but nothing seems to have effect on this ((((((( Ops. well I noticed that the vert stabs are not in level while standing on ground.... BUT, is that a symtom only or the illness itself?? Data INI variables show nothing erratic...

Thanks a lot!! It was a great help... and a great work to modify, now we have two templates :)

Yes I thought about such. I might require a little help however. I also have to check the operational ranges, because I replaced the stock FM. Good to be reminded about that. Also important is to know which Kiev_data.ini to use with the campaign. If you have seen Vertical pack... there is one for VTOL, STOL and VTOL player only. Changing is a bit "unconventional". I mean, to tell the player to quit game, an overwrite kiev_data.ini before playing a mission...) In about 2-3 days, the Yak-41M will be available also (with a date of 1991), and if we ever have an early 90's action we can include that one too. Or maybe a "special" mission within the campaign to fly a combat testing with the proto )))) That plane is a real pain in the bottom, to fight against )

Aye... it came from the arachnid quarantine zone :biggrin: Good bug is a dead bug :)

And forget me and the Vertical Pack :))))) I suppose you need soviet campaign, too... I have plans for one, but first I want to make all "toys" available I might need.

No luck... SmoothDeployment makes them always open... even at M1.7 FullyDeployOnGround should be useful, but looks odd when the wings are folded. Since they are Angle of attack activated, it must be somehow fligh model related. But whatever I change it still does it. Maybe a model related problem?? The original INI had them as manual blowback (??) at 20 degs. I added angle of attack with two stage 10 and 20 degs.

Thanks to everyone... I try them out... Although I had no such problems with the Yak-38.. it is a stock FM tho..

There are many rumours about military operations, as there were no scientists know nothing about the meteor, and also there is a certain level of "unusual science" about the whole thing. They immediately started to look for radiation, and very very quickly dispatched to the impact sites. Another thing, is that there were very few actual impact points, if something like a rock explodes, in atmosphere, a large amount of smaller debris should have sprayed all around. Some people have serious doubts for why a piece of rock explodes midair into almost nothing, and anyway people heard explosions 10-15 minutes after the actual event... This is what I heard.