Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft

F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Questions and discussion about creating aircraft. Flight dynamics, 3d models, cockpits, systems, animation, textures.

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby erik » Sat May 23, 2009 8:03 am

Ok, I've heard a landingspeed of 150kts to 180kts is much more common.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby lqiyun » Sat May 23, 2009 8:40 am

redneck wrote:That F-16 is awesome! The only issue I must bring up, other than a working radar system and clickable hotspots within the cockpit, is that the trajectory indicator is no substitute for a targetting reticle. Also, I noticed the FDM has been improved, and now I have no idea what my approach speed should be. I was able to approach at 90 kts in the old F-16, which was weird, but now the stable approach speed seems to be about 155 kts. Is that correct? My AOA indicator shows that my AOA is proper for landing, but at that speed, with the amount of pitch I need, it's usually impossible to see the runway until just before touchdown from the cockpit view. I do like the stall warning.
Also, my console gets loaded with OpenGL errors whenever I use this plane, but it doesn't seem to effect performance.


About the clickable hotspots, perhaps, Erik, you could change the key binding for the cockpit canopy to 'C', like the A-10's (capital C), instead of "ctrl-c"? Ctrl-c is supposed to toggle the clickable hotspots.....

Also, maybe you can create a 'funnel'? as in, for the HUD.. And like, allow the user to activate it when one clicks on the 'A-A' button..?
f-16-HUD2.jpg

erik wrote:Ok, I've heard a landingspeed of 150kts to 180kts is much more common.
Erik

And yep, approach speed is approx 175knts on final, landing speed is 150knts. :) Try to keep your trajectory indicator 'aimed' at the runway number...
f-16_approach.JPG
QiYun

Flightgear Callsign: Old-Man

Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart.
— Baron Manfred von Richthofen.
User avatar
lqiyun
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby erik » Sat May 23, 2009 9:14 am

lqiyun wrote:About the clickable hotspots, perhaps, Erik, you could change the key binding for the cockpit canopy to 'C', like the A-10's (capital C), instead of "ctrl-c"? Ctrl-c is supposed to toggle the clickable hotspots.....

Done.

lqiyun wrote:Also, maybe you can create a 'funnel'? as in, for the HUD.. And like, allow the user to activate it when one clicks on the 'A-A' button..?

This is something for the long runs since it's not that easy.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby someguy » Sat May 23, 2009 2:35 pm

Any plans to make this model carrier capable, i.e., make the hook actually do something?
User avatar
someguy
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:54 am
Location: USA
Version: 2016.2.1
OS: Mac OS X 10.11

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby Gijs » Sat May 23, 2009 2:44 pm

someguy wrote:Any plans to make this model carrier capable, i.e., make the hook actually do something?

F-16 is not equipped for carrier operations.
The hook is used on ordinary runways, in case they have problems with the brakes (or have to abort a takeoff) they can use a sort of carrier systems with wires and the hook to stop the plane. It's also used during runups of the engines, to prevent the plane from moving away.
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400
User avatar
Gijs
Moderator
 
Posts: 9364
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Amsterdam/Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 10

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby lqiyun » Sat May 23, 2009 4:20 pm

Gijs wrote:The hook is used on ordinary runways, in case they have problems with the brakes (or have to abort a takeoff) they can use a sort of carrier systems with wires and the hook to stop the plane. It's also used during runups of the engines, to prevent the plane from moving away.

erm.. ya know there's this BAK-12 arresting gear found at Dave's Hangar, how'd I set it at the airport which I want it to be, say for example, I wanna place it at WSAT (Tengah Airbase)?

Cheers,
QiYun
QiYun

Flightgear Callsign: Old-Man

Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart.
— Baron Manfred von Richthofen.
User avatar
lqiyun
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby redneck » Sat May 23, 2009 10:19 pm

Gijs wrote:
someguy wrote:Any plans to make this model carrier capable, i.e., make the hook actually do something?

F-16 is not equipped for carrier operations.
The hook is used on ordinary runways, in case they have problems with the brakes (or have to abort a takeoff) they can use a sort of carrier systems with wires and the hook to stop the plane. It's also used during runups of the engines, to prevent the plane from moving away.

The F-4E isn't either, but that doesn't stop me from landing on the carrier and taking off from it as well. I haven't tried landing the F-16 on Nimitz yet, so I don't know if there are any issues with the arrestor hook. By "not equipped for carrier operations", I assume you mean it doesn't have a catapult (neither does the F-4E, which is why I mentioned it). While it is unrealistic, I would assume you should be able to land it on a carrier, taxi back to the end of the landing zone, near catapult 4(?), and then takeoff, using as much remaining deck space as you can. Get your speed to about 100 kts, and pull up slowly at first, then go into a very high angle of attack as you drop towards the ocean surface. Ground effect should keep you dry. If you're going to try this, I recommend that you NEVER refuel before taking off from the carrier, UNLESS your tanks are just about to run dry. Then, just fill to no more than half, fly to the nearest airport, and finish refueling there.
I almost forgot to respond to that suggestion of having a funnel. I know a funnel is much more realsitic, and of course gives you nearly godlike accuracy, but I had expected this to be difficult to add, being that its shape has to change in different ways based on the changes in acceleration of the cockpit in every direction. Dave's planes have a targetting reticle/crosshair. My guess, is it shouldn't be too difficult to borrow that and place it in the center of the F-16's HUD. Sure, it's not very realistic, but it's something, and it isn't too hard to eyeball how far the targetting reticle needs to be ahead of the target in order to get some accurate shots.
Oh, and thanks to those who posted approach speeds for the F-16. With the approach speed I was using, I could keep the plane in the air, but the trajectory indicator would sink below the bottom of the HUD, which made it very difficult to aim it at the numbers. I'll have to try it again soon.
Call Signs: redneck, ATCredn (unspecified freq atc)
FGFSCopilot
FGFSCopilotATCEdition
System Specs
Model: Alienware M15x, OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit, RAM: 3 GB, CPU: Intel i3 quad core at 2.4 GHz, GPU: Nvidea GeForce GTX 460M 1.5 GB GDDR5
redneck
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Version: 240

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby NicQ » Sat May 23, 2009 10:34 pm

redneck wrote:
Gijs wrote:
someguy wrote:Any plans to make this model carrier capable, i.e., make the hook actually do something?

F-16 is not equipped for carrier operations.
The hook is used on ordinary runways, in case they have problems with the brakes (or have to abort a takeoff) they can use a sort of carrier systems with wires and the hook to stop the plane. It's also used during runups of the engines, to prevent the plane from moving away.

The F-4E isn't either, but that doesn't stop me from landing on the carrier and taking off from it as well. I haven't tried landing the F-16 on Nimitz yet, so I don't know if there are any issues with the arrestor hook. By "not equipped for carrier operations", I assume you mean it doesn't have a catapult (neither does the F-4E, which is why I mentioned it). While it is unrealistic, I would assume you should be able to land it on a carrier, taxi back to the end of the landing zone, near catapult 4(?), and then takeoff, using as much remaining deck space as you can. Get your speed to about 100 kts, and pull up slowly at first, then go into a very high angle of attack as you drop towards the ocean surface. Ground effect should keep you dry. If you're going to try this, I recommend that you NEVER refuel before taking off from the carrier, UNLESS your tanks are just about to run dry. Then, just fill to no more than half, fly to the nearest airport, and finish refueling there.


No, as in not at all : the F-16 and non naval variants of any fighter CANNOT land safely on a carrier, if at all : you would kill the F-16, or the F4-E, etc. Their landing gears are simply NOT strong enough to handle carrier landings, period.
As someone mentioned, the arrester hook on non naval fighters is for landing on runways with the BAK-12. Its presence does NOT imply any carrier abilities, e.g still no beefed up landing gears, etc.

Also shouldn't be able to take-off from the Nimitz with the F-4E, since afaik, you can't lock yourself to the catapult...
In reality, none of the planes that take off catapult assisted should be able to take off any other way from a carrier, as it's why the catapults exist in the first place...
It's not because it works in FGFS that it's realistic or even would work in real life :)
Cheers !!
If it ain't broke, break it. How else are you going to figure out how it works ?
Callsign: C-NICQ, amateur FGFS military and aerobatic test pilot, pushing the envelope since 2009 (sic)

FGFS Gallery
Birds Of Gear, a blog
NicQ's Workshop
NicQ
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby redneck » Sat May 23, 2009 10:47 pm

If you look in my previous post, I did mention that it was unrealistic. I wouldn't expect anyone to ever try this in real life. It's like when we're bored on FG and try landing planes on Nimitz that don't belong there and aren't carrier equipped, and trying to takeoff as well, just to have a challenge.
Call Signs: redneck, ATCredn (unspecified freq atc)
FGFSCopilot
FGFSCopilotATCEdition
System Specs
Model: Alienware M15x, OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit, RAM: 3 GB, CPU: Intel i3 quad core at 2.4 GHz, GPU: Nvidea GeForce GTX 460M 1.5 GB GDDR5
redneck
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Version: 240

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby someguy » Sun May 24, 2009 12:20 am

OK, fine then. Let's make a deal: the FDM author fixes the hook to work on a BAK-12, and redneck and I will try not to land on a carrier when any stuffy purists are watching. :) Come to think of it, I don't recall ever seeing you guys on Nimitz, anyway.

FWIW, the catapult exists so even powerful planes that could use the entire deck to launch, won't need to; otherwise, planes couldn't line up on deck for the cat, and a flight would take forever to get into the air.

The B-25 wasn't designed to launch from a carrier, either, but don't tell Gen. Doolittle it can't be done. With a full fuel and bomb load, too.
User avatar
someguy
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:54 am
Location: USA
Version: 2016.2.1
OS: Mac OS X 10.11

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby MyName » Sun May 24, 2009 1:40 am

someguy wrote:The B-25 wasn't designed to launch from a carrier, either, but don't tell Gen. Doolittle it can't be done. With a full fuel and bomb load, too.

That would certainly damage the airframe due to excessive G loads.
MyName
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:57 am

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby AndersG » Sun May 24, 2009 10:05 am

MyName wrote:
someguy wrote:The B-25 wasn't designed to launch from a carrier, either, but don't tell Gen. Doolittle it can't be done. With a full fuel and bomb load, too.

That would certainly damage the airframe due to excessive G loads.


Well, I don't think they used a catapult.. full speed ahead into the wind had to do. And it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid

/Anders
Callsign: SE-AG
Aircraft (uhm...): Submarine Scout, Zeppelin NT, ZF Navy free balloon, Nordstern, Hindenburg, Short Empire flying-boat, ZNP-K, North Sea class, MTB T21 class, U.S.S. Monitor, MFI-9B, Type UB I submarine, Gokstad ship, Renault FT.
AndersG
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:20 am
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Callsign: SE-AG
OS: Debian GNU Linux

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby lqiyun » Sun May 24, 2009 10:41 am

Alright, i know this is getting a little unrelated from the F-16 Fighting Falcon, but when F4U-1 Corsairs were launched from carriers, do they use catapults? Or do they take off like Doolittle?

Also, er, during the Battle of Midway, in a youtube video which i saw, (i forgot the URL alrdy), the Japanese WWII planes took off without catapults, and so did the American planes (correct me if i'm wrong..).

Cheers!

P.S. If you read the movie novel 'Pearl Harbor", it says that Doolittle took off by heading straight into the wind without catapults 'as the crowd held its breath' or something like that.. :D
QiYun

Flightgear Callsign: Old-Man

Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart.
— Baron Manfred von Richthofen.
User avatar
lqiyun
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby MyName » Sun May 24, 2009 11:57 am

AndersG wrote:
MyName wrote:
someguy wrote:The B-25 wasn't designed to launch from a carrier, either, but don't tell Gen. Doolittle it can't be done. With a full fuel and bomb load, too.

That would certainly damage the airframe due to excessive G loads.


Well, I don't think they used a catapult.. full speed ahead into the wind had to do. And it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid

/Anders

I used to do that with a Citation X, half full, but I did it \o/ Also tried with the Twin Otter, worked as well. And I didn't even knew that someone was more crazy than me, to the point that he makes planes takeoff from real carriers without catapults! :D
I used to launch the F-14 without a catapult, as I didn't know the key that activated the launch bar. BTW, it worked :D
MyName
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:57 am

Re: F-16 upgraded to 'production' status

Postby NicQ » Sun May 24, 2009 3:12 pm

AndersG wrote:
MyName wrote:
someguy wrote:The B-25 wasn't designed to launch from a carrier, either, but don't tell Gen. Doolittle it can't be done. With a full fuel and bomb load, too.

That would certainly damage the airframe due to excessive G loads.


Well, I don't think they used a catapult.. full speed ahead into the wind had to do. And it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid

/Anders


they were modified B-25, btw, not your normal ones at all. Not fully loaded (only 2000 pounds of bombs each, a 1/3 of their normal load, but more fuel, still lighter than usual)
Not a single one made a landing anywhere, much less on a carrier (they were cargo hauled onto the Hornet) and they weren't planned for carrier landings, as it was for all intents and purposes a suicide mission, even though in theory, they could land in China (all the planes were lost as you know), but no matter, it's realistic to think a carrier is long enough for a combat loaded F-4E (heavier than a B-25, btw) to take off from it unassisted...
Sure 8p

Do I even need to mention the F4 has a higher max takeoff weight than a B-25 (nearly 25% more, as in 61000 pound to 45000 for the B-25), and that it couldn't launch from some of the Nam era carriers ?
Btw, I mostly only do carrier ops in FGFS, I've seen Redneck do his thing many times on the Nimitz and never told him to stop, even though I might be one of said purists :)
If we only did it "pure", we'd never have near simultaneous landings of 2 or 3 naval birds, none on an approach to a 5.0 landing :)
Meaning, one too high, one too low and one off the landing heading ;)
Makes for a crowded deck when you're the third and have to try to squeeze by a taxiing and a just landed, immobile birds.
I thought Redneck was saying there wasn't much to it in real life, for some reason (as he certainly didn't say that).
My bad.

I stand by my point regarding its "reality"validity, but again, never intended for me to be heard as saying that Redneck, or anyone else, shouldn't do what the hell they want in-sim or in-game, depending on your personal inclinations as to what FGFS is :)

Cheers all, happy flying and check your six !!
Nic
If it ain't broke, break it. How else are you going to figure out how it works ?
Callsign: C-NICQ, amateur FGFS military and aerobatic test pilot, pushing the envelope since 2009 (sic)

FGFS Gallery
Birds Of Gear, a blog
NicQ's Workshop
NicQ
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: YandexBot [Bot] and 15 guests