did only the physical hud change or also what it displays?
The main digital display for the Hawk was more like the F-5A with a basic reticle. The upgrade brought it to a more modern design kinda like the F-16 but it was unique to Patria vehicles. The Finnish MLU’s have a slightly different version than US Hornets as Patria iirc tried to keep the layout similar for the pilot while adding their own display for A2G hud since it wasn’t set up for the new computers that were added when A2G was restored.
well gonna be intesting explaining this to gaijin unless sombody has footage of that
For the Hornets the deal iirc was to essentially buy parts from the US to update the cockpit to a more modern setting while using new LCD screens and a new display system for A2G. If i had the specifc manual for the Finnish Hornets i could go into detail. Unfortunately i didn’t spend my vacation in Finland checking out their hornets, id need to check with some friends if they could ask around.
@Pheonix_RX01
i was looking for HUD footage of the F-18 and stumbled over this video
they might have looked at the F-18 hud in dcs and copied parts of it, because it is behaving exactly the same in WT
5 Likes
Great find
yeah gonna look for more and compile it into a list here
idk i gaijin will consider DCS as source
but there was one(maybe more?) reports based on dcs
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/D5gPIu14pk3b
it is about the hud footage on the left ( real hud footage)
Honestly at some point now Gaijin are probably going to have to accept reports based on things from games like DCS and VRS more and more. We are quickly reaching the point where things needed for bug reports are classified and obviously cannot and should not be used. Obviously those games are much more accurate on certain things than WT so I think taken with a grain of salt that those games should be viable sources for some issues. (Like cockpit/3D modelling issues and the like)
(Assuming that they basically copy-pasted DCS’s error and it’s not something with different aircraft blocks and HUD updates,) I wonder if ED would take legal actions if they were aware of it …
Cool, the manual is wrong or artificially limiting pilots given the unmodified HARV can sustain 70 degrees AOA per NASA and there is countless videos of it doing such, I guess that plane is working off off black magic right? Heck NASA’s own HARV entry states such F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) - NASA
“Dryden research pilots Bill Dana and Ed Schneider completed the envelope expansion flights in February 1992. Demonstrated capabilities included stable flight at approximately 70 degrees angle of attack (previous maximum was 55 degrees) and rolling at high rates at 65 degrees angle of attack. Controlled rolling would have been nearly impossible above 35 degrees without vectoring.”
As already stated rolling above 35 degrees AOA is known to cause a departure, but sustained, non-rolling AOA of 55 to 70 degrees is known to be possible with the F/A-18 airframe. With the upgraded HARV thrust vectoring system installed, the HARV could roll without departure at AOAs up to 65 degrees.
NASA’s own white paper on the subject states that the HARV, in it’s non-vectoring phase 1 configuration, completed 101 reserach flights, in which the airframe reached up to 55 degrees AOA.
NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: F-18 High Angle-of-Attack (Alpha) Research | NASA
Heck the F/A-18C’s own departure testing the aircraft only departed when a roll occurred at above 35 degrees AOA.
But you know that all happened rather fast, how about a F/A-18 moving slow enough for ya’ll instead,
Very given its extremely well known that the slick FCS limit is 7.5Gs and 10Gs with the paddle detent engaged.
yeah lets lie to our pilots about the planes capabilities
which is a research vehicle that dosent need to survive for thousands of flight hours in active service
normally vehicles in service are limited/ not allowed to do certain stuff to reduce maintanence
also you said yourself that there are differences in the FCS between the HARV and F-18
i dont think there is a unclassified primary source that shows something different
they might have changed the limitations over the years but now we only have one source that suggests otherwise
3 Likes
Just like how the F-15E’s manual omits the G dentent override being present still or the fact that the aircraft can sustain supercruise, and the manual only states that pilots should avoid accidentally doing so. Or the F-14A’s manual providing an extremely restrictive AOA curve when the aircraft was capable of vastly more in actual testing and actual combat.
US flight manuals have always undersold the abilities of the aircraft regiments of flight for two specific reasons, elongating the airframe’s lifespan, and the safety of the pilots. Neither are tantamount nor indicative of the actual maximum performance of the airframe which is what WT represents. This is why all airframes are capable of 1.5 times their max G loading in game, or would you be fine with functionally every plane in game being forcibly limited to sub 6 Gs?
Wow, its almost like the service life of the airframe is completely irrelevant in WT like every other form of mechanical failure that is not caused by the ground or an enemy round.
And what differences would that be for the phase 1 HARV, hmmmm “During this phase, there were no external modifications to the aircraft, but technicians equipped it with extensive instrumentation. NASA research pilot Einar Enevoldson made the first (functional check) flight on April 2, 1987, and three succeeding flights before turning the piloting duties over to NASA research pilots Bill Dana and Ed Schneider. The purpose of this phase was to obtain experience with aerodynamic measurements at high angles of attack and to develop the flight research techniques needed for this measurement.”
You would know that the only change made was the paddle detent being engaged at all times and the instrumentation if you read my sources, but you did not, I’m not surprised though, most people making such claims seldom ever read the sources of the people they are arguing with.
And notice how it totally ignores that the paddle detent exists, which provides 33% more overload, so even if you had an FCS limit of 5.5Gs you would still be exceeding this chart. Its almost like this is an expected flight regiment for the pilots to follow and not the actual physical limitations of the aircraft.
I do also find it quite funny that you fully ignored both video examples of F/A-18Cs exceeding your stated AOA limit, I guess both of these pilots were accomplishing the impossible?
iam saying that there isnt any offical primary sources that would weigh more than the offical flight manual
gaijin dosent accept flight footage because you dont know the conditons of the flight
e.g.:
- Weather
- Winds
- Atmospheric pressure
- fuel load
which all affect flight performance in some way
1 Like
And indecently the manual does not either, only stating that with or without AIM-7s / AIM-9s, not specifying which loading would have this the total effect in place as any added load on the F/A-18 series modifies the FCS’s capabilities, regardless how light the weapons are. Even taking cannon rounds and countermeasures modify the FCS’s programming.
This is the same feeble rational that was fruitlessly brought against the F-16’s FCS and the F-15 series as whole as well, in a vain attempt to nerf said aircraft to service restrictions, which is, once again, not the airframe’s actual maximum performance.
Also quite funny that a number of Russian aircraft use flight footage and in cockpit footage for bug reports … curious.
Service limitations, =/= airframe limitations.
those all werent accepted because gaijin isnt accepting cockpit footage for a few reasons
- it could be speed up
- they dont know the conditions of the plane fuel load, …
1 Like
then do you have any other source black on white staing the exact capeabilities of the f-18 ,if not stop arguing as it is pointless
1 Like
Shame that its literally already been passed to the devs for the SU-30SM for a number of reports from the HUD to the vectoring effects.
[DEV] SU-30SM HUD Inaccuracy // Gaijin.net // Issues
The video used.
Ah yes so NASA is not a source, got it, you know, the people who pushed the F/A-18 to it’s limits to further aerospace engineering.
that report is on the hud symbology and not flight performance…