Love that there are people here claiming that the F/A-18 should be easily departing at medium AOA while the original HARV, without any actual aerodynamic changes is widely recorded to be able to sustain 70 degrees AOA easily without departing.
The only difference between the original HARV and a standard F/A-18A was the onboard data collection equipment and some minor FCS modifications. Yes the later HARV makes fit thrust vectoring to allow controlled rolling at above 35 degrees AOA, but thats the thing, up to 35 degrees AOA.
3 Likes
because the manual says so
did anyone make a bug-report on the HUD?
IR seeker when it is searching on the HUD dosent line up with its actual position
the gun funnel is to low and the gun isnt actually shooting where crosshair is pointing but below that
well… guy might be just coping
1 Like
he isnt, it litteraly shows in the graphs in his post
1 Like
I mentioned it a while back considering the gun is currently set to 0° instead of the +3° it should be. Haven’t had time to do a bug report since im currently trying to fix the cockpit in the Finnish F-18 as it uses the 2000’s model despite being a early 90’s
yeah also noticed that
it should have the cockpit of the premium f-18, right?
Yes. Again just another example of how much the Finnish F-18 was a last minute thought.
MLU 1 and MLU 2 uave their own unique cockpit as Patria came in to upgrade them from their original 90’s displays, additionally they need to be able to display JHMCS and with the MLU 2, needed to display the new lightweight Avionics that were added to restore A2G capability.
Spoiler
Finnish Hawk, upgraded by Patria for example, completely unique Hud and digital liquid crystal display.
Would probably explain why gaijin was so adamant against adding MLU 1 as it would need a unique cockpit.
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
3 Likes
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 …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry
@Smin1080p_WT
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.
