I have tried using Dino's T-45C (Ver. 2.2.1) with my COP3 gauge. I put the tailhook down on the ground with the COP3 gauge. It says the hook is too short. I can see it is too short. I had 10% fuel onboard so the A/C sat a little high. The position gauge says the tailhook is at 100%. I tried changing the tailhook length in the aircraft.cfg and still get the too short error. The COP3 readme says to change the third parameter in the tailhook section. Has anyone had this problem, and if so, how can I fix it? Thanks, Bob.
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Dino's T-45C Tailhook Length
- Thread starter familton
- Start date
Hi Bob,
Then it's still too short
Because if the aircraft is sitting on the ground, and tailhook is extended, it can't be 100%.
Try an extreme tailhook length, like 30 feet, and see what happens.
Notes:
1. With the correct "functional length", it doesn't mean that the visual hook actually touches the ground. Because that's a visual model thing.
2. When you change tailhook length, ( or any other aircraft.cfg change) while the aircraft is loaded in FSX, the safest way is to load another aircraft and then the changed one again. Reloading the aircraft (or reloading the flight), doesn't always result in reloading the aircraft.cfg.
3. And very obvious: make sure that you change the right aircraft.cfg; so the one actually used. (made that mistake once myself
)Best, Rob
SkippyBing
Charter Member
This appears to be a quirk of the way things were implemented in Acceleration, basically the launch bar auto-retracts if the aircraft is off the ground (i.e. the SIM ON GROUND variable equals 0) and the aircraft is in reheat (afterburner for the colonials), which is great for the default F/A-18 less so for aircraft that don't need an excess of thrust to overcome their aerodynamic deficiencies.
You can get round it by putting an afterburner section in the aircraft.cfg but not having it available, example below from the Buccaneer S1, oddly it seems to be the presence of the last two entries that fools FSX.
[TurbineEngineData]
fuel_flow_gain=0.02 //0.0045 //Gain on fuel flow
inlet_area=3.8 //18.0 //9.4 //Square Feet, engine nacelle inlet area
rated_N2_rpm=9200 //RPM, second stage compressor rated value
static_thrust=7100 //Lbs, max rated static thrust at Sea Level
afterburner_available=0 //Afterburner available?
reverser_available=0 //Thrust reverser available?
thrustspecificfuelconsumption=0.9 //PPH per pound of thrust
afterburnthrustspecificfuelconsumption=0.9
afterburner_throttle_threshold=0.95
RyanJames170
Back...
where can someone find dino's T-45
MHAircraft
Charter Member
Avsim has the latest version.
SkippyBing
Charter Member
I think that's because the launch bar animation hasn't been used, i.e. you don't have to do shift+u before you can hook onto the catapult.
As far as I can tell what stops the gear retraction is the LAUNCHBAR EXTENDED variable being 1 which only seems to be true if you've specifically set an animation for it not if you've just hooked onto the catapult.
I can only assume the ability to hook onto the catapult without a launchbar was put in to allow aircraft to be made carrier compatible with a simple cfg tweak.
To launch the E1B I have to use the virtual (non animated) launch bar command.
Been reading as much as I can find on the T-45, after reading about the many modifications necessary to get it suitable for carrier operations, especially as a trainer, it is possible that some of the issues should still show through in some manner. I haven't been able to find the lift/drag curves for the airfoil since my favorite reference site is misbehaving. However the CL max and low stall speeds seem out of wack for this aircraft.
Anyway, lots of fun.
T
Been reading as much as I can find on the T-45, after reading about the many modifications necessary to get it suitable for carrier operations, especially as a trainer, it is possible that some of the issues should still show through in some manner. I haven't been able to find the lift/drag curves for the airfoil since my favorite reference site is misbehaving. However the CL max and low stall speeds seem out of wack for this aircraft.
Anyway, lots of fun.
T
Dino Cattaneo
Charter Member
Gentlemen,
I am glad you are having fun with the T-45. I am working on a further update - graphics only at the moment, so if you have suggestions or (tested) changes to the package that you believe are of general interest I will be happy to evaluate them and eventually include them in the update.
As for the flight model, please note that it has been simplified so that it would better work as a carrier "trainer" for the average FSX user... just to name an example, engine response is a little too swift afaik.
Anyway, you are welcome to contact me for any comment, suggestion or constructive criticism!
I am glad you are having fun with the T-45. I am working on a further update - graphics only at the moment, so if you have suggestions or (tested) changes to the package that you believe are of general interest I will be happy to evaluate them and eventually include them in the update.
As for the flight model, please note that it has been simplified so that it would better work as a carrier "trainer" for the average FSX user... just to name an example, engine response is a little too swift afaik.
Anyway, you are welcome to contact me for any comment, suggestion or constructive criticism!
It is a very nice plane and it is especially fun with the new SBD enterprise. I did marry up the indicated airspeed to the actual value, ( the actual max sl speed i tested was about 25 knots lower than the IAS, which was correct at about 520 kt's) adjusted the thrust and drag and moved the CG within the wing Mac envelope. And who knows what else.
However I do agree that you have created A great navy advanced carrier qual trainer, for FSX, the one that the USN probably wished they had to start with.
The throttle response with the speed brake open is satisfactory. The NATOPS data does have a table of N1 vrs thrust% which I haven't fully verified as yet.
Keep up the great work, not so many high quality carrier planes out there!
T
However I do agree that you have created A great navy advanced carrier qual trainer, for FSX, the one that the USN probably wished they had to start with.
The throttle response with the speed brake open is satisfactory. The NATOPS data does have a table of N1 vrs thrust% which I haven't fully verified as yet.
Keep up the great work, not so many high quality carrier planes out there!
T