F/A-18 tip over on traps

[deathfromafar]

Does anyone else have any issues with the Acc F/A-18 having a tendency to tip/roll over and crash when trapping on AI Carriers? Just wonder if there is a fix for this. All other FSX Naval A/C trap just fine.

 

[IanP]

From experience, that normally means I've got my speed wrong, or I'm far too heavy to trap (the latter tends to lead to the former, as you're too fast when you catch the wire).

Try to ensure you are around or below 140KIAS, with the meatball centred and the AoA indicator showing an orange dot - I've just trapped three times on the trot with 48% fuel and about 135-140KIAS over the ramp and apart from a wobble when I landed off balance, every one worked fine.

 

[Shylock]

Ian nailed it right on the head there. Its all on your speed and AOA along with fule load. This video will help you out for sure. http://www.fsxblueangels.com/videoscreen%20ok3.html

 

[deathfromafar]

All my parameters are dead on but still there is a tendency for the Hornet to tip over. Any of the other models I have run do just fine. Not a novice at this either. Been flying Carrier sims since Hornet Naval Strike Fighter(Falcon 3.0 addon) going back to the mid 90's.

Will work a bit more on it to see if I can extract any more date or see if anything is amiss and post findings in this thread.

 

[IanP]

The Hornet is more wobbly than, say, an F-14 because the undercarriage track is a lot narrower. I do think that the default Hornet's undercarriage is too soft as it rolls horrendously around corners when taxying, even at low speed, but you can trap it without tipping over.

During all my traps last night while playing with the new Nimitz, I actually broke two aircraft - I got the speed wrong on Ron's EA-6B and slammed it into the deck too hard, which broke the undercarriage (it didn't crash, but I couldn't retract the gear when I launched again!) and I managed to nearly, but not quite, tip the CS F/A-18D over onto one side with a full missile load, a little over 50% fuel and landing on my port wheel first, which it what it objected to. That was fine without a repair, however, and I trapped it once more before taking it back to Whidbey Island.

The default seems more finickety than the CS -18D. I think there's a modification to the gear around somewhere which makes it sit correctly, but makes it even less stable and more likely to crash on carrier landings. You're not using that perchance, are you?

 

[blazefox2]

hehe ian be careful when hitting one wheel first i did that and when i launched right after i left the deck i span out of control and crashed into the water :isadizzy:

 

[deathfromafar]

The default seems more finickety than the CS -18D. I think there's a modification to the gear around somewhere which makes it sit correctly, but makes it even less stable and more likely to crash on carrier landings. You're not using that perchance, are you?

Yeap Ian, I did make that contact point modification to lower the main gear stance. At the time I made that mod, I did not have AI Carriers set up or tested yet. The contact points change may very well be what is causing the issue.

 

[Hanimichal]

I love this modification

[contact_points]
;Gear
;Wingtips
;Bottom
;Top

static_pitch = -2.980
static_cg_height = 6.900
gear_system_type=1 //Hydraulic
emergency_extension_type=2 //None=0,Pump=1,Gravity=2
max_number_of_points=11
point.0= 1, -8.000, 0.000, -6.000, 3900, 0, 1.135, 80.000, 0.200, 3.500, 0.610, 3.000, 3.000, 0
point.1= 1, -35.500, -9.900, -7.400, 3900, 1, 0.635, 0.000, 0.400, 2.500, 0.546, 3.900, 3.900, 2
point.2= 1, -35.500, 9.900, -7.400, 3900, 2, 0.635, 0.000, 0.400, 2.500, 0.546, 3.500, 3.500, 3
point.3= 2, -37.830, -20.000, 0.000, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 5
point.4= 2, -37.830, 20.000, 0.000, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 6
point.5= 2, -5.000, 0.000, -1.500, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 4
point.6= 2, -50.000, -4.000, -2.000, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9
point.7= 2, -50.000, 4.000, -2.000, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9
point.8= 2, -15.000, 0.000, 5.000, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 4
point.9= 2, -48.000, -6.600, 9.000, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9
point.10= 2, -48.000, 6.600, 9.000, 3900, 0, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 9

 

[deathfromafar]

I will have to give that a try. Thanks for posting Hanimichal.

 

[deathfromafar]

Update: I changed the config contact points over to the ones posted here and then proceeded to fly a few carrier traps on the new Nimitz. 5 attempts, all 5 perfect 3 wire traps with not a single problem. Only bad part is now the Hornet again sits high on it's main gear but oh well, I have to other contact points saved in case I want to do land based ops and have a lower stance for the mains. Anyhow, thanks for all the input gents!

 

[Hanimichal]

Update: I changed the config contact points over to the ones posted here and then proceeded to fly a few carrier traps on the new Nimitz. 5 attempts, all 5 perfect 3 wire traps with not a single problem. Only bad part is now the Hornet again sits high on it's main gear but oh well, I have to other contact points saved in case I want to do land based ops and have a lower stance for the mains. Anyhow, thanks for all the input gents!

point.0= 1, -8.00, 0.00, -6.50, 3900, 0, 0.6349, 75.0, 0.2000, 3.5, 0.6100, 3.0, 3.0, 0, 0.0, 0.0
point.1= 1, -35.50, -9.90, -7.60, 3900, 1, 0.6349, 0.0, 1.2, 1.6, 0.5456, 3.9, 3.9, 2, 0.0, 0.0
point.2= 1, -35.50, 9.90, -7.60, 3900, 2, 0.6349, 0.0, 1.2, 1.6, 0.5456, 3.7, 3.7, 3, 0.0, 0.0

 

[deathfromafar]

Hanimichal, again much thanks to you for posting. Everything is working perfectly now!

-DFA

 

[fliger747]

My experience with the default Hornet is that any off center or not perpendicular to the wire will give a good case of the leans on the rollout portion of the arrested landing.

T.