Razbam a-7e fde

ejoiner

ejoiner

Charter Member
I just purchased the Razbam A-7E Corsair II the other day based on their recent sale. Enjoyable plane, but I am wondering about the FM. it seems to have a very sluggish roll rate and very low G tolerance. I know this is NOT a yank and Bank F-16, its a subsonic attack aircraft. However, it still seems underpowered, sluggish and a bit delicate. Is the FDE correct here for this bird?
 
TBH Eric.. I don't like the FD's on any Razbam model. The Corsairs in particular have a habit of falling off the flaps or going ballistic with the slightest increase in throttle. While they're not too bad for landing on terra-firma.. as carrier models, I don't rate them very highly. They're nice looking models but not particularly nice to fly.

Coincidental that I've just moved the Corsairs out of my Airplanes folder!

ATB
DaveB:)
 
DaveB said:
TBH Eric.. I don't like the FD's on any Razbam model. The Corsairs in particular have a habit of falling off the flaps or going ballistic with the slightest increase in throttle. While they're not too bad for landing on terra-firma.. as carrier models, I don't rate them very highly. They're nice looking models but not particularly nice to fly.

Coincidental that I've just moved the Corsairs out of my Airplanes folder!

ATB
DaveB:)
Click to expand...

Actually, that was my exact experience. I also bought the EA-6B, which is a nice visual model, but I was disappointed in the very few cockpit controls that work. Even less than some virtavia models. The A-7's are not good carrier models agreed. do not handle well at low and slow configurations. This is why I figured somebody might have updated the flight models on these because they are visually very appealing.
 
Hi Eric:wavey:

Yup.. I bagged the EA6B too in the hope that it was a better flyer than the old Alpha/Virtavia model. I couldn't believe how similar they both fly.. one might say too similar if you know what I mean! In for a penny, in for a pound.. I bagged the Buckeye too. I've had a lot of disappointment these past few days. Should have bought the Virtavia Lincoln instead:( After some perseverance, the Buckeye isn't too bad if you pull at least 50% out of the tips. Much above this (especially full) it's nothing short of a cow!

If anyone has revised the FD on the Corsairs (single or twin-seaters).. I'd be interested too;)

ATB
DaveB:)
 
The comments about the handling are quite reassuring as I thought my problems were all down to me being ham fisted.
 
With all due respect ... I'm highly suspect of "incorrect FDE" claims.

They had as part of their dev team Lt (N) Phineas Henshaw and Lt. Colonel "Stork" Reinhart doing the FDE for a number of years, certainly the period straddling the aircraft (FSX T-2 and A-7 family) in question ...

As to the A-7s - when landing with PROPER MGLW, trim, attitude, etc - I find them an absolute joy. Predictable, steady, and straightforward. They way folks are talking about fuel suggests that proper landing weights and general procedures aren't being followed closely, if at all. They are not simple addons, they have a learning curve. The real A model was underpowered. No surprise there. That's why the D/E with the Allison TF41-A-1/2 engine was introduced, among other avionics enhancements.

The A-7 models are rich with real-world limitations (try leaving the throttle at 100% for too long - see how that how works out) that make you have to fly the plane closely and accurately. The real world aircraft was a complex aircraft, and their system modeling reflects that.

Until real world experienced military pilots with type ratings affirm claims of bad FDE, I'm more inclined to maybe double check that I'm flying the plane according to the manual ... just sayin' .... :ernaehrung004:

dl

ps - I agree the A-6/EA-6 VC is getting a bit long in the texture-quality wise (remember this model is quite a few years old), and it has bugged me that they painted the EA-6A in Navy colours, when it served operationally far more numerically with the Marines ... That's about the extent of any FSX Razbam gripes I have
 
I got that Corsair II as well, the volume 1 only, during the recent sales.
The FDE didn't seem so bad to me. I could almost land it on the Nimitz on the second try, but I had way too much fuel left.
The one thing I hate about this plane is that they didn't remove the default GPWS !? How can something like that pass through the test phase ? :dizzy:
 
Daube said:
I got that Corsair II as well, the volume 1 only, during the recent sales.
The FDE didn't seem so bad to me. I could almost land it on the Nimitz on the second try, but I had way too much fuel left.
The one thing I hate about this plane is that they didn't remove the default GPWS !? How can something like that pass through the test phase ? :dizzy:
Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot about that - annoying indeed. But simple to fix ....

[GPWS]
max_warning_height = -10000

Fixed in less time than it took to type ... :)

This is a must-do fix for many FSX military planes with that annoying callout - thanks for the reminder!

dl
 
delta_lima said:
With all due respect ... I'm highly suspect of "incorrect FDE" claims.

They had as part of their dev team Lt (N) Phineas Henshaw and Lt. Colonel "Stork" Reinhart doing the FDE for a number of years, certainly the period straddling the aircraft (FSX T-2 and A-7 family) in question ...

As to the A-7s - when landing with PROPER MGLW, trim, attitude, etc - I find them an absolute joy. Predictable, steady, and straightforward. They way folks are talking about fuel suggests that proper landing weights and general procedures aren't being followed closely, if at all. They are not simple addons, they have a learning curve. The real A model was underpowered. No surprise there. That's why the D/E with the Allison TF41-A-1/2 engine was introduced, among other avionics enhancements.

The A-7 models are rich with real-world limitations (try leaving the throttle at 100% for too long - see how that how works out) that make you have to fly the plane closely and accurately. The real world aircraft was a complex aircraft, and their system modeling reflects that.

Until real world experienced military pilots with type ratings affirm claims of bad FDE, I'm more inclined to maybe double check that I'm flying the plane according to the manual ... just sayin' .... :ernaehrung004:

dl

ps - I agree the A-6/EA-6 VC is getting a bit long in the texture-quality wise (remember this model is quite a few years old), and it has bugged me that they painted the EA-6A in Navy colours, when it served operationally far more numerically with the Marines ... That's about the extent of any FSX Razbam gripes I have
Click to expand...

Thanks for the poke with a sharp stick dl!! I didn't say it was 'incorrect' btw.. I said I didn't like it and that goes for all the other Razbam FD's. If these are all incredibly accurate, then so be it but I have my doubts. The Corsair in particular is almost impossible to trim.. it either goes up or down and by some way. Quoted recently by another user.. he found the only way it trimmed out was on the deck and turned off!:)

Perhaps I'm not cut out for this level of realism. It may also be why I don't care much for Accusim'ed flight models either;)

ATB
DaveB:)
 
delta_lima said:
With all due respect ... I'm highly suspect of "incorrect FDE" claims.

They had as part of their dev team Lt (N) Phineas Henshaw and Lt. Colonel "Stork" Reinhart doing the FDE for a number of years, certainly the period straddling the aircraft (FSX T-2 and A-7 family) in question ...

As to the A-7s - when landing with PROPER MGLW, trim, attitude, etc - I find them an absolute joy. Predictable, steady, and straightforward. They way folks are talking about fuel suggests that proper landing weights and general procedures aren't being followed closely, if at all. They are not simple addons, they have a learning curve. The real A model was underpowered. No surprise there. That's why the D/E with the Allison TF41-A-1/2 engine was introduced, among other avionics enhancements.

The A-7 models are rich with real-world limitations (try leaving the throttle at 100% for too long - see how that how works out) that make you have to fly the plane closely and accurately. The real world aircraft was a complex aircraft, and their system modeling reflects that.
Click to expand...

I never said it was definitively bad, just suspect. And now that I see this thing has certain weight limits etc, then I must go back to flight school!
 
I've had them all for years and enjoy a lot. The FM is good and heavy. My only gripe is the poor ground taxiing. The jets rocks all over the place and is tough to steer.

Jeff
 
ST0RM said:
I've had them all for years and enjoy a lot. The FM is good and heavy. My only gripe is the poor ground taxiing. The jets rocks all over the place and is tough to steer.

Jeff
Click to expand...

They are definitely hard to taxi, especially if you have not adjusted the fuel load. I recall having that problem until I read the manual! The aircraft would easily tip over!

Every time I fly one in FSX, it brings back memories of having worked on them. Some good times, and yes, bad times too. Long, exhausting hours; both ashore and at sea! NC
 
Just started flying this one again after about two years, always felt like driving on jelly when taxiing. As for carrier approaches all goes well if your low on gas however the approach speeds seem awfully low - about 112 knots with 3500lbs fuel and no stores, might be me but I would have thought it should have the flying qualities of a washing machine at that speed?

I'd also add that rather than being underpowered as many report I've found the A-7 to be massively overpowered, it'll easily go from take off to 500+ knots in the blink of an eye.

Craig
 
Last edited:
Agree with DL above that unless a pilot IRL has worked on the FDE it is anyone's guess as to whether its accurate or its because you aren't doing something right. Light fuel load is critical for all prop or jet arrested landings.

That said, I bought the Razbam A-6, EA-6B and A-7 and they stay in the hangar. Part of it is that neither of them were ever the sexiest girls at the dance to look at, but mainly its that they just aren't that stable and too much hassle to fly. In particular the pitch is way too sensitive. On the Grummans I cannot come close to trimming the pitch to hand fly a level altitude - they just want to climb or dive, fast. Other military jets trim up and you can go get a cup of coffee, come back and see you forgot to engage the AP. From my own real world flying and talking to military pilots, the pitch vector is rarely so light or sensitive as it can often be on some a/c in FS.
 
After following this thread I decided to go back and fly my A-7E. In general, I do not feel the flight handling is bad. I have always heard that the real A-7 is a very responsive and easy handling aircraft. A lot of folks have no idea that the Blue Angels actually test flew the A-7 in consideration as a lower cost per flight hour replacement after the F-4J (before they selected the A-4F). So that part, not necessarily an issue BUT the ground handling, yes, the contact points and nose wheel steering animation are obviously out of sync and the ground handling could certainly be improved. As far as the thrust & drag, I too feel that there are some things which are a bit off there but certainly correctable. This can be a bit tricky because from my observations, at low level & high fuel & payloads you need as much of that trust as possible to maintain stable handling while maneuvering yet in a straight line, it does not seem to have enough drag factored in but the concern with adding more drag is that what negative effect will that have on performance at altitude? I think this model can be tweaked a bit but I would caution against a complete overhaul of the FDE.
 
Last edited:
StormILM said:
After following this thread I decided to go back and fly my A-7E. In general, I do not feel the flight handling is bad. I have always heard that the real A-7 is a very responsive and easy handling aircraft. A lot of folks have no idea that the Blue Angels actually test flew the A-7 in consideration as a lower cost per flight hour replacement after the F-4J (before they selected the A-4F). So that part, not necessarily and issue BUT, the ground handling, yes, the contact points and nose wheel steering animation are obviously out of sync and the ground handling could certainly be improved. As far as the thrust & drag, I too feel that there are some things which are a bit off there but certainly correctable. This can be a bit tricky because from my observations, at low level & high fuel & payloads you need as much of that trust as possible to maintain stable handling while maneuvering yet in a straight line, it does not seem to have enough drag factored in but the concern with adding more drag is that what negative effect will that have on performance at altitude? I think this model can be tweaked a bit but I would caution against a complete overhaul of the FDE.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your detailed explanation of the A-7E FDE, as it currently exists. Although I do not possess the knowledge or talent to modify it, I am in hopes that someone reading this thread may. NC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top