RAZBAM Harrier WIP

[Warhawk1130]

Beautiful!

[Warhawk1130]

A few more

[Lateral-G]

will it hover?

[Warhawk1130]

Oh yes

[Lateral-G]

Oh yes....

Cool. Interesting to see how you solved that. Use of Rob B's gauges?

[Warhawk1130]

Cool. Interesting to see how you solved that. Use of Rob B's gauges?

I just do some publicity for Ron...but knowing the RAZBAM guys the way I do, I would have to say no to that. Suffice is to say I don't think RB would release it otherwise. We will just have to wait and see...

[Cag40Navy]

No, Ron and crew have it down to a science in the model. Its pretty freakin neat.

[strykerpsg]

Any chance of of an approximated release date? I'm asking because it looks mostly completed. This and Skunkworks model look absolutely fantastic! I'll have both in my hangar. Thanks for sharing the screenshots.

[hschuit]

Nice work, I have one request: Can the modeller check the shape of the fin tip, looks just a bit narrow vs. the rudder and the real one has a little bulge on top. It is just a minor issue, please do not butcher me for being a rivet counter LOL.

cheers, Henk.

Attachment 66772 Attachment 66771

[Prowler1111]

Cool. Interesting to see how you solved that. Use of Rob B's gauges?

No use of RB´s gauges, it´s an in-house built module hard coded into the mesh in order for it to work.
Regarding the shape, will look into that, but it´s also a combination of the angle of the pic.For those more into checking details, there are a couple of antennas that are spanish version specific (and currently, that´s a spanish Harrier´s exterior mesh) that will not be there in the USMC version or the Italian version.

Best regards

Prowler

[Prowler1111]

will it hover?

Check the 2nd pic above your post, you should see the IA on top of it, that should answer your question

Prowler

[Blade124]

Prowler,

Looking good, and a great aircraft choice for you guys.

Scott.

[LUCE1]

No use of RB´s gauges, it´s an in-house built module hard coded into the mesh in order for it to work.
Regarding the shape, will look into that, but it´s also a combination of the angle of the pic.For those more into checking details, there are a couple of antennas that are spanish version specific (and currently, that´s a spanish Harrier´s exterior mesh) that will not be there in the USMC version or the Italian version.
Best regards
Prowler

Hi,
it seems a bit odd that the .MDL file format can support the hard coding, the code that the .MDL can support are the scripts in xml which are then read and interpreted by the XML parser of FSX.
To see this, simply open a .MDL file with a text editor, you can see the scripts in xml (ASCII plain).
The xml interface with FSX is not able to change the FSX parameters if not through the event triggers, ie: (>K:SOME_EVENT_NAME),
this is not the case, there are no event ID's able to vary the linear and angular speed along 3-axis of the aircraft.
It would be interesting to find that this limit can be removed but so far I think is not possible without resorting to the use of SimConnect C/C++ .DLL module eventually interfaced with a XML script.
cheers
/Mario

[Prowler1111]

Hi,
it seems a bit odd that the .MDL file format can support the hard coding, the code that the .MDL can support are the scripts in xml which are then read and interpreted by the XML parser of FSX.
To see this, simply open a .MDL file with a text editor, you can see the scripts in xml (ASCII plain).
The xml interface with FSX is not able to change the FSX parameters if not through the event triggers, ie: (>K:SOME_EVENT_NAME),
this is not the case, there are no event ID's able to vary the linear and angular speed along 3-axis of the aircraft.
It would be interesting to find that this limit can be removed but so far I think is not possible without resorting to the use of SimConnect C/C++ .DLL module eventually interfaced with a XML script.
cheers
/Mario

I simply can´t tell you how, because i´m NOT the coder, but there are quite a few stuff that "were not suppose to work" that we have already debunked(working FLIR in the VC? yeah..check the FB page).Anyway, like i said before, i can´t code even if my life depends on it, but Bear does, and he does it quite good, and so far, he can read FSX´s code like an open book.Problem, is, you can ask him, but he wont say, LOL.
Anyway, no, it´s not RB´s gauge, NOPE it´s not based on his solution, it´s not related to ANY superflaps solution, it´s pretty much thrust vectoring ala RAZBAM, Bear told me the answer is right there in FSX code, so i believe him.BTW, Bear is known here as Zeus, and he happens to be my bro :mixedsmi:..

Best regards

Prowler

[ZEUS67]

Hi,
it seems a bit odd that the .MDL file format can support the hard coding, the code that the .MDL can support are the scripts in xml which are then read and interpreted by the XML parser of FSX.
To see this, simply open a .MDL file with a text editor, you can see the scripts in xml (ASCII plain).
The xml interface with FSX is not able to change the FSX parameters if not through the event triggers, ie: (>K:SOME_EVENT_NAME),
this is not the case, there are no event ID's able to vary the linear and angular speed along 3-axis of the aircraft.
It would be interesting to find that this limit can be removed but so far I think is not possible without resorting to the use of SimConnect C/C++ .DLL module eventually interfaced with a XML script.
cheers
/Mario

I will say this. All my modules unless otherwise specified are .dll files using SimConnect and C++. As many others have said, FSX is a very robust software and SimConnect enables me to do a lot of things that many people believe it is impossible. The only problem is that many of these "hooks" are undocumented, that is one have to search and hit one's head on the FSX ceiling in order to find what it is possible or not.

This is the reason why all the latest RAZBAM's release have ordnance management and release in free flight, including a fully working cannon or machine gun. With real bullets flying away from the aircraft and hitting terrain or buildings.

I've not developed guided weapons, because of lack of time to develop a fully working radar. The tools are there, but it takes time to create one.

I've been coding software for a living for over 20 years, so coding using simconnect is not a problem. I don't use Rob B's gauge because I like to know what my software is doing. So I looked and arrived at my own solution. It works and I feel it gives a better feel of vectorial thrust for this particular aircraft. It took me nearly 3 months and many dead ends to arrive at this solution.

I do tip my hat towards Rob B's, his solution works and that says a lot. You have to be on these shoes to understand the problems regarding vectorial thrust and fsx.

Regards

[LUCE1]

I will say this. All my modules unless otherwise specified are .dll files using SimConnect and C++. As many others have said, FSX is a very robust software and SimConnect enables me to do a lot of things that many people believe it is impossible. The only problem is that many of these "hooks" are undocumented, that is one have to search and hit one's head on the FSX ceiling in order to find what it is possible or not.
This is the reason why all the latest RAZBAM's release have ordnance management and release in free flight, including a fully working cannon or machine gun. With real bullets flying away from the aircraft and hitting terrain or buildings.
I've not developed guided weapons, because of lack of time to develop a fully working radar. The tools are there, but it takes time to create one.
I've been coding software for a living for over 20 years, so coding using simconnect is not a problem. I don't use Rob B's gauge because I like to know what my software is doing. So I looked and arrived at my own solution. It works and I feel it gives a better feel of vectorial thrust for this particular aircraft. It took me nearly 3 months and many dead ends to arrive at this solution.
I do tip my hat towards Rob B's, his solution works and that says a lot. You have to be on these shoes to understand the problems regarding vectorial thrust and fsx.
Regards

thanks for prompt answer,
it sounds clearer now, so the matter is shifted to the DLL's side that sounds reasonable.
However outstanding Rob's work can't work alone, it needs a SSW dll module either.
Yes SimConnect permits you a lot of things limited only by your fantasy, however as you know nothing is costless, what about multiplayer environment ?
Do you claim weaponering works also in MP with no side-effects ? or as others publisher you are not interested so much into this not commercial-appealing field ?
cheers
/Mario
BTW:
I don't need to be on Rob's shoes to understand vectorial thurst related problems mainly for two reason: i have worked side by Rob to make the vtol gauge and the companion dll, second, it's not my merit, but only my age, I have coded in C/C++ since the early eighties of unix and linux then and now, alas, even for Window$.

[ZEUS67]

will it hover?

Yes. It can hover. NO the aircraft was not made to hover. In fact the DO NOT HOVER warning comes out so many times in the NATOPS manual that I feel it is almost like a joke. It does have a HOVER mode but it is made for actually hovering but for STOL situations.

I am going to follow the manual and if you use that aircraft to hover beyond the time limit explained in the manual you can say sayonara to the engine.

[Warhawk1130]

Yes. It can hover. NO the aircraft was not made to hover. In fact the DO NOT HOVER warning comes out so many times in the NATOPS manual that I feel it is almost like a joke. It does have a HOVER mode but it is made for actually hovering but for STOL situations.

I am going to follow the manual and if you use that aircraft to hover beyond the time limit explained in the manual you can say sayonara to the engine.

As the A-7 does...another bird built around the manual....me likey!

[ZsoltB]

Great!

Thank you!

[LUCE1]

Yes. It can hover. NO the aircraft was not made to hover. In fact the DO NOT HOVER warning comes out so many times in the NATOPS manual that I feel it is almost like a joke. It does have a HOVER mode but it is made for actually hovering but for STOL situations.

I am going to follow the manual and if you use that aircraft to hover beyond the time limit explained in the manual you can say sayonara to the engine.

Still odd,
i can't see any part of NATOPS manuals, from A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 (aka dash-0) trough A1-AV8BB-NFM-700, where hover is discouraged or worse deprecated.
Hover is a fundamental part of offshore procedures, as stated in NAVAIR-00-80T-xxx manuals series.
Dash-0 has a paragraph dedicated to hover:

7.6.3 The Hover
The hover may be entered from a decelerating transition or a VTO. It is an interim period during which the aircraft
is held relatively stationary at an altitude of 50 to 60 feet AGL.
1. Control height with small throttle changes.
2. Maintain position with ground references.
3. RPM/JPT — WITHIN LIMITS.

since hovering requires high power settings there are obviously some rpm/jpt/time limits as showed into below figure, within these limits hover is allowed and can be done without limitations.
May be you are using different flight/technical manuals ?
cheers.
Attachment 66832

[ZEUS67]

Still odd,
i can't see any part of NATOPS manuals, from A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 (aka dash-0) trough A1-AV8BB-NFM-700, where hover is discouraged or worse deprecated.
Hover is a fundamental part of offshore procedures, as stated in NAVAIR-00-80T-xxx manuals series.
Dash-0 has a paragraph dedicated to hover:

since hovering requires high power settings there are obviously some rpm/jpt/time limits as showed into below figure, within these limits hover is allowed and can be done without limitations.
May be you are using different flight/technical manuals ?
cheers.
Attachment 66832

Don't confuse hovering - maintaining a stationary position in the air - with vertical take-off and landing. Those are different procs. The aircraft was built for VTOL and STOL. Although STOL is preferred, less strain on the engine. Hovering is a different beast and the strain in the engine is too much. If I recall correctly engine life when hovering can be counted on minutes. There is an entire section regarding VTOL and STOL operations and those stress the DO NOT HOVER line.

[ZEUS67]

@LUCE1, you are correct. I was misreading some warnings. But the main thing is that hovering is a transitional period while doing vertical take-off and landings. Specially on landings. But the engine life issue, still stands.

408 Engines have a medium life of 1000 hours or 50,000 counts. Hovering uses aprox 1,500 counts per minute since the engine is near the red line. You are losing 30 hours of engine life for each minute of hovering.

[LUCE1]

Don't confuse hovering - maintaining a stationary position in the air - with vertical take-off and landing. Those are different procs. The aircraft was built for VTOL and STOL. Although STOL is preferred, less strain on the engine. Hovering is a different beast and the strain in the engine is too much. If I recall correctly engine life when hovering can be counted on minutes. There is an entire section regarding VTOL and STOL operations and those stress the DO NOT HOVER line.

Not confusing at all.
Leave aside the vertical takeoff evidently not needed for operational activity and that is mainly used in air shows.
I think it's pretty obvious that the subtle difference that you do between hover and VL is specious, it is clear that making a vertical landing is necessary to hover, just think of the deck landing procedures (hover and cross).
Well in paragraph 7.6.4 of the dash-0 that covers the VL on p. 7-49 there is no mention of "DO NOT HOVER":

7.6.4 Vertical Landing (VL)
The vertical landing, Figure 7-4, is commenced from a 50 to 60 foot AGL hover. Landing should be made pointing
into the wind to minimize exhaust reingestion.
1. Start a slow descent with the throttle.
2. Monitor ground references.
3. Maintain heading and adjust attitude and roll as necessary to correct for drift.
4. Maintain positive rate of descent. Avoid stopping in ground effect. Some throttle reduction may be required
if descent rate is slow since the aircraftwill tend to stop in the area ofmaximum LIDS capability (5 to 10 feet).
Additionally, surface winds in excess of 10 knots may degrade LIDS performance and may require a
corresponding coarse power correction just prior to touchdown.
Note
If strakes or gun pods are not installed some suck-down effect is present.
A power increase may be required near touchdown to prevent excessive
sink rate.
When positively down:
5. Throttle — IDLE.
6. Brakes — APPLY.
7. Nozzles — AFT.
8. Trim — 4° ND.
9. Water OFF (if selected).

below 7-4 figure "Vertical landing"
Attachment 66834

[LUCE1]

@LUCE1, you are correct. I was misreading some warnings. But the main thing is that hovering is a transitional period while doing vertical take-off and landings. Specially on landings. But the engine life issue, still stands.

408 Engines have a medium life of 1000 hours or 50,000 counts. Hovering uses aprox 1,500 counts per minute since the engine is near the red line. You are losing 30 hours of engine life for each minute of hovering.

sorry we cross answers.
However the only drawbacks to hover is a in-ground-effect hovering to avoid engine gas and/or FOD ingestion as reported by AFM.
About engine life no problems a s long you stay below rpm/jptl limits, engine life interest also other fields such as combat etc..
cheers

[Prowler1111]

Some pics on latest developments
A/A Radar almost ready:
Attachment 68187

RWS = Range While Search. Targets are displayed but not tracked.
TWS = Track While Scan. Targets are tracked. Vector information is displayed. it is possible to lock on a target and attack it.
VS = Velocity Search. Targets are displayed regarding closure rates.
STT = Single Track Target. A single selected target is displayed. All the others are disregarded and the radar screen uncluttered. Steer instructions are displayed. All these modes will be available.
A/G radar is next, as well as in-built FLIR

Some exterior pics:

Attachment 68188

Attachment 68189

Attachment 68190

Attachment 68191

Best regards

Prowler