General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board

F/A-18 Approach speed

<< < (3/5) > >>

neutrino:
Thanks SpazSinbad for the airbrake info!

SpazSinbad:
neutrino, no thank you for the graphic below (I guess this is OK with you?). IT is interesting to find out these things that otherwise I had assumed were the case (that use of S/Bs was standard, except with the Super Hornet and I have a NATOPS for that). Maybe one day there will be a Super Hornet for FSX? Anyway it is a big learning curve for me also. The graphic shows the Optimum Angle of Attack for different AUW and dirty conditions for the F/A-18C (from NATOPS?) keep in mind the different limitations of arrestor gear (if needed - as per the LSO NATOPS info).

SpazSinbad:
Neutrino, Missed your 'amendment at top of page'. Many thanks for figuring out what is happening with the FLAPs.

Yes at first I was puzzled by the 'look' of the flaps in the Hornet when they were supposed to be at FULL. Then I forgot about it (because I had the speedbrake out). :-) Because this is a simulator - try using the speedbrake as well to see how that affects the Optimum Angle of Attack, as well as your 'FULL FLAP workaround'. We can see that already the FSX Hornet has a lot of compromises in the implementation. Personally I prefer to land at slower KIAS so I don't get KILLED.  ::)

A good example of this would be the Freeware Goshawk T-45C by Dino Cattaneo. This bird lands slower (also slower than real speed) so it is a nice introduction to carrier landings and using the AoA indexer at Optimum.

Remember it will always be best to land at the minimum airspeed possible for the AUW. The arrestor gear has limits (what they are in the sim I do not know). To enable surviving a marginal carrier landing would not it be best to minimise the energy expended on the flight deck at arrest?

Another reason when on land doing FCLP to have the strongest wind possible down the runway (without low level turbulence by the way) to help get that slow groundspeed approach.

The LSO NATOPS manuals have graphs showing the effect of WOD (Wind Over the Deck) on the glideslope. How the effective glideslope is changed by the WOD and how there is an ideal WOD. I'll not try to describe here what the diagram shows. It'll appear here soonish.

BTW not sure what you mean by "...if you land at close to your maximum weight. Also your VSI will be higher." I think you misunderstand but maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here. Anyway it is always best initially to land at a minimum realistic AUW rather than at the maximum because at the lowest AUW your KIAS will be lower and your energy at arrest will be much lower (groundspeed slower multiplied by lower AUW) to cause a problem if any other variable is dodgy.

Neutrino, thanks again for figuring out the FLAP thing.

SpazSinbad:
This is a worthwhile PDF download (4.1Mb) because the data is around the time of the Hornet (rather than later similar LSO NATOPS manuals). However the information remains at its most basic the same. Here are some graphs from this PDF:

NATOPS LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER MANUAL NAVAIR 00-80T-104 dated 1 Nov 1997

http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/CV_environ/00-80T-104--LSO%20NATOPS.pdf

SpazSinbad:
Amazing background info to Whys and Wherefors for USN Carrier Landings PDF:

http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/NAVAIR_2002_71.pdf (2.8Mb)
OR
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~durham/2002-71.pdf

Info in graphic perhaps is not easy to understand without reading part of the PDF but I'll post it here anyway to encourage those interested to download the PDF for themselves.

NB: the max trap weight chart (last column) for 'ideal landing speed' - don't misread this as something to aim for. It is only a nominal value. The Optimum Angle of Attack for any given All Up Weight (below maximum) is the way to determine the landing speed (which is irrelevant if you are monitoring the Optimum Angle of Attack). Also the last paragraph mentions that 'the rate at which the pilot monitors GS (glideslope), lineup and Optimum AoA' is the only way to get a good approach. In other words don't wait until you see a large deviation to make a change back to ideal. Try to anticipate once a trend starts - to correct that trend back to ideal. Perhaps this is really difficult in the FSX environment (due to not being able to see the mirror from any reasonable distance and then to see it with minute accuracy on a monitor) but it is something to keep in mind for your flying carrier approaches in FSX. Happy Landings.  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page