F/A-18 Approach speed

[neutrino]

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.

Some interesting stuff in these documents, SpazSinbad. What I meant was that if you are faster on approach and want to maintain the same effective glideslope angle (angle of descent), naturally your vertical speed (VSI) will be proportionately higher. So you are both havier and faster and as you point your kinetic energy will be higher (not good for landing gear and arresting gear).  In real life you may have to dump fuel to lower your weight below max trap weight. For the Hornet this is 34,000 lbs, which is a clean configuration + 87% fuel in the internal tanks. So in the simulator if you land at 100% fuel (as the Carrier Practice mission is designed) and have the default auto-flaps, you will have to land at about 150 knots and about 750 fpm and hit the deck really hard. I personally find that not realistic so before finding out about the autoflaps I usually set my fuel to 50%. I am posting the fuel destribution in the tanks I am using to preserve the CG position. The Left tip and Right tip tanks feed the Left and Right Aux. tanks, so they must be empty first. The Left and Right tanks feed the engine so they must be emptied last.

[SpazSinbad]

Neutrino said: "...if you are faster on approach and want to maintain the same effective glideslope angle (angle of descent), naturally your vertical speed (VSI) will be proportionately higher." Don't worry about anything other than what the mirror/IFLOLS is showing you. There is no other thing to consider apart from lineup and Optimum Angle of Attack - below maximum landing weight and of course the GS (glideslope shown via mirror). A carrier pilot is not concerned with 'other variables'. Other people (the LSO and Airboss and people on or below deck) concern themselves with these 'other variables' to ensure that the WOD and the arrestor gear are correct and that the deck is not 'foul'. The pilot himself can only know about these things if he is told, otherwise he assumes that all is within acceptable limits. There is NO effective glideslope angle to be maintained - unless one speaks about a visual landing ashore on a runway without any landing aids. Even then a carrier pilot will instinctively maintain a constant glideslope to the best of his ability. Otherwise the carrier pilot is not trying to maintain a visual carrier landing by looking at the deck (deck spotting). The mirror is the only guide for glideslope information.

In real world a carrier can make too much WOD - more than ideal - for any given aircraft. Other LSO manuals have these figures if you are interested. There are many variations on the LSO NATOPS manual out there, some more recent with even more information than the one online at that URL given.

There is information about the rate of descent for any given angle of descent. However as the other charts suggest these things vary according to conditions. If a nominal ROD is 800 feet per minute then the aircraft is stressed to much more than that for ordinary operations because the ship moves up and down. If I remember correctly a one degree ship ramp/landing area movement up is an effective one degree steepening of the glideslope. For a carrier landing the many variables are relative as shown in the 'speed definition' diagram. There is a 5% factor noted, perhaps this 'factor' can be seen in the slightly higher approach airspeed due to the auto flap issue noted at beginning of this thread. You can see how some of the 'other variables' need to be considered (but not by the pilot at time of approach):

[neutrino]

SpazSinbad, I agree completely about not concerning yourself with anything other than ball, linup and AOA when in the groove. What I meant under "effective glideslope" is the angle of descent of the aircraft relative to the earth surface. If there is wind over deck this angle will be lower than the basic glideslope angle of the lens assembly (tipically 3.5 to 4.0 degrees). So my statement should read: "If you increase your speed and your angle of descent stays the same (your velocity vector is in the same position relative to the pitch ladder), then your descent rate (VSI) will also necessarily increase."

[SpazSinbad]

Neutrino, OK - what is crucial is the non variable "relative to the earth's surface". So now you are referring to a runway landing. Remember for a carrier landing the ship is always moving away from you - unless it is stationary. This movement will decrease the angle. However all these issues for carrier landings are theoretical for thinking about - only when NOT carrier landing. The only thing to be concerned about when carrier landing are the three items.    Life is simple in that respect.    GlideSlope/Lineup/Optimum Angle of Attack.

Perhaps if someone is landing on a non-moving carrier then also the non-movement of the angle deck centreline makes that landing easier. In this case I would recommend making a strong WOD (straight down the angled deck centreline) without turbulence to help simulate carrier conditions (no point in having turbulence at low level except if you are a masochist).   With a stationary carrier with nil wind then it is more of an issue to be on the correct parameters - an unknown factor is the breaking point of the sim arrestor gear - so once again I would recommend that all carrier landings be done at a minimum fuel state (rather than maximum fuel state) YMMV.

[Sludge]

Hello fellas...

Just a quick two cents.  I used neutrino's method but only enabled manual command of the FULL FLAPS position.  This is done by only altering the [flaps.1] "maneuvering_flaps=0" rewrite to your "aircraft.cfg" file.  You can use the half flaps as you please in their default AUTO mode, and then only use FULL FLAPS when you are below 160 and in a landing configuration.  Using this mod is making the F-18 really fun to land on the carrier now.

Laterz
Sludge

[SpazSinbad]

fgrimley32, good to know about the flap fix you have tried. Have not got around to that myself. Hope to do so later. Try having the speedbrake out also even though it is not 'kosher' for the Hornet - everything helps in my book (as per the olden days). 

[Sludge]

SPAZ...

OK, I think I was wrong in describing what my "flap fix" does.  It allows manual command of the TRAILING EDGE flaps, not manual command of FULL FLAPS for both TRAILING AND LEADING EDGE.  I guess the reason I got good results in that it still drops the trailing edge flaps to their optimum landing config of 45 degrees, when I selected full flaps.

When I get done with work today and head home, I will re-mod my "aircraft.cfg" file and set both to manual and see what difference that makes in landing.

Laterz,
Sludge