General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Sludge Hornet Modifications
Razgriz:
Heh if you want to play that game, I noticed two on the first 15 seconds. I'll watch the full video clip later, I have to get going.
- 30 degree rotation after catapult launch
- off speed for the turn and climb
Sludge:
Trent...
Glad you have you aboard here. Its been a while since we've had some new blood that actually knows what a decent carrier pattern is and not just flying in a blind circle and slamming the Hornet onto the deck with no idea about glideslope or they are aiming for a 3 wire. Wait for Spaz to give you his grades, I'm definately up for that one.
Raz...
Dont get all carried away on the guy, just give some good critiques and pointers. He's come here in good faith for us to critique on his pattern... which I might say, is a really good effort on his part. Remember, either of us are not the end-all, be-all of carrier patterns either...
Spaz...
Tee it up. I'm definately waiting for your critique. Also, when you are done, can you compare how your critique is from real world against FSX. The usual stuff, 4.0 meatball (FSX) and 35+ kts WoD vs. 3.5 meatball (RW) and 25+ kts WoD. What differences that makes in the pattern (AoB turns, 180 turn RW/180 turn FSX). I mean, of all people, you'd know about the differences... and I think Trent would like to hear the difference from you as well?
Later
Sludge
Sludge:
Skimmer...
I didnt see it at all from the VC. I even moved the effect up the nose to just -10.00, so I could see it literally coming off the sides of the radar nose cone, and still couldnt see it in the VC. So I'd have to say no on that one.
Later
Sludge
SpazSinbad:
Trent & Sludge, I was hesitant to give any feedback for several reasons. Firstly I do not have nor intend to use the VRS Super Hornet. This forum is about the FSX Accel Hornet with emphasis on the SLUDGE variation because it is so good IMHO. The difference between standard Accel Hornet and 'Sludge' is the difference between usable and unusable. I'll not attempt to explain what has been explained in a lot of threads on this forum about the difference.
However in generalities I can comment [as/if required :-) ] on Trent's request for comment etc. Here goes: Carrier landings are about attempting to achieve perfection and if off the parameters required to get back to them ASAP. Staying close to the required parameters (meatball lineup and airspeed) requires anticipation and not accepting anything other than the parameters are as close as one is able to achieve. I see Trent (with all the caveats from above para about I don't have the VRS etc.) perhaps - and I stress perhaps - remember we are looking at a low quality video at numbers we cannot really see except some big things like? yep meatball lineup and airspeed (Optimum AoA) and we are not in Trent's head. Perhaps Trent can describe if he wishes what he was attempting (or accepting). And I know for a fact it it easy to criticise but that is the request.
Back to the video.... Downwind we see an acceptance of the fast (red chevron). The aircraft needs to be at Optimum Angle of Attack - trimmed - downwind ASAP. Aircraft too long fast and in turn which was good getting on centreline by crossing the wake well. I'll have to count the seconds in the groove because time in the groove may have been not ideal. [Have looked again at video to count from 'wings level' at the start that groove length was a little long at 22 seconds.] Anyway what looks like a good start nevertheless (I'll have to watch again after some hours later trying to remember) seems to stay at about half a ball high for most of the way. Perhaps Trent was trying to get the ball in the middle but he was not making enough control inputs to get there quickly enough and started to go higher in close to get back down for a landing that seems acceptable. Trent did have Opt AoA mostly during the straightaway which was good. Overall a good attempt IMHO with the comment that I think Trent was trying to be 'too smooth' and not flying with enough accuracy perhaps because of trying to be 'too smooth'?
Carrier landings are not civilian / airforce style approaches. When viewed from inside/outside they can look/sound a little rough but what is needed are the three parameters as close to ideal as humanly possible. Nothing else matters. I have seen from the outside A4Gs approaching where the engine smoke is dramatically back and forth but the LSO is OK with that to give a good grade with the nose moving a little but glidepath excellent. That is what it is about - getting the parameters correct and keeping them there despite slight deviations - not accepting any deviation for any time and anticipating when the aircraft might be deviating, to get back to required parameters ASAP. [An old expression is for the pilot 'to be working like a one armed wall paper hanger'.] ;D
How can we know any of this from a low quality video? Not really; but we can get the drift of some of it perhaps. A video alone - without pilot text explanation - leaves too much conjecture on part of the viewer. Anyway take the criticism as not directed at Trent individually but as an example of what is required for carrier landings: precision with the pilot's best attempt at getting there and staying there.
Did I say it ain't easy? Personally I would not claim such precision but by golly I'm trying to get there and to stay there as best I can. Probably my worst A4G carrier landing flaw (amongst everything imaginable) in retrospect would be my 'attempt' to be smooth, at the expense of better accuracy. On reflection (and after seeing others in the real world from the outside) I should have been willing to be more accurate and less smooth - if that makes any sense.
In FSX we are lucky that we can do endless carrier landings that we can walk away from. Soon more FSX FCLP missions will be available, which is where one is more likely to perfect techniques that will work during carrier landings. Carrier landings require precision and regular practice for sure.
Just to encourage people to use the SLUDGE Hornet (rather than default) will help them a lot to do better carrier landings. I have read comments suggesting that the VRS SuperBug is a framerate killer and if this impacts on aircraft handling 'reality' (unknown to me) then this is never a good thing.
Sludge:
Spaz...
Damn, you really cut loose. Guess its been a while since you've had something legit to "grade", eh? Anyway, in your comments, you wrote about the red chevron "getting on AoA"... what is the rationale behind it? Ive heard the other way to stay at 150 kts to maintain separation in the pattern but have also heard in Case I patterns, your intervals will keep you separated, so your job is maintain optimum AoA throughout the pattern into the approach. In other words, Ive heard rationale for both, and hoping you can clarify 'cause I fly an amber donut from establishing the downwind all the way into the wires.
Also, thanks for commenting on Trent even tho its not the Sludge. The biggest difference with the VRS Bug is its "lighter" on approach. It can fly a 4.0 glideslope at 73 pct N2, which is about 12-15 pct less than the NATOPS listed 85-88 percent. Meaning you're noticeably lower on the throttle position, and might've contributed to Trent being high throughout the pass? Food for thought.
And you talked about the quality of the video. Did you watch the 720p version of the video? Im at work now, but unless Im mistaken, he also recorded it in 720p? And I know the video window was a bit smaller, but I didnt have trouble reading it. Just curious if it was that bad for you?
Later
Sludge
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version