General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Sludge Hornet Modifications
GOONIE:
Sludge,
Regarding the heat shimmer/dirty exhaust effect for the engines, I was flying around the other day with the fuel dumps on with the sludge hornet, check out the pictures below where the fuel looks like very faint exhaust effect. I think this effect looks pretty decent, just needs to be moved from the rudder fuel dump ports to the engine outlets. What do you guys think of the look of the fuel dump effect? Can this effect be made to be on at all times (no fuel dumping) and in the correct location (engines)?
-Capt
Razgriz:
I think its way too fine and small to be engine exhaust.
trent:
--- Quote from: Razgriz on September 16, 2010, 01:02:53 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
Yup, that's definitely an area for improvement ;-) Reason behind the wildly aggressive climbout is that I simply had that as my game plan post cat launch (arbitrarily try to level exactly at 150knts and 600ft). Or, put differently, no-one had schooled me in post-cat launch etiquette prior to recording that trap ;-)
--- Quote from: Razgriz on September 16, 2010, 01:02:53 pm ---- off speed for the turn and climb
--- End quote ---
Now *that* I'm a little surprised with. Where's it say you need to be on-speed *that* early in the pattern? (Serious question, not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. Is it in NATOPS and I just missed it or something?)
Assuming you're the same Razgriz as in the VRS forum... heh... the 150knts @ 600ft came from Deacon. He mentioned on numerous occasions that maintaining 150knts in the pattern (i.e. mainly downwind) was far more important that trying to stay on-speed in order to maintain spacing (otherwise there would be lots of different closure rates between each aircraft if everyone flew on-speed).
Now, that being said, just about everything else I've read, including NATOPS bits that come with the VRS documentation... all alludes to getting on-speed much earlier, basically as soon as you level wings after turn to downwind you should be trimming and adjusting power for hands off on-speed flight.
I'm sticking to 150knts @ 600 now 'cause it's a bit easier ;-)
trent:
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 16, 2010, 08:21:02 pm ---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'?
--- End quote ---
Man, you know what, that's some awesome feedback. You absolutely nailed it -- I was completely consumed with trying to be smooth from right about the time I got on-speed around the 90 'til I trapped. It was subconscious, too -- I didn't even know I was doing it until reading your comment. Because trying to be smooth took over everything else, accuracy suffered. Granted, not by a huge degree, it was still a 3 wire with pretty decent AoA, lineup and GS, but I definitely understand how I let the subconscious drive for smoothness prevent me from making small corrections along the way (which would have resulted in a less aesthetically pleasing approach, and hey, I was recording it (and the 50+ traps before it), which was probably the biggest catalyst in trying to make it smooth).
Amusingly, had you just left this comment regarding smoothness, I would have come back and questioned whether that meant an untidy (relative) yet accurate pattern would be preferable to a silky-smooth looking yet not-so-accurate one?
....which just happens to be the perfect segue into this enlightening next comment ;-)
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 16, 2010, 08:21:02 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
Haha, I can see why Sludge was anticipating your feedback. That is a frickin' big dose of mind-altering enlightenment. Prior to now, I've always assumed the almighty 'OK, 3' would be reserved for only the smoothest, silkiest approaches. I've also watched about a billion real-life carrier traps on youtube and whatnot and, recently, have been quite surprised with how... uhhhh... aesthetically-displeasing some (most?) of the approaches (wings level on final to trap) have been. Huge (immediate) corrections, massive (transient) stabilator/aileron deflections, basically... anything but pretty. Here's a perfect example of what I'm refering to at 5:41:
Prior to reading your feedback, I wouldn't have classed that as pretty or silky-smooth. I was surprised to see how big some of the corrections were... especially right before trapping (huge control surface deflections). But, after reading your feedback, it sounds like in real life, traps like that are the norm. That pilot was prioritising accuracy over all else, and as soon the approach parameters deviated from an acceptable level, corrections were immediately made. I think he ended up with a 3 wire trap, too.
Now, as to all this focus on aesthetically-pleasing, silky-smooth-over-all-else patterns. I think I know what's to blame ;-)
(wish there was a youtube posting of this video so I could embed it)
I came across that video ages ago, and it was my first introduction into what a carrier pattern, approach and trap should look like. It's a pretty frickin' good movie. The information in it is invaluable, and it's presented by someone who clearly knows what he's talking about. However, all the patterns flown in that video are absolutely impeccable. The pattern and trap shown between 0:30-1:00 is pure sex -- I can't imagine how you'd get a smoother approach and trap than that. Unfortunately, that video makes it look too easy for it's own good -- flying an approach *that* smooth is frickin' hard, if not completely and utterly impossible for someone just starting out.
So, factoring in your comments, I have an even greater appreciation for that first pattern (which is so smooth because next to no corrections need to be made, not because the pilot opts for smoothness over accuracy). I kinda' get the feeling that maybe 1 in every 50 (100?) real-life patterns/traps would come together that perfectly, where every parameter is so on-the-ball for the entire duration that next to no corrections need to be made. OK 3, UNDERLINED?
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 16, 2010, 08:21:02 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
Fantastic feedback, really. It's amazing how enlightening the advice is from people who have actually been there, done that in real life ;-) Greatly appreciate it! I look forward to putting it into practice ASAP.
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 16, 2010, 08:21:02 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I'll give you that, the Superbug is pretty CPU intensive, and thus, it can be a framerate killer in certain circumstances. There are lots of little things you can do (settings wise) to improve things though. When I'm practicing carrier traps over and over in the Superbug, I've found some settings that get me a consistent ~30-35fps @ 1920x1080 with no major reduction in virtual cockpit quality. (Fraps will rip that to pieces though... best I can get is half-sized 24 fps.)
And just as a final note, I have nothing against the Sludge Hornet -- I even spent a few hours trying it out for the first time this evening (many more to come) and really enjoyed it over the stock Hornet. The fly-by-wire system the VRS guys have implemented for the Superbug is fantastic though -- it's amazing how much enjoyable carrier patterns are without the need to constantly trim for level flight (Superbug will maintain level 1g flight when hands are off controls). I couldn't believe how much of my attention span had to be devoted to trimming when I took the Sludge & stock Hornet out for a few laps.
Actually, I'll go as far as saying that the Superbug has ruined flying for me in non-FBW aircraft that require trimming, both in real-life and in FSX ;-)
SpazSinbad:
trent, 'OK 3 wire' is the best all round explanation of carrier landing & FCLP that I have seen - sadly it is not done with the SLUDGE Hornet. Sludge hisself has made an excellent series of 'how to carrier land' clips in FSX, they may well be in this thread, or a recent one. However it is always difficult to see detail in enough detail just from a video clip. One has to be there - if all we have are videos then that is what we have.
Practice Practice Practice. Meatball, Lineup & Airspeed. Soon more FCLP missions will become available with a total darkness session that will prove to be more than difficult for most. However the FCLP can start during daytime and successive missions will be in darker times around sunset to ease into the total dark FCLP session. More can be said about FCLP when these missions become available.
Probably the most difficult scenario is carrier landing in FSX; while people attempt it before knowing much about how to go about it, or doing any FCLP beforehand. If that means some will not attempt further carrier landings then that is a pity. Having the SLUDGE Hornet to carrier land/FCLP makes a huge difference (all the extras such as the new clear HUD are included in latest SLUDGE). I cannot stress how much easier it is to do NavAv with this aircraft. All this has been explained in numerous threads. All involved with making the SLUDGE work 'oughta be congratulated'. ;D
If one keeps in mind that if you are not making corrections or anticipating making a correction in the next millisecond then something is wrong. However depending on the setup [Large Screen, Fast Computer/Video Card etc.] one has for FSX it can be very difficult to see enough detail during an approach. So be it - do your best - always strive for the best you can achieve on any approach. And Practice Practice Practice. Carrier Landings and FCLP should never be boring.
New carrier pilots do something in the order of 80-100 'bounces' (FCLP landings) mostly at night before going near a carrier for the first time. The 1,000 trap deck lander seen in the video above has probably done as many (a wild guess) 'bounces' (graded also by an LSO) over that time. Bear in mind if a pilot is not current for deck landing he needs to be requalified (with many bounces beforehand). Night FCLP will get your heart rate up. ;D And it will be obvious why night carrier landings are not done via a circuit but by some kind of gentle instrument approach. These are only my opinions, and I don't fly other aircraft in FSX except the T-45C Goshawk by Dino (sometimes) and other reasonable NavAv aircraft (where realism often is not very good).
One comment about control movements is that like formation flying (one never hits the the leader) the pilot does what it takes (within reason) to stay on meatball lineup and airspeed. NavAv aircraft are especially controllable in the approach configuration (with the F-14 probably being the least of recent USN aircraft). It is instructive to realise how the F-35C was modified especially to be a better carrier landing aircraft - to not only fly slow enough but be very responsive at that slow speed. LSOs can comment on 'over controlling' so there are limits. Probably anticipating the next change and then anticipating the correction etc. is the key once your eye is used to seeing the ball accurately. Whatever. :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version