General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Sludge Hornet Modifications
trent:
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
Yeah the infamous Mr. fgrimley32 pointed me towards his videos on youtube (before I'd worked out that he was Sludge). They're very good. The most recent carrier pattern he uploaded is significantly better than mine in numerous places.
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
Heh, you should try the Superbug. It's just as dreamy to fly, without the need to trim ;-) You'd be surprised how liberating it is to not have to devote essential brain cycles to trimming (and wrestling with incorrect trim choices when your bucket's too full to re-trim (final roll-out to trap)), which of course is especially evident in carrier patterns.
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
Ahh! Yet more golden nuggets of reaffirmation. I haven't heard anyone state it like that before, but thinking back on the past 200+ traps I've flown, you're spot on (again). Kinda' makes me think of the ol' "step-on-the-rudders" wiggle move you do with your feet when you're on finals in a taildragger, just to make sure your brain and feet are ready to work together as quickly as possible in order to counter any out-of-parameter situations. With a carrier landing, you just get fed a whole lot more out-of-parameter situations a whole lot quicker ;-)
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 pm --- 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.
--- End quote ---
I quite like my setup ;-)
Track IR 5 + 48" 1080p + a ghetto-rigged HOTAS-PlaySeat (plus a pretty decent machine) makes for some fun carrier patterns.
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
Have you seen Speed and Angels? It's freely available on hulu.com if you're in the States ;-) There's a section in it that covers night CQ'ing done by two Tomcat nuggets -- very interesting. And yeah, I was wondering why they had such a cruisey night approach ;-) (800 ft at 5 mile, gentle glide all the way in.)
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 pm ---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).
--- End quote ---
I can think of one other NavAv aircraft you'd like ;-)
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
Nod, I was aware that Hornet's are well-renowned for their excellent handling at high alpha. (I think it was Sludge who posted some awesome links earlier in this thread that had some History/Military channel covering DACT between Navy Hornets and German Mig-29s. In debrief the Germans were well impressed with the Hornet's slow speed, high alpha maneuverability (and the Yanks with the Mig's crazy ballistic thrust-to-weight).)
Thanks again for the feedback and insight, you've unleashed a couple more gems for me to mull over...
(Anyone else think we're overdue for some regularly scheduled SFCarrier2 MP sessions? I vaguely recall Razgriz mentioning that it was pretty common Saturday occurrence in the past...)
trent:
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on September 16, 2010, 08:21:02 pm ---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.]
--- End quote ---
Yeah this is definitely an area I'm not happy with... I'm yet to find the holy grail of abeam distance, turn rate/AOB, speed, descent rate, TCN distance to be able to consistently roll out wings level at 3/4 mile, tracking centerline, and on glidescope. I find it easier to delay the turn to final a bit (as in that video... I think I was abeam at 1.1 and waited 'til 1.2-1.3 miles TCN before turning in)... or rather, when I delay the turn a bit, I find it a lot easier to roll wings level on centerline. Unfortunately, when I do that, I end up way, way too long in the groove.
If I try tighten things up a bit in order to get my time in groove down to a more acceptable level, everything else goes to shite. I'll either roll out and be on glidescope, but not even remotely close to centerline, or will be tracking centerline but be wildly off-speed and/or off glidescope.
I kinda' feel like (at least partially) blaming the 4.0 FSX glidescope versus the 3.5 RL issue here. All the NATOPS docs and whatnot have precise guidelines on ideal abeam distance, AOB, descent rate and VV placement throughout the entire turn from downwind to final, altitude checkpoints at 90 (450ft), etc. I'm sure there's a magic set of CV BRC + wind strength + wind orientation settings in FSX that would allow for the NATOPS guidance to work, but I have nfi what they are. If I knew that, though, I'd be able to set myself consistent abeam distance + AOB + 90 checkpoint altitude + roll-out altitude + ideal time-in-grove figures, and then (try and) follow them religiously.
Would be nice to know what that 'OK, 3' video was shot with (wind and carrier orientation wise). That final turn was beautiful. Held exactly 750ft/m descent, on speed, centered ball and lineup all the way from wings level to trap.
SpazSinbad:
trent, looks like you have a useful setup for FSX. Mine is very ordinary with a very old wobbly Sidewinder Pro stick and a 21 inch cathode tube monitor. The thing is though - I'm used to it, I have tried other sticks and they don't fly well compared to the Sidewinder - even though it is wobbly (through over use in other non flight sim games). The thing I think would be good is the TrackIR or equivalent setup to be able to 'look and see' without having to be hobbled by other methods of looking into a turn for example.
Too much emphasis can be put 'on the numbers'. Yes it is important to be accurate as possible but in real life (during a return from a carrier mission by day) those numbers are very flexible except perhaps the altitude and getting on speed quickly. This is where experience (through practice) counts. IF the weather conditions are the same then quickly one can adjust to required base turn point. IF that is incorrect one can adjust during the turn by making a sharper turn initially then widening the turn at the end to get to the ideal 'start' point. But then you have to be looking into the turn at the carrier to judge this by eyeball. Doing things always by numbers is OK at the start - then you have to start eyeballing for fine adjustments because your return to the carrier for that single approach is never going to be 'on the numbers' for a lot of reasons. However I acknowledge this is a simulator and there are lots of limitations so flying on instruments can be one way to overcome the limitations - yet I'm asking that you develop your 'eye' about these issues also so that you can fly the pattern visually and then adjust accordingly in real time as best you can.
Here it is important to say that if you are not where you should be then 'go there'. Don't aim to smoothly fly to the right position. Go there now. Don't wait. Make corrections now - don't wait. Don't accept anything less. Yes you will have errors but you will be correcting them ASAP. Remember airforces fly smoothly - NavAvers fly the ball. Naval Aviators fly the aircraft, Air Force types let the aircraft fly them (because they aim to be smooth on a 10,000 foot concrete runway embedded in the ground). ;D
When doing FCLP it is easy to fly by landmarks, however remember that mostly FCLP is done at night when landmarks are less apparent. The ocean has no landmarks. So adjusting the carrier pattern to what you see relative to the carrier is important. Yes TACAN is more accurate today but it is a guide only IMHO - a guide to how I'm going to adjust to get back to the ideal. You are landing on a carrier. Fly the carrier - fly that meatball. Fly the meatball as soon as you see it.
SpazSinbad:
‘Speed & Angels’ would be one of the great NavAv documentaries. An excellent storyline, well told about how it all comes together with many hiccups along the way - real life. "FOX 2" in that high voice must be chilling when heard - what a great character she is - "Just watch me". :-) Another good doco is the recent ‘CARRIER’ series from your US PBS network. How it all works on a Hornet squadron is well told especially when the CO takes over the tanker mission from the nugget on a bad night. No one expects that a newbie can handle everything on their first cruise.
‘OK 3 wire’ has excellent graphics and in game video clips. What makes the instruction outstanding is very professional editing and script to go with it. Don't believe that any one scene has not been edited to give the impression you see. Nothing wrong with that - that editing is what makes the instruction so worthwhile. It is rivetting stuff. And why not? It is NavAv after all. ::)
Back to FSX and the SLUDGE (Hornet). Using the Sludge or default Hornet is what this forum is about. Talking about other aircraft is useful but not really in the realm of this forum. I'll refuse to use any other Hornet in FSX except the SLUDGE. ;D
It is valuable experience to fly FCLP - lots of experience with making adjustments in the same conditions to perfect your technique. That is another question: Do you think you understand the NavAv technique - and use it? Trimming should be second nature and not even in one's consciousness. Just do it. Just fly the ball. Nothing else matters.
SpazSinbad:
Found the best quality example of the 1999 LSO Reference Manual PDF (5.5Mb) here:
http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/LSO.pdf
Lots of insight can be gleaned about how accurate carrier flying needs to be (to satisfy an LSO anyway). Mostly the AirBoss will be glad you are back but cranky if you break stuff. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version