General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Greenie Board Possibilities?
SpazSinbad:
Secondly I'll ignore irrelevant comments made (Chams & Hook Bypass - whatever).
Your first sentence: "During CQ touch and go’s are required to simulate bolters." is incorrect. If you look at the Gif graphic from the PDF mentioned you will see 'T&G Trap'. 'T&G' is shorthand for Touch and Go - not 'simulated bolter'. This is one definition of a 'bolter' from a reliable source, I'm sure you can find others:
Bolt, Bolter http://www.tailhook.org/AVSLANG.htm#B
"A carrier landing attempt in which the tailhook fails to engage any of the arresting wires, requiring a “go-around,” and in which the aircraft landing gear contacts the deck."
If your definition of 'CQ touch and go's' stands then all FCLP passes are 'simulated bolters'. A touch and go ashore or afloat is what it is - not a bolter.
I hope this clears things up for you. And yes here is another 'big deal' story for putting the hook down for the first time.
My First Carrier Landing/Trap Aboard the Navy's T-45, Goshawk trainer By Michael C. Biemiller, US Navy
http://www.biemiller.com/fstrap.htm
"...We finally were cleared into the break at 800 feet over the water. The break is the way you enter the carrier landing pattern. I lowered my gear and came in for my first landing. The first two passes you make during Carrier Qualification are hook-up touch and go's. You just fly a normal approach and become airborne again when you touch the deck....
...My first pass with the hook down was the biggest adrenaline rush I've ever had. It felt like my entire body was vibrating. I probably had enough adrenaline running through my system to allow everyone reading this to go outside and lift your car over your head and spin it on your little finger. It was intense. I just concentrated on "flying the ball" just like I've always done on the field...."
Firstly I'll be happy to apologise for my manner of communication on this forum. It is not intended to offend. And who is James Chams and yes I provide references for my statements - do you?
SpazSinbad:
--- Quote from: SpazSinbad on April 04, 2011, 11:49:33 am ---Finding more photos of the PALM in use would be handy. ;D Photos without context or text describing the scene can be easily misinterpreted if features otherwise unknown. To me the metal spiral rings are easily seen.
However to me it looks like the hard cover spiral bound notebook has colour graphs inside which the LSOs are consulting. OK. Bear in mind I have not seen a PALM handheld device for about a decade. What happened to them anyway. Mobile phones and BlackBerries took over eh.
--- End quote ---
Quote above from PAGE 5 of this thread: http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4138.60
Palm Pilot in use: http://www.biemiller.com/v20-3-palm.jpg
From: http://www.biemiller.com/fstrap.htm Relevance is to earlier pages referencing images of 'Palm Pilots' in use.
"...the photo above is Navy Lt. Mike Biemiller, now a seasoned pilot and landing signal officer for Sea Control Squadron (VS)-38, recording a landing evaluation on his Palm..."
nicka117:
Micro and Spaz,
Having read posts from both of you, I've learned a lot. You guys are very knowledgeable and I know both of you have "real world" experience. No reason for the pissing contest.
Nick
Tregarth:
Nick, I quite agree.
The object of the thread is to impove the pleasure and challenge of a carrier deck landing using amazing software which peole have generously donated free.
It would be a great shame if two very knowledgable people spoiled it by, as you say, getting into a pissing contest. Can I please ask that the thread returns to the subject of producing a really good "Greenie Board" by building on FSX NP's marvellous work?
Thanks,
Tregarth
Sludge:
Tree and Nicka...
Yes, we need to get back to more discussions about how to improve the vLSO program and the other things, but I think the point Micro was making is that he has a VERY VALID point of view and Spaz just bullied the discussion HIS WAY. This is ridiculous. Now I wouldn't go so far as to call him Chams, as thats a long thread in and of itself, but Spaz does need to understand that others have valid points of view and to NOT SHUT THEM DOWN.
--- Quote ---This is not the case.
--- End quote ---
OK, who made Spaz the all-seeing/all-knowing US Naval Aviation God? It would've been far different if he would just say he disagrees, cite his articles, and moves on. But no, he attempts to SHUT DOWN Micro by just telling him what you just said isnt true. No, that's not how things should work.
And I of all people know about this recently, as I had to "go it alone" about the NATOPS approach speed vs. FSX approach speed vs. REAL-WORLD videos and Hornet pilot reported approach speeds. I thought I had it figured out but a good post from JR got me back in the right frame of mind and re-questioning whether LEF/TEF AUTO-FLAPS was right. It wasn't and I never posted back to JR or anybody else in a way that was condescending or bullying, even though I was sure I was on the right track.
Later
Sludge
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version