General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board

vLSO Alpha Release

<< < (6/19) > >>

Sludge:
Serge...

Wow, big differences. That pic really illustrates how different both carriers "ball"/glideslope indications (IFLOLS gauge) are and how they get worse "in close" into the wires. Do you have a solution? Are you gonna change your "zones" for each particular carrier (accel default vs. Javier) type?

Later
Sludge

micro:
Serge,
It looks like you’re in the object placement tool when taking those pics, and I think that requires you to be pointing in the direction you’re looking. You might very well have taken this into account, but just remember that the nose of the aircraft on final is pointed well above the glidepath, 8.1 degrees in the Hornet as you well know. Hence, a jet might be on glideslope according to the ICLS that the Stand-Alone Meatball is based on, but because he is nose low (lowering the pilot’s eye) the pilot would see a lower ball on the IFLOLS on the ship. Much the same, the pilot might be a little high on the ICLS and because he is pointed right at the landing area see a center ball on the ship, as you do with Javier’s carrier. I kind of take the Acceleration carrier for what its worth, but after reading what went into Javier’s carrier, I was thoroughly impressed. However, I don’t doubt your abilities one bit, and if you already took that into account, please disregard.

Paddles:
Micro,
that's correct, I use the OPT to do various things when developing missions etc. This way I have discovered this difference between the two carriers. When 'approaching' to the Acceleration carrier along its optical glidepath, I have steady meatballs both on the FLOLS and the IFLOLS gauge (which uses ILS data). But when approaching to Javier's carrier along its optical glidepath, I have the IFLOLS meatball moving up (the closer to the boat the higher it goes), which makes me believe that the ILS source point and the FLOLS focus of lens do not coincide. That's why I asked Javier for some additional info on his model...

Paddles:

--- Quote from: Sludge on September 21, 2011, 08:28:36 am ---...
One question, what was your rationale behind the numbers for the pass? I'm only asking, as I wanted to get what your mentality is during the pass and grading. I read the .pdfs and thought you'd split IM (4700'/2=2400 rounded up) and then work towards the "front end" of IC (~1200) and AR (~300), but thats just the way I would do it. Want to hear your take on it.
...
--- End quote ---

Sludge,
I use the RHE_NAV_90_TR_1.pdf by Robert K. Heffley and here are some pictures taken from his work to explain my numbers  :)
You can see that the touchdown point is about 230' from the ramp.
Also, in the Table 2-1 Heffley specifies some other numbers:

at the ramp AR 100-600 ft from touchdown
in close IC 600-2000 ft from touchdown
in the middle IM 2000-4000 ft from touchdown
at the start X 4000-5000 ft (~3/4 nm —beginning final leg)

I assume AR is 600' from the touchdown point (or some 400' aft of the ramp). So my numbers are:
AR -  600'   (400')
IC - 1500' (1300')
IM - 3100' (2900')
BC - 4550' (4350')
X   - 5130' (4930') but currently X is at 4700', just to keep 1600' stepping  ;D

micro:
Serge, I gotcha. I was just referreing to the pilots’ “eye”.  Like in this first pic, I’m on glideslope according to the ICLS and since I’m on speed both “balls’ show center.


But, if I simply rotate around the aircraft’s lateral axis and point the nose between the 2 and 3 wires, I have lowered the pilots “eye”. Now I’m still on glideslope as per the ICLS, but my pilot’s eye is too low, thus showing a slightly low ball on the ship’s IFLOLS.


Again, my apologies if we are having a communications failure.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page