FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: deltaleader on January 09, 2008, 05:59:15 am
-
Hi all...just stumbled across this board and notice some real good information. I am hoping someone can help me with Carrier Landings. I posted this on simviation as well but not had much success- here is my post:
"Now that I have the acceleration add on pack installed. I have noticed the flight characteristics are vastly different than some of the user designed planes like the KBT f18 and the f14 in the downloads area. I rarely have been able to land the FSX-A F18 on the carrier during the carrier landing practice mission. Previous planes I have had no problems what so ever landing. Everytime I land, I catch the cable but plane always nose dives on the deck even though I just did a 3 point landing. Anyone having the same problem with the F18 being over sensitive like this? seems like the gear is to springy or something..."
Link to the whole thread:
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1199226589
I was hoping for a better tutorial or more details to perfect the landings. The thread above has other comments and things I have tried. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
-
Unfortunately, my first attempt at carrier landing in FSX:A went very badly.. they had to notify my next of kin.. lol..
Anyway, I too, would love a tutorial on the subject, but like you, have yet to find anything definitive.
There are tons of videos posted on YouTube, but most aren't narrated, so all you can do is observe and take away what you can from them.
I found this one particularly good:
-
You are right, the gear is a little sensitive. However, you should still be able to trap sucessfully if you fly the proper glideslope and speed. It sounds like you're coming in fast. I'm not sure if you're using the term 3 point landing correctly or not. The term is derived from tail-dragger airplanes where a good landing came when you landed on all 3 tires at the same time. This does NOT hold true for tricycle gear aircraft like the F-18. You should be trapping on the deck in a nose-high attitude, landing on the main mounts first. So, if you are maintaining the ball's glideslope (it is fairly accurate) and landing on all three tires at the same time, you are fast and creating a lot more inertia. Since the gear is not designed to take that kind of initial hit, and it is a little "springy", you will get a good bounce out of it. If you have ever seen a real F-18 hit hard you know how "springy" the real gear is, too!
Now, there is no set speed for the approach as it will vary with weight. There is only a set angle of attack, represented by the indexer next to the hud. The indexer tells you what to do with your nose. If it points up, you are fast, and need to pitch up and adjust power to keep a center ball. If it points down, you need to pitch down. If you have an "orange donut" you are "on-speed" for your weight.
Being fairly proficient at getting aboard the ship here is the best tutorial I can give you:
The biggest mistake people make with landing on a carrier is using the pitch to control glideslope and power to control speed. This will only result in you landing in an incorrect aoa and speed. The proper technique is to use POWER to control glideslope and PITCH to control speed (or more accurately: AOA). What this means is that in a perfect world once you are set-up and start your approach, the stick should be relatively still with only small movements left and right to correct line-up (since you you should be trimmed "on-speed"). This is an ideal situation. In reality you will need to make SMALL adjustments to pitch as well. Power, on the other hand, should be moving CONSTANTLY. The throttle should not be in the same position for more that 2 seconds. This does not mean to go back and forth between idle and burner, it simply means that you should be constanly making adjustments. If you have ever heard a real Navy jet landing, you know how often power is being adjusted. According to this technique the proper situation remedies are:
Situation: High on glideslope
Remedy: Reduce power
Stiuation: Low on Glideslope
Remedy: Increase power
Situation: Fast (low aoa)
Remedy: Increase pitch
Situation: Slow (high aoa)
Remedy: Decrease pitch
It's imprtant to note here that this is a VERY simplistic view. In reality, every control input has a primary and seconday effect. If, for example, on approach you decrease pitch, the primay effect will be an increase in speed and a reduction in aoa. However, a secondary effect will be a slight increse in rate of decent. By the same token, if you get high and make the proper correction of reducing power, the primary effect will be a noticable increase in rate of decent, while the less noticable secondary effect will be a slight decrease in speed and increase of aoa. The point is to remember that all of your inputs are intertwined, but, primarily we use power for glideslope and pitch for aoa. That said, let's talk about the appraoch.
Get set up about 5 miles behind the boat at 1000 ft. Slow to 150kts while dropping the gear, flaps and hook. If you need to use your speedbrake make sure it is retracted by 3 miles so you can fly a stablized approach. While setting up for the approach you should be in the virtual cockpit so that you can see the aoa indexer. Continue to fly toward the boat level at 1000 ft.
At about 3 miles reduce power slightly and slowly pitch up to maintain altitude while watching the indexer. As you get an "orange donut", hold your pitch and increase power to maintain altitude. This is where the throttle hand will start to get it's work-out and is also the point where power will control altitude/glideslope and pitch will control speed/aoa. As you do this, note the speed that gets you that "orange donut" (for this discussion we'll say that its 126kts) and trim the airplane. Remember, once an airplane is trimmed for a certain speed, it will maintain that speed as long configuration is not changed. So, if you are trimmed for 126kts and add power you will simply climb at 126kts, and if you reduce power you will decend at 126kts. Keep making power adjustments to hold altitude (for this discussion we'll say that the throttle is moving between 50-55% of its range to hold altitude).
At this point you will start to be able to see the ball which will be low and probably flashing the wave-off lights. Your scan at this point is: ball, line-up, aoa. As you approach 1 mile the ball will begin to come up to its center position. Now, this is important if you want to get aboard and holds even more true in real life: once on glideslope NEVER ALLOW THE BALL TO GO LOW. If it does go low add power to get it above center immediately. Then you can ease it back down to center. A bolter, while embarresing, is a lot better than a ramp strike.
Just as the ball centers, reduce power slightly to start down (now we'll say the throttle is moving between 45-50% of its range to hold glideslope). Keep the scan of ball, line-up, aoa. Once on glideslope, make any final pitch adustments to keep an orange donut and again note the speed. It should be the same speed as when you were level, so you should already be trimmed for it and it should still be 126kts.
At 3/4 mile switch to the 2D cockpit (HUD only). In real life, you simply use the indexer for speed and nothing else. However, in Flight Simulator, the only way to see the indexer is in the virtual cockpit which limits and obstructs your outside view. This is why you note the speed which gets you a donut. Speed now replaces aoa in the scan and your scan becomes: ball, line-up, speed. If the speed goes to 125 reduce pitch slightly to get it back to 126. If the speed goes to 127, increase pitch slightly. If the ball goes high, reduce power slightly, and then once you are back on glideslope increase power again. As stated before, if you get low add power now and get back above glideslope. Then ease it back down onto glideslope.
As you get in close, about 1/4 mile, you are trimmed on-speed so no further pitch adjustments should be needed. Your scan now becomes: ball, line-up.
As you cross the ramp, your line-up should be good (if you you have held it), and no further line-up corrections should be needed. The only thing you are looking at now is the ball. Fly it all the way to touchdown and you should trap a 3-wire. Another huge mistake people make is the desire to see the wires at touchdown. Remember that the hook is 50ft behind you and it should touchdown right in the middle of the wires to catch the 3rd. To do this the wires should disappear beneath you before you touchdown. Any pilot will want as much runway in front of them as possible when they land, but you have to get rid of that desire if you're trapping on a ship.
I've found that with the hud view in 1.0 zoom the ball will disappear to the left just before touchdown. Try zooming out to .70 of the hud view and you should be able see it all the way down.
Another habit people have is the tendancy to flare at touchdown. DON'T. What will happen is the hook will snag a wire while you are pitching up and the force of the trap will slam the nose wheel down. Similarly, people tend to cut power as they cross the ramp. Once again, don't. Your rate of decent will increase rapidly and you'll slam onto the ship. Keep making power adjustments all the way to touchdown, then when you do hit, go to military power. The primary goal in a carrier approach is to keep the airplane at the exact same speed and attitude all the way to touchdown.
As this is a simulator it is not perfect and you may still get a bounce out of the nose gear even if you flew a good appraoch. But hey, as long as you get aboard with all the big pieces still attached, you in good shape!
Hope this helps and if you have any other questions let me know.
-
Thank you microbrewst!
Although I have a good knowledge of flight dynamics being a former private pilot, I have learned a few things in your guide that I think will help! I believe my biggest problem based on this information is holding my AoA just right all the way to touchdown. Although I am not flaring, I think I just have to much pitch hence the slamming of the nose gear in to the deck. I am going to continue to work on this...I will be sure to ping you if I have any more questions. This is great stuff! Thank you for taking the time to post this!
-Delta
-
i can't even maintain the suggested speed.... what should i do? lol
-
Microbrewst; Thats quite the lesson 8),Thanks
I have been able to land ,just not very pretty
now I can work on perfecting it , to look a little
more professional ;)
Randy
-
I agree with the others. Mircro, that is a great guide you posted.
-
Ok. I have been going at this like mad...this section doesnt seem to add up for me:
"At about 3 miles reduce power slightly and slowly pitch up to maintain altitude while watching the indexer. As you get an "orange donut", hold your pitch and increase power to maintain altitude. This is where the throttle hand will start to get it's work-out and is also the point where power will control altitude/glideslope and pitch will control speed/aoa. As you do this, note the speed that gets you that "orange donut" (for this discussion we'll say that its 126kts) and trim the airplane. Remember, once an airplane is trimmed for a certain speed, it will maintain that speed as long configuration is not changed. So, if you are trimmed for 126kts and add power you will simply climb at 126kts, and if you reduce power you will decend at 126kts. Keep making power adjustments to hold altitude (for this discussion we'll say that the throttle is moving between 50-55% of its range to hold altitude)."
IF I maintain the orange donut at 126kts...my descent rate is well over 900 ft/m. 50-55% throttle puts me at roughly 170 kts. Has anyone got this work based on this guide? I am just perplexed with this F18 trying to land on the carrier. I have been able to land so many other planes with out problem not sure why this one just doesnt even work for me. ???
-
Those numbers I stated are merely examples. As I said before, the speed which gets you a donut will vary with weight. It may be 130kts, it may be 119kts, it may be anything. Your task is to find out what it is and hold it. As far as your decent rate, you are under-powered. If you have a donut, you can do anything you want with your vertical speed. All it takes is power.
Next time you are in FS try this example. Get configured for an approach (gear, flaps, hook). Get a donut in the virtual cockpit in the same way that you always do. Now, go to military power and pitch up to hold that donut. What will happen is that you will climb like crazy. Then, pull the power to idle and pitch down to hold the donut. You will fall out of the sky. The point is: use that power.
Also, the throttle positions I stated were just for the sake of discussion. What I was trying to show you was that IF you were using 50-55% of throttle range to hold altitude that you will need to reduce power to hold a 3 degree glideslope.
As far as why this plane is so tough to fly, it's because it is the most realistic simulation of carrier ops that I have ever seen outside of military training facilities.
So to clarify: there are no set numbers for the approach. Getting aboard a ship is truly an art and will be different every time.
-
IF I maintain the orange donut at 126kts...my descent rate is well over 900 ft/m. 50-55% throttle puts me at roughly 170 kts. Has anyone got this work based on this guide? I am just perplexed with this F18 trying to land on the carrier. I have been able to land so many other planes with out problem not sure why this one just doesnt even work for me. ???
If your plane is well trimmed when you are flying at around 126kts, at 170kts you should be doing a lot of forward stick, hence the raise in speed. You don't let speed reduce again.
When you add throttle to a plane, the first thing that happen is, of course, a rise in speed. This increment will rise the nose. The nose up will make you go up (or down at less vertical speed if you were in a descent) and will reduce speed. Less speed will make the nose go down, then speed rises and the cycle begins again. After some oscillations you should end up at the same speed you had before touching the throttle setting, but with a different rate of climb. The inverse happens when you reduce power.
When you change your altitude through power adjustment (which is how it's done in any "boring" regular flight) the stick or yoke input is needed only to reduce or even eliminate those oscillations. If you keep the nose at the angle you now it will be more or less once the speed has stabilized again the nose dance can be avoided.
Forget the carrier and make a free fly. Stabilize the plane at certain altitude, speed and throttle setting (autopilot can do that for you, once you are in level flight, if you turn it off the plane is perfectly trimmed). Then do little throttle corrections and see what happens. On the other hand if you don't change throttle but change nose pitch (easiest way to do that is to change pitch trim instead of using the stick), you'll end up with a level flight at different speed.
With a powerful plane like the f-18, in the final approach, you have to do insanely little modifications in the throttle and anticipate a lot to keep it in the path. That's why it's so difficult. I find particularly difficult the amount of anticipation needed. You can't wait till the plane needs a correction, then it's too late. You have to do the correction earlier so it won't need any. :-/
Sorry if you already knew all this, I don't know you so I don't know your flying skills/knowledges. But it could be useful to others anyway. The first time a read about this so many years ago it changed the way of flying completely. It's again human intuition, so it's difficult to find it out by oneself.
-
At about 3 miles reduce power slightly and slowly pitch up to maintain altitude while watching the indexer. As you get an "orange donut", hold your pitch and increase power to maintain altitude. This is where the throttle hand will start to get it's work-out and is also the point where power will control altitude/glideslope and pitch will control speed/aoa. As you do this, note the speed that gets you that "orange donut" (for this discussion we'll say that its 126kts) and trim the airplane. Remember, once an airplane is trimmed for a certain speed, it will maintain that speed as long configuration is not changed. So, if you are trimmed for 126kts and add power you will simply climb at 126kts, and if you reduce power you will decend at 126kts. Keep making power adjustments to hold altitude (for this discussion we'll say that the throttle is moving between 50-55% of its range to hold altitude).
LMAO if you do that you will crash because at 126kts your AoA attack will be too high.(unless you're trying to land something that is not a Hornet? eg a Super hornet)
-
i can't even maintain the suggested speed.... what should i do? lol
Speed varies according to weight of both fuel and load IRL in Acceleration we have a clean Hornet with only the fuel weight to worry about. IRL when they ask you call the ball you're supposed to give the LSO your weight. For acceleration its missing the AOA bracket in the HUD its a bracket that sits next to the FPM and so long as you keep the FPM inside the bracket your approach is the correct speed. I'm not sure if the F/A-18A has this but I'm quite sure the later versions have it. In FSX acceleration I've found that 140-150kts to be the best approach speed any faster and it tends to be too fast resulting in a crash. (IRL its 134kts )Slower than 140kts tends to give a high AoA which results in the tail hitting the deck.
-
LMAO if you do that you will crash because at 126kts your AoA attack will be too high.(unless you're trying to land something that is not a Hornet? eg a Super hornet)
First off, like I said before and I'll say again: Those numbers are EXAMPLES. However, you are still incorrect. At normal to light landing weights 126kts is more than enough. 140-150 is way too fast for the Acceleration loadout and I GUARANTEE you that you do NOT have a donut at that speed unless you are at maxtrap.
-
i can't even maintain the suggested speed.... what should i do? lol
In FSX acceleration I've found that 140-150kts to be the best approach speed any faster and it tends to be too fast resulting in a crash. (IRL its 134kts )Slower than 140kts tends to give a high AoA which results in the tail hitting the deck.
That is exactly what I am finding out now. I also learned that landing with nearly a full fuel payload is almost next to impossible...to keep the donut i need to have a fairly high airspeed. So I have been dumping my fuel to under 5000lbs and that seems to help me with my landings. I still need to practice though but it is getting better thanks to the info in this thread.
-
LMAO if you do that you will crash because at 126kts your AoA attack will be too high.(unless you're trying to land something that is not a Hornet? eg a Super hornet)
First off, like I said before and I'll say again: Those numbers are EXAMPLES. However, you are still incorrect. At normal to light landing weights 126kts is more than enough. 140-150 is way too fast for the Acceleration loadout and I GUARANTEE you that you do NOT have a donut at that speed unless you are at maxtrap.
Really I'm traping at 140-150kts no problem at 126kts the sink rate is too high as is the AoA so answer me this are you flying the Hornet in acceleration and are you really landing on the carrier or are you just making this up? Seriously the real Hornets trap at a higher speed than 126kts IRL.
-
i can't even maintain the suggested speed.... what should i do? lol
In FSX acceleration I've found that 140-150kts to be the best approach speed any faster and it tends to be too fast resulting in a crash. (IRL its 134kts )Slower than 140kts tends to give a high AoA which results in the tail hitting the deck.
That is exactly what I am finding out now. I also learned that landing with nearly a full fuel payload is almost next to impossible...to keep the donut i need to have a fairly high airspeed. So I have been dumping my fuel to under 5000lbs and that seems to help me with my landings. I still need to practice though but it is getting better thanks to the info in this thread.
Ya know I don't bother dumping fuel and have no problems landing with full tanks I suggest you do the tutorial but just use a slightly higher speed like 140kts for your approach. Also if you use the aicarrier mod from AV sim you can practice on a stationary carrier which is alot easier.
-
Real hornet traps at 140
-
Really I'm traping at 140-150kts no problem at 126kts the sink rate is too high as is the AoA so answer me this are you flying the Hornet in acceleration and are you really landing on the carrier or are you just making this up? Seriously the real Hornets trap at a higher speed than 126kts IRL.
You are not reading my posts. You are right, real hornets do trap at a higher speed (about 134kts usually). However, real hornets do not come back to the boat in the configuration and fuel state that you are in. Landing on the ship with full tanks and nothing hanging off of the wings is just not going to happen "IRL". The only time that you are going to have a clean airplane like the one in Acceleration is when you are doing CARQUALS (carrier qualification). The only thing that I can figure is that you are not using your flaps full down. Look from the spot view when you are set up. Are the flaps full down?
Yes, I really am landing in Acceleration. All of these landing were mine.
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=291.0
-
Real hornet traps at 140
Where did you hear that?
-
Ya know I don't bother dumping fuel and have no problems landing with full tanks I suggest you do the tutorial but just use a slightly higher speed like 140kts for your approach. Also if you use the aicarrier mod from AV sim you can practice on a stationary carrier which is alot easier.
[/quote]
I have done the tutorial and use the aircarrier mod for practice. I use full flaps and probably just need to come in with a little more speed like you said.
-
Really I'm traping at 140-150kts no problem at 126kts the sink rate is too high as is the AoA so answer me this are you flying the Hornet in acceleration and are you really landing on the carrier or are you just making this up? Seriously the real Hornets trap at a higher speed than 126kts IRL.
You are not reading my posts. You are right, real hornets do trap at a higher speed (about 134kts usually). However, real hornets do not come back to the boat in the configuration and fuel state that you are in. Landing on the ship with full tanks and nothing hanging off of the wings is just not going to happen "IRL". The only time that you are going to have a clean airplane like the one in Acceleration is when you are doing CARQUALS (carrier qualification). The only thing that I can figure is that you are not using your flaps full down. Look from the spot view when you are set up. Are the flaps full down?
Yes, I really am landing in Acceleration. All of these landing were mine.
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=291.0
I've landed with Flaps in both half and full positions I also find the flare can bleed the speed a fair bit as well so an approach of 150kts and a flare can drop it to 140kts as well for the trap. BTW regarding the weight perhaps that detail hasn't yet fully been implemented in FSX because it doesn't really make much difference. Another observation is the FPM is shaking on finals and I'm wondering why that is in the Carrier quals mission?
-
I've landed with Flaps in both half and full positions I also find the flare can bleed the speed a fair bit as well so an approach of 150kts and a flare can drop it to 140kts as well for the trap. BTW regarding the weight perhaps that detail hasn't yet fully been implemented in FSX because it doesn't really make much difference. Another observation is the FPM is shaking on finals and I'm wondering why that is in the Carrier quals mission?
There are no "flares" on carrier landings. It's a stablized approach all the way down. Also, something that I just remembered: if you are landing with full tanks you are way over the maximum landing weight for the F-18.
FSX does take weight into consideration. Fly with full tanks, get a donut, and note the speed. Then drop your fuel to only 50% in the wings and 0% in all the other tanks. Then go see what speed gets you a donut. It will be a lower speed.
The FPM is shaking due to wind and turbulence. If you want ot get rid of the shaking clear all the weather.
-
Ya know I haven't seen any HUD tapes of FPMs behaving like that so thats something I might have to ask around about. So does anyone know the max carrier landing weight for the Hornet? As for the flare well each to their own its not a full flare as such but it does work might be why I can land with full tanks. ;D
-
HERE IS THE DEAL.
im stabilized exatcly at 134kts, and my AOA is correct according to the indicator. BUT the glideslope says im too low. then he says im in the right place. then he says im too high! then i missed the cables!!! but im stabilized at 134kts and my aoa is ok!
wtf?!?! these thingies arent working or what
-
Ya know I haven't seen any HUD tapes of FPMs behaving like that so thats something I might have to ask around about. So does anyone know the max carrier landing weight for the Hornet? As for the flare well each to their own its not a full flare as such but it does work might be why I can land with full tanks. ;D
The real HUD is a lot more smooth. It "averages" out your flight path to compinsate for bumps. It looks like the one in FSXA gives you exact information which causes jittering.
The maximum landing weight (MAXTRAP) on the F-18C is 34,000 lbs. Meaning if you luanch with full internal gas and don't get rid of some, you'll be about 600 lbs over maxtrap when you come in. It may not sound like much, and I'm not sure that FSXA will cause you to crash because of it, but it will make you: a) come in fast, and b) hit hard.
As for the flare, you're absolutely right. Thats the beauty of Sims. You can do what you want and have fun with it. I was just trying to give guys info on making it as real as possible.
-
HERE IS THE DEAL.
im stabilized exatcly at 134kts, and my AOA is correct according to the indicator. BUT the glideslope says im too low. then he says im in the right place. then he says im too high! then i missed the cables!!! but im stabilized at 134kts and my aoa is ok!
wtf?!?! these thingies arent working or what
Unfortunately I think the LSO is scripted which is why it does that BTW just do it seat of the pants you can't go wrong. Does anyone know if the LSO can be activated in normal free flight or online flying or does it require mission script? And does the carrier have ATC and if so whats the freqs?
-
HERE IS THE DEAL.
im stabilized exatcly at 134kts, and my AOA is correct according to the indicator. BUT the glideslope says im too low. then he says im in the right place. then he says im too high! then i missed the cables!!! but im stabilized at 134kts and my aoa is ok!
wtf?!?! these thingies arent working or what
Unfortunately I think the LSO is scripted which is why it does that BTW just do it seat of the pants you can't go wrong. Does anyone know if the LSO can be activated in normal free flight or online flying or does it require mission script? And does the carrier have ATC and if so whats the freqs?
actually i was talking about the meatball, not the LSO, lol
and yea, i would like to know if it is possible to activate the lso and carrier atc, or ILS, w/e, in free flight
thanks
-
The LSO isn't "scripted", but his verbage is limited. I have found him to be pretty accurate though. If you fly a good approach you should never hear him after "call the ball". Not to beat the horse, but if you fly the ball and are on speed, you'll be good. Also, he is only there during the missions.
-
what i was trying to say is that i was flying the ball and the glideslope @ 134kts but i always missed the cables, but nevermind, i had 0lbs of fuel with unlimited fuel on... 20% fuel made a big difference
and btw, now i know you cant find him on free flight, but i still dont know if theres a way to activate the ILS for the carrier... i was watching that video with the real hornet landing, pilot POV, and his hud appear to have some indicator for the runway and the altitude i think.. not sure tho
-
Hmm, not sure why you missed. As far as the ILS carrier, no dice. Because the carriers are intended to move, putting an ILS on them would be tough. What you saw on the hud were the Instrument Carrier Landing System (ICLS) needles. They work just like a regular ILS. You use them until you get the ball in sight and then transfer to it. But again, it's gong to be awhile before we get an ICLS in Flight Simulator.
-
IRL the Hornet drivers also have the luxury of ACLS when using TACAN/ILs.(Automatic Carrier Landing System)
-
If you ask any pilot ACLS is no "luxury". It makes for a very uncomfortable approach. :o
-
i wouldnt mind 10g if i was piloting a real hornet :P lol
-
Tomcat drivers are always envious of the Hornet drivers for that, and Hornet drivers were always envious that the CATS could travel further faster. ;D
-
Finally the Air medal for SUBS ;D 5 traps on the Landing practice mission. I'm using zoomed HUD now instead of the F10 view.
-
Finally the Air medal for SUBS ;D 5 traps on the Landing practice mission. I'm using zoomed HUD now instead of the F10 view.
I would interested in knowing how you did your approach...speed, AoA, etc...
-
140kts trimmed full flaps and a little lead due to the crosswind. Slight flare before touch down aiming for No3 wire. I had 1 bolter on my 4th approach due to the crosswind and getting distracted by something. ;D. BTW yesterday I discovered that you can break the Hornet if you're not careful and I had a wild catapult ride involving a roll into the water due to a slightly heavy landing before hand.
-
haha congratulations
i did all the f-18 missions, just save the game a lot and you'll be fine :D
-
No saving for me dude it was more a matter of waiting till I had enough free time to play them BTW did the UFO mission yesterday as well no problems beating it although I did lose talley on the bogey as it disappears is it supposed to do that or is it my graphics card? I wonder if dx10 users had the same problem?
-
im using dx9, but i didnt notice it 'disappearing', in fact it changes its course suddenly, and very fast to make it almost impossible to follow it after it turns, the best thing i could do is align close to it right after a turn. but thats not disappearing, maybe yours bugged or something, idk :D lol
-
Maybe mine has the realistic UFO FM patch lol ;D.
-
bumping this thread, and speaking of carrier landings, the fsx braking system has to be very unrealisitc, you know, when you're on the ground at 150kts and you pull the parking brakes, and the aircraft nose instantly leans foward and almost hit the ground. well, on carrier landings, even on the most perfect landing, i ALWAYS hit the deck with the nose. even on the most perfect landing, this happens. watching some real hornet landing videos on youtube, i noticed that even desaccelerating from 140kts to 0 in like one or two seconds, the aircraft's nose remains static.
well, honestly, i dont know why microsoft wanted to put militar aircrafts capable of arrested landings in a game with these physics conditions.
sorry for the typo, im really frustrated with this GAME.
-
150kts on the ground putting the park brake on, LMAO you're supposed to use aerodynamic braking combined with toe brakes and air brakes.
-
bumping this thread, and speaking of carrier landings, the fsx braking system has to be very unrealisitc, you know, when you're on the ground at 150kts and you pull the parking brakes, and the aircraft nose instantly leans foward and almost hit the ground. well, on carrier landings, even on the most perfect landing, i ALWAYS hit the deck with the nose. even on the most perfect landing, this happens. watching some real hornet landing videos on youtube, i noticed that even desaccelerating from 140kts to 0 in like one or two seconds, the aircraft's nose remains static.
well, honestly, i dont know why microsoft wanted to put militar aircrafts capable of arrested landings in a game with these physics conditions.
sorry for the typo, im really frustrated with this GAME.
I am with you on this. I wonder how many people fly full realistic with crash detection vs not in those videos. My landing always do a nose dive and roll right in to the deck regardless of how perfect the approach was. I did notice if I use the ailerons to correct the roll after I hit the deck, in some cases it helped keep the plane from fully rolling over. It also makes a diference if I land with a lower gross weight as expected. I still think the carrier landing is screwed up...I want to confirm this with a real f-18 pilot in which I may ping here real shortly.
-
The roll is induced by not being properly lined up with the centre of the carrier, I found this out in the carrier practice mission if you over do it you can damage your control surfaces and when you launch you lose control. Do not use park brake to land on carriers either ;D Hook and airbrakes only
-
dude, i dont use parking brakes when im at 150kts, or when im landing on a carrier, i just said that so you can picture what happens with the nose on arrested landings... looks like i'll have to make another movie to clarify this.
-
Hey Delta... here's my 2 cents worth (which is a lot like the Microbrewster's info so sry in adv. if it's duplicate).
I accomplished the Carrier Practice Mission several times, but was very dissatisfied with my performance. I'd slam the nose in sometimes and create a shower-o-sparks. Or break one of the main gear, land in excess of 750 fpm, not be centered and have the resulting roll-over (mission failure for all 3 of those, of course). My speed would be high (145+), AOA was high... no consistency… it was all goofed up. The attachment is a pic of what happened on one of my nutty-er traps. :-[
So I decide to alter the mission in a couple ways:
1) I set the Weather Theme to Fair Wx. (lol, like the pic).
2) BINGO level set to Zero.
3) Fuel dumped to about 3600 pounds (this can be done fairly quickly by hooking up to the Cat, switching on fuel DUMP and going into MAX afterburner.) This provides plenty enough fuel to make 5 arrested landings and a couple of bolters to boot.
4) I use the "Radio Stack" view. (I was frustrated with the head acceleration/deceleration in VC so I had to come up with something else.) I zoom to like .40 and shift the eyepoint (primarily using ALT+SHIFT+ENTER/BACKSPACE and SHIFT+ENTER/BACKSPACE). At the bottom of my screen I can see the EFD (engine fuel display) on the left and the red HOOK light on the right.
At this zoom level, the meatball is difficult to precisely see in relation to the datum lights, so what I do to compensate is fly slightly low so that the meatball turns from flashing red to red (maybe even to orange and back to red... make sense?) i.e. I fly slightly below glidepath for most of the approach.
Btw, to the person who posted the how to stop the head movement in VC... blessings be upon thee.
As I understand the posts here... most have been using %N1 (fan speed) but I will be describing power settings in terms of %N2 (compressor speed) because this is what is displayed on the EFD. And when flying I usually have something else in the DDI (besides the ENG display) :-P
I launch with full flaps (why mess with them?) and ~85% power and begin a climbing left turn. On the downwind leg I level off at 1200' AGL, am heading 185 degrees and trim for level flight at 150kts (this is what I shoot for anyway). Power here isn't much to stay level... like ~ 79%.
After a minute or so downwind of the abeam point, I approach what appears to be a Spruance Class DD, and I get the "235 Paddles Contact". I make my 180 back to the carrier, using roughly ~81% power (maybe a touch more) holding altitude, while pulling just enough G to bleed my airspeed down to about 135kts. This puts me about 3 miles from the ship, below the glideslope at 1200', and I hold level flight with ~79% power.
Now I make my second (and last) trim adjustment... to 135kts. Normally I'm a trim hound, and for any airspeed/power/flap change I trim out any backpressure, but these carrier landings are the one exception to my rule. I'll trim on the first approach to 135kts and not touch trim again (if I can help it) for the next 4 landings. Once glideslope intercept is made (flashing red meatball goes to red), I'll pull power back a touch to 76 or 77% (maybe a touch more, maybe less, depends how stable my turn to final was). So now I am set up on a nice long stable ~600 to 700fpm descent, at roughly 135kts.
Now with this Fair Wx setting... this is one approach where one doesn't have to be a throttle jockey. If you can get setup on the glideslope on course, with the right airspeed and power setting early... it's like you’re riding the beam, or riding a rail. All that will be needed is minor corrections. Personally, I hate to make a throttle correction in this Wx theme (especially in the Clear Skies theme), but in the other themes (like the Wx for the actual Carrier Practice mission) sure, I have to continually adjust it.
I think my technique varies slightly from the Brewster's in that, I pitch for airspeed (instead of an Onspeed indication), then fine tune my AOA according to the AOA indexer to get the Onspeed indication, using power to control rate of descent (like he said, everything is inter-related, but if I have to say what is primarily doing what... pitch to airspeed/AOA and power for rate of descent). I picked 135kts as my initial target airspeed because the LSO calls out "Too Slow" at 125 and "Too Fast" at 145.
When I'm way out at the beginning of the 3 mile approach, I like to see the velocity vector cover up the fantail of the ship. I don't aim for this, just something I like to see. As I get closer it will "drift" toward the bow of the ship at which point I'm really ignoring it. I scan in 2 primary places: the flight deck and the HUD. Looking at the flight deck I check the meatball and alignment. Back at the HUD, the AOA indexer is making itself quite well known, and I'll check airspeed and descent rate (and maybe sneak a peek at the actual AOA). It's almost like sighting a rifle... fore then aft then back again. Whatever you do, you HAVE to keep scanning and making whatever tiny corrections that need to be made as soon as you recognize it.
Once the ship blossoms into view (inside the 3/4 mile mark) I am verifying the picture I see of the landing area with my landing parameters (AOA, rate of descent and meatball). At some point I will lose sight of the meatball as the HUD will block my view of it (shortly before flying over the fantail) and my airspeed/rate of descent is what it is... that is my total focus shifts entirely to the landing area. I do this to maintain my AOA and alignment to the centerline. In the few 10ths of a second remaining, I reconcile the landing picture I see with the picture I have in my head of what things should look like. Of course you’re so close by this point, only minute corrections can be made.
And I just continue flying it onto the deck as if there were no deck there. No flare, no nothing. I don’t try to force it down… either the hook will engage a wire or I fly a bolter (seems somewhat surreal at this point, at least until you realize which is happening). The arrest is made and as soon as I feel the hook release, I come back a touch on the power so I can taxi to launch for the next one.
Once I got this entire picture firmly emblazoned in my mind, I went back to do the actual Carrier Practice Mission. I could then consistently make 5 landings in a row without totaling my bird.
What is even more fun for me now is to fly the “Clear Skies” Wx theme and set it to about midnight on the night of the New Moon. All the room lights go off and I will turn off the cockpit floodlights. With just the stars, you really have to focus on the HUD as it can be quite disorienting (imo). LOL, I’ve even tried it with the “Major Thunderstorm” Wx theme, but I can’t claim yet to have done 5 in a row :-P.
My only real problem now is: the landings aren’t being logged. I’ve got a handsome number accomplished (as I can roughly tell by the flight time) but not one to my knowledge has been recorded in the logbook. This is the case for both the “altered” and “unaltered” Carrier Practice Mission. I mean I should be getting 5 per completion… but alas, none. ???
Btw I did a dilettantish video of a Night Carrier Trap (I had to make it a full moon to record it, and even then it’s pretty dark… but it’s supposed to be… it’s night!). You can see roughly what my cockpit view looks like… the adjusted “Radio Stack” view that I am using on final. Again I use this view almost exclusively and no real switching of views is necessary for the entire circuit. You can see my AOA is high, but this was before I started flying with 3600lbs of fuel or less. At any rate I didn’t bang up the nose on those (crash tolerance slider was full right, and detect crashes/damage and aircraft stress causes damage is always enabled).
Here’s the link No comments as of yet like “Song a 10… Video a 2”. It’s youtube… but I think I can trust you guys not to be brutal :-S Btw, my camera operator is only 12 :-D
Keep workin’ on it Delta… keep ‘er on the centerline and you’ll get the hang of it. Hope this stuff helps.
Rob O.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
dude, i dont use parking brakes when im at 150kts, or when im landing on a carrier, i just said that so you can picture what happens with the nose on arrested landings... looks like i'll have to make another movie to clarify this.
If you're perfectly lined up the aircraft doesn't roll, if you make a movie use the HUD only view.
-
I am with you on this. I wonder how many people fly full realistic with crash detection vs not in those videos. My landing always do a nose dive and roll right in to the deck regardless of how perfect the approach was. I did notice if I use the ailerons to correct the roll after I hit the deck, in some cases it helped keep the plane from fully rolling over. It also makes a diference if I land with a lower gross weight as expected. I still think the carrier landing is screwed up...I want to confirm this with a real f-18 pilot in which I may ping here real shortly.
Well, I wasn't a Hornet guy but I did my time in Tomcats (yep, that's me on the LSO platform). I've gotta say that the carrier ops are pretty accurate. As I said before, it just sounds like some of you aren't flying a good approach. People are coming in low, hot, and heavy. Every video that I've seen shows people WAY low. Fly the ball and you won't go wrong.
-
Thanks Ozzie for the write up. This gives me some more ammo to work with and I noticed in the video the nose was pointed more inline with the carrier direction than it was with the centerline of the deck. I think that is where my problem is, I am trying to fly a more conventional approach down the centerline however, with the carrier in movement, I alway end up drifting and having to make bigger corrections. I pretty much know I am struggling with a centerline landing and often come in at an angle. I think I got my speed and descent rate down now. Just need to get my alignment under control. I will let you guys know when I nail it (consistently). Everyone has been really helpful here!
-
Alright! Went back to the sim and finally completed the carrier landing practice mission. Boltered a couple of times but none the less completed it! ;D
-
Excellent to hear Delta. :-D
And I want to thanks the Microbrewst for his excellent posts as some great information in there. I meant mine as a "supplemental" to his.
And yes Microbrewst, I was certainly coming in low in my video (AOA was high). But I had to! Really! I was new and didn't know what else to do!
I was going to say overweight too... unless there was a gross-wt increase from 34,000 lbs to 37,000lbs. Now I do like I said and dump 2/3rds of that.
Like I was saying before, it was hard for me to determine my position on the glideslope with the zoom level I was using (particularly during the day) but now that a got a boatload of traps under my belt, things aren't happening so fast and I have more time to think about lineup. I'm going to try what you say because...
I "know" you are right on about the meatball. I fly low glideslope (cause it's easier to see!) and consistently trap the No. 1 wire (sometimes no.2). Now that I know the "right" wire is the No. 3, I will be working hard to acquire the meatball and keep it centered on the datum lights. Nothing else to do if I want to be promoted!
One more point Micro about landing speed (again folks, this man is on the money)... I found a checklist for the A-D models with a Landing Configuration of Full Flaps, AOA of 8.1 degrees at 27,000 lbs; Landing Approach Speed is 126 kts. (ehem, did someone say this wasn't possible :-O ). For every 1,000lbs above this one can add approx. 2 knots and be good to go.
Microbrewst, I do have one question for you sir (at least it is a hope)... you are a trusty Shellback, aren't you? :o
Rob O.
-
126kts is the superbugs approach speed(10kts less than the A and C model), 126kts will produce a high AoA in FSX and you just might hit the tail on the deck. There again if you like approaching at that speed its up to you.
-
Btw, to the person who posted the how to stop the head movement in VC... blessings be upon thee.
You are very welcome, I found it too distracting to leave in the sim,thanks for the extra info.The best I have been able to do so far was 3 good landings out of 5, I will try the fuel dumping,never even thought about that :-\
Randy
-
There is a lot of great information in this thread. I think it should be tacked in this forum????
-
I got a question regarding the IMC mission which I just completed there is reply to the LSO" 122 Hornet ball 146" its interesting that the wingman made that call yet the weight was 25605lbs anyone know where he gets that number? I know its for the wires setting but would like to know the correct setting for radio calls online.
-
SUBS17
"Onspeed AOA is approximately 136kts KCAS at 44,000lbs gross weight (max trap). Subtract 1 1/2 KCAS for each 1,000lb decrease in gross weight." (NATOPS flight manual for F/A-18E/F) so 126kts sounds correct for about a gross weight of 38,000lbs.
As per the F/A-18A/B/C/D NATOPS pocket checklist (01NOV04) for the given landing configuration I posted above, 126kts is the correct speed. Fwiw, the chart shows Approach Speeds (given above config.) which vary from 119kts @ 24,000lbs GW to 151kts @ 39,000lbs GW. (this includes a +2kt allowance as the wingtip AIM-9s are off ;) ).
From my FSX point of view:
I do not "like" approaching at this speed (126kts). As I said before, I like to come out of my downwind turn at 135kts, then "fine tune" this speed based on the AOA indexer. With the reduced fuel loads I have been using, this means in the ballpark of 130 kts.
You certainly won't crash at 126kts (as per your post on the 17th) and sink rate won't be too high (descent rate actually HAS to be lower if you're staying on glidepath). AOA @ 126 kts (less than 2000 lbs. fuel) I noted to be about 8.8 degrees which reads "Slightly Slow" on the AOA Indexer and trapping at that speed will by no means put the tail in jeopardy of scrapping the flight deck.
Rob O.
-
I think that call out is "One point Six" which I think means 1600lbs fuel remaining.
Btw how did you determine that weight?
Rob O.
-
Hey Randy,
Man go out of the pattern at say 3000' (Severe Clear Wx theme) with just a couple thousand lbs. of fuel then...
Practice flying a pattern at different configurations. You can start with say, the landing configuration (gear/full flaps/tailhook down). Climb, say, 1000' at 150kts while doing a Level 180 turn. Turn again 180 degrees while decelerating to 130kts. Then set up at 130 kts (or "Onspeed" in the AOA Indexer... your choice) a descent at 500 to 600fpm. This is how I taught my "real" flight students... I mean in the civilian world. And to me, the principles are very much the same (Real World compared to FSX). I mean whenever I checked out in a new type or make/model, I didn’t want to stay in the pattern. I wanted to go out for an hour or so doing the so called “four-fundamentals” (climbs, turns, descents and level flight) at the various airspeeds I would be using. This way when I got back to the traffic pattern, I could focus on landing, not on how to fly this new plane.
The big thing you need to note here is: your power setting in each phase of flight and how the controls feel to you (meaning amount of control movement, trim input etc...). Do that above practice enough so that you can do this "in your sleep" (i.e. you don't have to think about it... you just do it). You make the pitch/power change for the new performance you want (say going from level 130kt flight to Onspeed 500fpm descent): once accomplished (listening to the engine pitch) you continue scanning, and in a few moments when your scan brings you back to the power setting (for me the %N2 in the EFD) you might be like... “Let me tweak that One %”. Or you look at the AOA Indexer... “My pitch needs a slight decrease to get that Onspeed indication...”
Now when you come back to the Carrier Practice mission, the pitch/power settings for the traffic pattern will be caged in your head. Then when you are on final and the AOA Indexer looks more like the blinking lights from last season's Christmas tree, you can be like, "I know my power is about right to give me (e.g.) a 600'fpm descent; and my pitch too, because at this weight I should have roughly such and such kts." Then you can use the bulk of your brain's CPU focusing on the meatball and flight deck alignment, making the tiny corrections you need to stay aligned with the Carrier and on Glidepath.
Let me sum up (phew!) with the ol'
Pitch + Power = Performance
Airspeed (Pitch) + % N2 = Level/Climbing/Descending for a given Configuration (Gear, Flaps, Weight... etc)
(And NO NO NO we are not going to discuss pitching to FPM and Power for Airspeed! This is enough :-P)
Seriously, you will be amazed how much easier it is when you know what power settings to use for a given phase of Flight. You will see!
Rob O.
-
I think that call out is "One point Six" which I think means 1600lbs fuel remaining.
Btw how did you determine that weight?
Rob O.
FPAS in the MFD
-
SUBS17
"Onspeed AOA is approximately 136kts KCAS at 44,000lbs gross weight (max trap). Subtract 1 1/2 KCAS for each 1,000lb decrease in gross weight." (NATOPS flight manual for F/A-18E/F) so 126kts sounds correct for about a gross weight of 38,000lbs.
As per the F/A-18A/B/C/D NATOPS pocket checklist (01NOV04) for the given landing configuration I posted above, 126kts is the correct speed. Fwiw, the chart shows Approach Speeds (given above config.) which vary from 119kts @ 24,000lbs GW to 151kts @ 39,000lbs GW. (this includes a +2kt allowance as the wingtip AIM-9s are off ;) ).
From my FSX point of view:
I do not "like" approaching at this speed (126kts). As I said before, I like to come out of my downwind turn at 135kts, then "fine tune" this speed based on the AOA indexer. With the reduced fuel loads I have been using, this means in the ballpark of 130 kts.
You certainly won't crash at 126kts (as per your post on the 17th) and sink rate won't be too high (descent rate actually HAS to be lower if you're staying on glidepath). AOA @ 126 kts (less than 2000 lbs. fuel) I noted to be about 8.8 degrees which reads "Slightly Slow" on the AOA Indexer and trapping at that speed will by no means put the tail in jeopardy of scrapping the flight deck.
Rob O.
As far as all the sources I've seen mentioned 136kts of course it doesn't mention the configuration which maybe including missiles. The reason why I mentioned 126kts as being the approach speed for the super hornet is because it was mentioned that its approach speed is 10kts slower than the A and C models. No as for 126kts in FSX I've found that the FBW ain't behaving like FBW I'm having to trim constantly which it shouldn't if the FBW were modeled correctly 126kts would probably be easier to use as it is I don't use it as I find the AoA to high for a safe landing.
-
Hey Randy,
Man go out of the pattern at say 3000' (Severe Clear Wx theme) with just a couple thousand lbs. of fuel then...
Practice flying a pattern at different configurations. You can start with say, the landing configuration (gear/full flaps/tailhook down). Climb, say, 1000' at 150kts while doing a Level 180 turn. Turn again 180 degrees while decelerating to 130kts. Then set up at 130 kts (or "Onspeed" in the AOA Indexer... your choice) a descent at 500 to 600fpm. This is how I taught my "real" flight students... I mean in the civilian world. And to me, the principles are very much the same (Real World compared to FSX). I mean whenever I checked out in a new type or make/model, I didn’t want to stay in the pattern. I wanted to go out for an hour or so doing the so called “four-fundamentals” (climbs, turns, descents and level flight) at the various airspeeds I would be using. This way when I got back to the traffic pattern, I could focus on landing, not on how to fly this new plane.
The big thing you need to note here is: your power setting in each phase of flight and how the controls feel to you (meaning amount of control movement, trim input etc...). Do that above practice enough so that you can do this "in your sleep" (i.e. you don't have to think about it... you just do it). You make the pitch/power change for the new performance you want (say going from level 130kt flight to Onspeed 500fpm descent): once accomplished (listening to the engine pitch) you continue scanning, and in a few moments when your scan brings you back to the power setting (for me the %N2 in the EFD) you might be like... “Let me tweak that One %”. Or you look at the AOA Indexer... “My pitch needs a slight decrease to get that Onspeed indication...”
Now when you come back to the Carrier Practice mission, the pitch/power settings for the traffic pattern will be caged in your head. Then when you are on final and the AOA Indexer looks more like the blinking lights from last season's Christmas tree, you can be like, "I know my power is about right to give me (e.g.) a 600'fpm descent; and my pitch too, because at this weight I should have roughly such and such kts." Then you can use the bulk of your brain's CPU focusing on the meatball and flight deck alignment, making the tiny corrections you need to stay aligned with the Carrier and on Glidepath.
Let me sum up (phew!) with the ol'
Pitch + Power = Performance
Airspeed (Pitch) + % N2 = Level/Climbing/Descending for a given Configuration (Gear, Flaps, Weight... etc)
(And NO NO NO we are not going to discuss pitching to FPM and Power for Airspeed! This is enough :-P)
Seriously, you will be amazed how much easier it is when you know what power settings to use for a given phase of Flight. You will see!
Rob O.
Nope this ain't how I do it i don't worry about any of the above, for me its fly from the seat of your pants and watch the meatball. At the approach point paddles contact line up on the carrier apply lead to compensate the angle apply power and speed 140kts. As for N2 etc only really applys in a sim if you've got a really good throttle.
-
Well SUBS,
You can't possibly be flying "by the seat of your pants" (it's a romantic notion tho) because you would need to simulate the forces acting on your body that cause your butt to slide around in the seat from not using enough or too much rudder. And in today's "modern" civilian trainers, that sliding is nearly negligible in standard rate turns... so much so that the student normally requires prompting to keep the ball centered.
If your allusion "by the seat of your pants" means you just go up there and stick some power setting in and drive it to the deck (and by some small miracle you manage to slam it on the flight deck an "walk away")... then sure I understand that. But I don't possibly see how you are flying a stabilized pattern/approach to landing and trapping on every approach. Maybe you are one of the lucky ones and can do that w/o thinking or knowing why you do what you do... you just do it (but I think that is Top Gun fantasy).
I prefer (on the Clear Wx theme) to keep airspeed within +/- 3 kts and altitude +/- 50ft of my "self-assigned" altitude (those are the tolerances I set for myself). I work at that, and when I get better I'll tighten those up too.
Like you said... it's a flight sim and one can fly however. My post to Randy was to give a "real world" practice method that can be used in FSX to aid in learning to fly precisely, hence making these traps "a walk in the park". ;-)
>N2 only applies in a sim with a really good throttle. ???
C’mon. I use an Xbox 360 controller and it works just fine! I easily get 1% increments and usually a half % if I am careful with the settings I use. I’d use my Cougar HOTAS, but alas, no XP Pro x64 drivers that I am aware of (maybe I try it if Thrustmaster releases drivers for x64 Vista… is possible they might work in x64 XP).
Besides… you have to set power according to something! (whether fan or compressor speed) If you are just ball parking it based on speed… I can only see this leading to a lot of throttle jockeying on approach and imprecise flying.
Btw thanks for that about the FPAS... I blew off that page (as I never tried using it in flight) and did those calcs in my head. Not anymore :-D
Rob O.
-
Well I think first things first its always good to show people what not to do:
Landing should look something like this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/ScreenShot_526.jpg)
This does not class as a landing either
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/stuck.jpg)
And high speed high decent rate can equal
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/ScreenShot_264.jpg)
A mess ;D
-
Its also not good getting your feet wet either:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/ScreenShot_268.jpg)
-
Microbrewst, I do have one question for you sir (at least it is a hope)... you are a trusty Shellback, aren't you? :o
Rob O.
Unfortunately, I never got to deploy. I made it through CQ and then suffered an injury which cut my carreer short. Now I've moved on to the grown-up task of corporate flying, and all of my tactical flying is done from my laptop! Hence the delay in my response. My company was able to find the last reamining hotel in the country without internet service for my 4 day trip.
-
Thanks for the reply ;D and again thanks for your info (re: trapping).
Man am sorry to hear that about the career being cut short... but... wow 2 envious jobs: the million dollar gold wings and a corporate slot. :-)
I am so glad about this FSX and Accel as it seems is the next best thing to being there or dreaming about it.
I was at Kaneohe MCAS '81 to '84 and did 3 Westpac’s (2 with 1/3 and one with 2/3) is why I had to tease you about the Shellback thingy. Yeah... call me a jarhead... you'll still rate a hand salute!
Btw, I saw your video you did in the vein of TOP GUN. Man was impressive and very professional looking. Bravo!
Rob O.
-
Heres a video featuring a carrier landing from the HUD view.
Yeah my PC ain't the fastest these days so there is low FPS whenever I try to record movies aside that note the following in this trap I had a full load of fuel. I also today did some traps without the flaps which work mainly because of the FBW which automatically lowers the flaps. Funny thing about this is in the F-16 you don't need to lower the flaps for landings as the aircraft knows the moment the gear is down to go into landing configuration. Funny how the Hornet doesn't have this but then again its probably due to the FBW being quite new at the time of development. Now the seat of the pants thing, my method involves setting up the hook, flaps and gear, once thats done eyes should be watching the carrier, AoA bracket and the meat ball. Main things of interest are the speed and the altitude plus the FPM and i just simply line up and apply power when needed and maybe a touch of speed brake every so often. Crude I know I suppose if I had the F/A-18 NATOPs and Tac manual I'd probably try to use that as a guide I might look into getting those later on or just wait until the next Hornet sim is released (which will have a manual anyway). 8) Next best thing to a video is pictures to help the noobs learn to land.(and learn some of my bad habbits)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/trap1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/trap2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/trap3.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/CA2.jpg)
-
Well SUBS,
You can't possibly be flying "by the seat of your pants" (it's a romantic notion tho) because you would need to simulate the forces acting on your body that cause your butt to slide around in the seat from not using enough or too much rudder. And in today's "modern" civilian trainers, that sliding is nearly negligible in standard rate turns... so much so that the student normally requires prompting to keep the ball centered.
If your allusion "by the seat of your pants" means you just go up there and stick some power setting in and drive it to the deck (and by some small miracle you manage to slam it on the flight deck an "walk away")... then sure I understand that. But I don't possibly see how you are flying a stabilized pattern/approach to landing and trapping on every approach. Maybe you are one of the lucky ones and can do that w/o thinking or knowing why you do what you do... you just do it (but I think that is Top Gun fantasy).
Its from years of practice with every carrier sim from F/A-18 interceptor up to FSX acceleration, eyes on HUD and meatball and you can't go wrong.
-
How about this for an approach don't use the meatball at all. ;D
&feature=user
I think I need to save up and start building a pit like this.
-
Remember what microbrew said. On final aproach you don't have to aim for a certain IAS, you have to AIM for a glide slope and an AoA with the meatball and the AoA indexer respectively. This way the speed will set itself properly depending on the weight. More heavy and the speed will be higher, lighter and the speed will be lower, but the glideslope and AoA has to be always the same.
-
To Rob O : thanks man :o followed that advice to the letter and it worked, 8) it made a big difference dumping the fuel ,stopped me from tail draggin like a dog with an itch ;D
To everybody out there... thanks ,I realy apreciate these forums and am glad most are so willing to help
Two thumbs guys ;)
-
Heres another video of the carrier practice mission.
-
Heres another video of the carrier practice mission.
Interesting video SUBS17. All I can say is that if I did that on my computer...it will have rolled over and crashed. I am suprised to see so many of these landing successful when the wings are not always perfectly level or landing on the deck is at a slight angle. The only way I can land the F-18 on my computer is fuel needs to be less than 5000 lbs and I have to have a perfectly level and straight landing with the deck so I dont tip over. I seriously feel like my installation of this plane is over sensitive or something. If I can get a video of my approach and landing, I will post it.
-
Thanks for saying that Randy. Is great news to hear that. Besides... I owed you for the VC tip. :-P
Yes is a great thing these forums... I am constantly picking up things here too and am grateful for the work others put into their posts. Is a good thing I think to see what others do and then pick and choose (wow like a buffet-o-tips!) and end up keeping what makes you a "better" pilot. The learning never stops! Or the fun!
Rob O.
-
I'm sorry SUBS... I know a picture is worth a thousand words... but I need a little more info here as what I see is:
Rate of decent from just outside 3/4 mile to just inside that is from ~1200 to ~1500 fpm! I mean even at the first pics airspeed of 154kts, rate of descent should be "roughly" GS*6, so that would be like what... 120*6 = -720fpm (Groundspeed on the Cat is 36kts, so ~mid-150s – 36kts = ~120kts). I mean even at your speed of 154kts with no wind/carrier dead in the water, would be roughly -925fpm!
(I wish I could be a little more accurate here on the numbers but, my Hp15C calc is down so can't do polar to rectangular conversions and vice versa. :-P Oh yes I could probably find a website that can do this but :-PPP GS*6 should be fairly close for a 3 degree glideslope... yes I reckon on carriers that 3.5 degrees is standard but I don't know what the actual one here is and I don't know how the carrier's movement effects the "true" glideslope... does it decrease it?... someone? This is why I wanted to be a Navy Pilot btw!!!)
And your AOA man... for the love of Pete... is as high as 10.9 degrees at 145 kts to 9.8 just prior to you being over the fantail (now at 133kts?) Talk about risking grinding your nozzles off! I think the alarm will sound off at 14 degrees (not sure tho... lol... inaccurate info better than none at all!). I think I understand why you think 126kts is too slow… it appears you are transitioning from high speeds to lower ones and attempting to arrest your rate of descent…. Just like I would see the Marine CH-53 pilots do in their landing flare. Your resulting AOA gets very high.
And your Max G... Please tell me you didn't pull 5.7g in the pattern.
Speedbrakes! In the pattern!! Oy vey!
When I attempt Landing with Full fuel (the Practice Mission altered to Fair Wx theme) I HAVE to fly ~155kts to get an “Onspeed” indication (mid-7s in degrees for AOA). And with ~78%N2 I can maintain the 700fpm+ descent rate needed to stay on glideslope. This is with full flaps btw. And I did drive it to the deck this way w/o crashing. I mean you can do this sure… but I think one is flirtin’ with disaster… especially when you go into flying rougher weather. Man the sound of the cable release after arrest sure seems to agree with that!
And one more thing sir... I am having trouble reconciling the collapsed nose gear of the Caravan with "Success!" True... any landing you walk away from is a "good one" but... hmmm..... I am very hmmm…. Just what is going on there?
Rob O.
-
Rob you crack me up dude the main reason for the hairy landings is of course I'm using Fraps at the same time which lowers my FPS a fair bit. (And I'm always pushing the record button)When FighterOps is released I intend to get a new PC and hopefully then you'll see better movies. As for the 5.7g well ya know I do fly with an online Squadron and we do mainly combat so for someone who flys in an enviroment where there are alot of missiles involved circuits/landings are quick no-nonsense type approach. Of course in Squadron/War missions I tend to fly with more precision you're welcome to come for a flight with us sometime with Open Falcon or F4AF and judge my flying for yourself than just by a couple of videos and screenshots. BTW the SU25T crashes was me trying to land without a hook, in both videos the carrier was moving one was using aicarrier in the Hauraki Gulf and the other was the stock Carrier practice mission. As for the Cessna Caravan landing that is a stock FSX mission where you're supposed to fly a celebrity but on the way you have engine problems. That landing was gliding onto a moving carrier so if ya think a Hornet with working engines is hard try it in a caravan without engines. And yes the wires did snap the nose wheel off. The alternative to that mission is to restart the engine after fixing the problem. 8)
-load out full fuel tanks
- realism 100%
I also have to say the guys did a great job with this Hornet and the fuel dumping/carrierOps and other features rock I hope one day they can add more to it and make the carrier MP compatible.
-
Heres another video of the carrier practice mission.
Interesting video SUBS17. All I can say is that if I did that on my computer...it will have rolled over and crashed. I am suprised to see so many of these landing successful when the wings are not always perfectly level or landing on the deck is at a slight angle. The only way I can land the F-18 on my computer is fuel needs to be less than 5000 lbs and I have to have a perfectly level and straight landing with the deck so I dont tip over. I seriously feel like my installation of this plane is over sensitive or something. If I can get a video of my approach and landing, I will post it.
I think you'll find its not necessarily the wings being level thats the issue its the rate of descent, if you come down too hard on one wheel it'll roll. Also you can't in FS abuse the plane too much in the Carrier Practice mission otherwise you'll damage something which in one attempt caused a crash on takeoff. as for the fuel I can get away with full tanks for some reason the first couple of landings are a little hairy though but the last couple are very easy. On the other hand if you dump fuel you are limited to how many bolters you can do and if you get too low on gas you may have to go off and top up with the tanker before making another attempt. You're probably better off dumping gas as you've been doing until you do enough landings to get better with a bit more weight. Also notice how I'm sort of pulling the nose back a little to bleed off both speed and desent prior to touching the deck.
Just for a laugh, I know its OT being an EH101 video and all check this out. ;D
I invented a new game how far can you throw a humvee.
-
I am with you on this. I wonder how many people fly full realistic with crash detection vs not in those videos. My landing always do a nose dive and roll right in to the deck regardless of how perfect the approach was. I did notice if I use the ailerons to correct the roll after I hit the deck, in some cases it helped keep the plane from fully rolling over. It also makes a diference if I land with a lower gross weight as expected. I still think the carrier landing is screwed up...I want to confirm this with a real f-18 pilot in which I may ping here real shortly.
Well, I wasn't a Hornet guy but I did my time in Tomcats (yep, that's me on the LSO platform). I've gotta say that the carrier ops are pretty accurate. As I said before, it just sounds like some of you aren't flying a good approach. People are coming in low, hot, and heavy. Every video that I've seen shows people WAY low. Fly the ball and you won't go wrong.
Have you ever checked out any of the older Tomcat sims like Fleet defender and Topgun Fire at will? It was sad to see the last Tomcats on a carier on video a while back I think its about time someone made a Tomcat sim. Think I'd take a Tomcat sim over a Hornet sim anytime.
-
Ok SUBS thanks for reminding me about that deviation in the Catalina Day Spa mission...
Yes, I agree, is no simple thing to land engine out anywhere especially on a moving runway.
When I did that mission, I didn't even consider landing on the carrier (for more than one reason). I did a quick and dirty mental checklist for that problem and got a quick restart (this is something you practice for IRL and I've actually had a similar event occur once in a Saratoga).
I am surprised the arrestor wires would cause a collapse of the nose gear (although thanks for the tip, as I did avoid them when I landed on the carrier tonite). And the multiple warnings to stay away were cool! Absolutely no way I would attempt this IRL if presented with this dilemma... what with the current state we are in along with past incidents like the USS Cole. I can just hear the guys in the CIC saying, "wow a chance to test the CIWS." Very cool to try this in FSX.
I actually ran across a set of arresting wires at Terre Haute (HUF) in a Piper Warrior (I won't say who it belonged to!) when I was a knuckle-headed student pilot. Dang what a racket! Live and learn (if you live). :-S
I know what you mean about Fraps... I have read that if you can record to a separate drive, that will lessen the FPS hit. And yes I got to get the full version if I am going to do any more recording... 30 sec runs always seem to stop at the wrong time.
Btw, am too shy right now to fly online but maybe sometime. :-P
Rob O.
-
Have you ever checked out any of the older Tomcat sims like Fleet defender and Topgun Fire at will? It was sad to see the last Tomcats on a carier on video a while back I think its about time someone made a Tomcat sim. Think I'd take a Tomcat sim over a Hornet sim anytime.
No, I was never really into sims until recently. I mostly used FSX as a procedural trainier for checkrides and evals at my current job. Then one day I saw Acceleration and bought it for the Reno races. I assumed that the carrier ops would be fairly unrealistic. When I tried it out, I was shocked. Not sure if I mentioned this before, but the carrier in Acceleration is identical to the one that was in the F-14D sim at Miramar (ie, look, lighting, putting your nose wheel in the box to get hooked up to the cat, etc).
It is sad to see the cat go, but it was a sledge hammer being used as a fly swatter. It was designed around the Phoenix to shoot Soviet bombers a hundred miles out. And while it adapted to other roles VERY well, the original intent was never used and not one Phoenix was ever fired in combat.
I would love to see a Tomcat sim of the same league as acceleration. Let's start a petition ;).
-
Petiton already started although I have to point out yes the Aim54 has been used successfully in combat. But it wasn't the US Navy who earned those stats.
http://www.fighterops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7010
The reason why its a locked thread is the same request keeps popping up from time to time F-14s very popular. I have to agree on the realism BTW with the carrierops its far better than previous sims. The only one better was Super Hornet which had animated ground crew.
-
I have to point out yes the Aim54 has been used successfully in combat.
Elaborate, please. ???
-
The Iranians used them quite a few times in the Iran/Iraq war and even shot down fighters with them I think the closest range one was fired was 6Nm.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml
I've heard a few stories about it quite a big fight between Iran and Iraq theres a few books about it as well.
-
My misunderstanding. I was refering to why the US got rid of the Tomcat.
-
I think the reason for that was mainly political and the Superbug does not carry the same performance as the cat. Although it does have alot of impressive features I think they would have been better off getting a newer version of the Tomcat with maybe stealth and all the other gadets they have now added to it.
-
Check out this landing, with one engine.
&feature=related
And then theres always the C130
http://nzff.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5796
-
Another mission success ;D Yeah I know its OT a little.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/glide1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/r1.jpg)
Bit of refuelling prior to another circuit.