vLSO Beta release

[Johan]

What are the parameters for the Abeam? 590-610 ft and 1.2-1.5 NM TCN? What's your baseline number and margin of error? I'm asking, so I know what to fly.

Serge,

I have the same question as Sludge: what parameters are you using for the Abeam? I have flown at least 50 passes at distances and elevations close to the ones Sludge mentions, without an "Abeam " call. Although I am making good approaches and landings, without this call I am not happy with my flight

Johan

[micro]

Thanks for the compliments guys. I’m still having the same problem with the T-45. It seems like the speeds in the debrief don’t jive with the approach. Like in my vid, I’m on speed most of the time except for at 3:01 I go to a red chevron just before the ramp. In the debrief it shows me fast during the entire approach except for when I actually did go fast. At that point it shows me on speed. Beats me.

Also, It seemed like the LSO started timing right after the catshot. Right at the end of the stroke I heard “you’re a little fast”. This also correlates to the time in the groove which is 111 seconds. Anyway, it is still a ton of fun. Good times.

[Paddles]

Well guys
Thanks for your input! Indeed, this is merely a beta therefore is not free of bugs and glitches. That's why we test it 

Abeam. Yes, there are some inconsistencies, I guess I'll have to rework this part of the program.

AoA. Good observation, micro! The program is set for the Hornet's AoA numbers, but as it appeared the Goshawk has almost one degree less on-speed AoA. That's why you were getting 'a little fast' warnings while flying an on-speed approach.

Thanks again. 

[Johan]

Well guys
Thanks for your input! Indeed, this is merely a beta therefore is not free of bugs and glitches. That's why we test it 

Serge,

You are the one to be thanked. Your program is outstanding, I have never seen such a level of commitment to get to perfection in the sim environment.
Thank you,

Johan

[Orion]

Okay, think I did this one a little better.

&hd=1

Edit: Apparently, for some reason, the vLSO didn't record the wire caught.  As shown in my video, I had the wire trap gauge running, and I got a 3 wire.  The main GUI of the vLSO says I got an OK, but the debrief screen says fair.

Edit 2: Yays~  Got an OK 3 from the vLSO!   Not sure if I actually deserved it, though.  Didn't seem like that good of an approach.  See 2nd debrief screen and video:

&hd=1.

Edit 3: Does OK in parenthesis mean fair?  Anyways, spent way too much time on this for tonight...  I should really be getting some rest.

[Paddles]

Orion,
You shouldn't get an Ok 3 because of your lineup deviations. But currently the program grades your approaches based only on the glideslope deviations. I'll fix this in the next beta version, so hurry up making more Ok 3's 

[Paddles]

I like Sludge's suggestion, three settings: Nugget, Fleet, CAG.

We are agreed  Plus Zip-Lip button.

Does anyone know how real world LSO's grade AoA (on speed)? Do they grade speed at the 0.1 degree level of AoA? I am not an LSO, but I would assume they use the AoA indexer on the nose gear and also aircraft attitude. Using that logic, the cockpit AoA indexer could show a yellow doughnut and red chevron at the same time when the nose gear AoA indexer would only show yellow (I think this is correct). Here is a picture showing AoA varies during the approach with the ultimate goal of being on speed. What do others think or does anyone have any real world input?

Right, the ALA (Approach Light Assembly) on the nose gear shows only one color, not two at the same time, as the AoA indexer does. This is a coarser indicator. This means that LSO can't see that aircraft is 'a little slow' or 'a little fast', he can only see it 'fast' or 'slow'... This also means that I should change the way the vLSO checks on-speed deviations. And this eliminates the need for those 'a little slow/fast' voice calls, too...

[GOONIE]

Right, the ALA (Approach Light Assembly) on the nose gear shows only one color, not two at the same time, as the AoA indexer does. This is a coarser indicator. This means that LSO can't see that aircraft is 'a little slow' or 'a little fast', he can only see it 'fast' or 'slow'... This also means that I should change the way the vLSO checks on-speed deviations. And this eliminates the need for those 'a little slow/fast' voice calls, too...

That seems to make sense to me Serge, but again I am not an LSO.

-CAPT

[SpazSinbad]

The LSO may not make a radio call "a little fast/slow" or any other 'a little' condition except perhaps during initial carqual or beginners FCLP, he will make notations though for debrief. The LSO is very good at seeing any deviations from ideal and he/she does not rely on any one indication such as the nosewheel light except perhaps when conditions such as night time preclude looking at other aircraft benchmarks as mentioned earlier. The LSO is trained to be the expert.

[Letourn]

Thanks you Serge for that new Beta lots of fun and some really good new features.

I think i also have the same problem that the other people hard to get the abeam call.

Thanks again!

[SUBS17]

subs17 asked about the 'KAHU'. It is a cheapware FSX version of the A-4K Skyhawk upgraded / modified by the RNZAF in the late 1980s - early 1990s to the 'KAHU' standard with a HUD amongst other things. The Kiwi chaps making/modifing the FSX version were not familiar with the AOA indexer nor with requirements of carrier landing. My attempts to have them change the parameters (I was the flying characteristics tester) to get a better landing configuration response were not viable. They only consider it as a land runway version. The view is not so good out the front either. It is not a good candidate for carrier landings but OK for land landings.  Otherwise the model is excellent with accurate flying responses and working everything otherwise correctly and it looks very nice when doing all those things including the wonderful parachute out the back on landing. A lot of old style earlier than FSX A-4 aircraft used to fly like Lear Jets and drop out of the sky when the spoilers were activated. None of this happens with the KAHU. The leading edge slats work as well as the spoilers, speedbrake and brake parachute, with opening canopy etc.

Here is a video of a test flight (I always took off in the same configuration because the circuit was where the changes needed to be made, so that aspect is not realistic, a good circuit is a tight circuit). The brake chute was made larger and more realistic also.

http://www.flightsim.com/main/review/a4k.htm
&
http://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=2465

This was their old website: http://www.fratbrosdesign.com/

Did not realise there is now so much info available on it online. Whatever.

I hope one day to see an accurate (as accurate as the Hornet) Skyhawk available (without the HUD being in the way) for some old style carrier landings. Meatball, line up and airspeed (Optimum Angle of Attack).

Someone may find the engine response and carrier landing flying qualities OK so don't let me put you off a very good FSX aircraft.  

RNZAF A4K KAHU Skyhawk - test circuit NAS Nowra

Hey Spaz that is a cool addon I wonder did the RNZAF ever land any of their A4s on the Aussie Carrier? I'm surprised they never allowed the AoA indexer to be modeled since the K has got alot incommon with the F-16 which has one next to the HUD. I wonder if the real K had one in the same location.

[SpazSinbad]

subs17, short answer is that the Royal New Zealand Air Force flew the A-4K a couple of years after the RAN FAA started (both sent crews/maintainers to the USA). However the New Zealanders had no requirement to carrier deck land. When the fixed wing component of the Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm was stopped (along with the only aircraft carrier being sold for scrap) around 1984, the Kiwis bought the remaining 10 A4G/TA4Gs, flying them back to New Zealand from NAS Nowra in mid 1984.

Later all the RNZAF Skyhawks were upgraded to KAHU status. Initially the older RNZAF pilots had some difficulty using the new HUD. One such tore off a main wheel in the under run during this transition, having to make an empty drop tank landing (partly arrested) on foam. The Kiwis were not so savvy about arrested landings even ashore. These stories and more in the PDFs online (see sig below URLs).

The FSX KAHU does have an AoA Indexer working but not so accurate as that in the Hornet for example. The AoA can be seen in the HUD and as seen in the video it jumps around a lot. Not a big deal. My concern was the poor engine response in landing mode. OK for long straight in approaches but not good enough for carrier landings IMHO. As mentioned others may find it OK. Otherwise it is an excellent aircraft for shore operations.

From memory (not a lot of details are actually available about the KAHU to date but now that the aircraft have been given to museums or sold to a commercial warbird interest in the USA - these details may become more public knowledge) the old AoA indexer was incorporated in the cockpit unique design which does have a lot of F-16 commonality due to the radar used.

If there is a good USN Skyhawk for FSX out there it would be good to know.

[SpazSinbad]

It is very important to fly 'dirty' delta winged aircraft in turns at Optimum Angle of Attack or above (the A-4 Skyhawk is a good example) . At less than optimum there is a danger the aircraft will fall out of the sky very quickly, especially if engine RPM is low and full power needed. One reason why the AoA indexer was invented by the USN in the mid to late 1950s. Flying an airspeed without taking weight into account was too dangerous. Here is a pic showing the old A-4K AoA indexer (with the KAHU HUD) which was used by the RNZAF for landings ashore but after a while I'm told they transitioned to using only the HUD AoA indications.

[Paddles]

And here's my problem with the Ball Call distance. When I called the first ball, in-flight/on-HUD it was 0.7NM, but the vLSO GS/LU screens had me at approx 3900'.

Sludge,
There's no problem   The HUD TCN reading has format 4.1, which means that 0.74, and 0.70, and 0.65 are all rounded to 0.7, but 0.64 to 0.6 etc. So, if you're at the distances from 0.74NM to 0.65NM, you will get the same 0.7 TCN reading...
Simple computations will give us

0.70NM * 6076' = 4560'
0.65NM * 6076 = 3949'
0.60NM * 6076' = 3650'

Actually you called ball at approximately 4200'..4100' from the touchdown point, so this is still 0.7 TCN.

[Sludge]

Serge...

OK, so try to call it right as the HUD TCN changes to .7, that way its on the topside of the rounding and closer to your depicted BC zone?

Also, not only is this question for you Serge but for everyone as wel. Other than Orion's one-time 16 sec groove, has ANYONE been able to get the NATOPS 15-18 sec groove time? I for one havent even been close. I even set 25 kts WoD just to try and I got it down to 22 secs. I even tried straight-in approaches just to makes sure it wasn't a pattern issue and sure enough, still 22 secs or more. Am I missing something (obvious or not)?

Not sure why but we here in FSX NavAv just cannot get into the sub-20 groove time? What real-world/FSX disconnect is happening?

Later
Sludge