vLSO Beta release

[pyroperson87]

Spaz that was some dang good reading.  Loved that personal commentary.

[SpazSinbad]

'pyroperson87' thanks. Rather than write some kind of book that not many people would be interested in reading because I'm no writer, a few years ago now I decided to collect what I had about those times in the RAN FAA and then put it into a PDF which grew and grew. Had to stop at 4.4GB - the size that others can archive on a DVD and also I could send to them in the mail on DVD (before broadband internet ruled the world). Of course not all of that PDF is about the A4G and the RAN FAA fixed wing but also about the F-35 because it interests me and 'how to deck land'. This is no step by step how to because I cannot actually relate to modern aircraft as such with my own experience which is only with the A4G. However I found that investigating how NavAv is done today, in the USN mostly, that there was a bunch of history and NavAv stuff that literally I knew nothing about. There was no internet 40 years ago and information about others was scarce and on a 'need to know' basis.

Anyway long story short, this PDF and smaller bits of it are on the web page URLs in my signature below all of my posts. The 'SpazSinbad' page on SkyDrive is the easiest to access but due to file size restrictions large files can only (now) be less than 300 Mbs. Otherwise on GoogleDrive, which one has to sign up to for FREE, the same files are intact for perhaps easier download for some. At both sites there is a 4GB Video DVD of A4G Ops aboard HMAS Melbourne which includes most of the accidents, thankfully none fatal onboard.

At moment in about 8 hours from now the very latest version of the 4.4GB PDF will finish uploading to GoogleDrive - the same version more or less is on SkyDrive. Download it - you will not be bored I hope.

[Mower]

Having trouble with the AOA approach and keeping the FPM on the deck.  Example:  LSO says "you're fast" so I raise the nose but then the FPM drifts up and I have to reduce power and then he'll "dont settle"...robbing Peter to pay Paul it seems.

Just got to practice I guess.

Years spent landing my (v) F16 in FBMS not serving me well.  Flare to land = squat to pee.

[SpazSinbad]

'Mower' I do not use your described method but believe it is useful up to about 3/4 of a nautical mile when you need to transition to the meatball / IFLOLS. There is no substitute for that last 'half mile'. The mirror is accurate.

There is no harm in practising FCLP if you are not familiar with the Navy Approach method using Optimum Angle of Attack. FCLP takes some guesswork out of the pattern because during dusk/day (for example) you can have ground features to help get your pattern correct so that otherwise you can concentrate on flying the meatball accurately many times in a session.

[Mower]

For the final 3/4 mile I have trouble seeing the meatball clearly, even with Javier Fernandez's or Lamont Clark's.

Running on 1920x1080 resolution.

Who can read that tiny meatball...?

[Sludge]

Having trouble with the AOA approach and keeping the FPM on the deck.  Example:  LSO says "you're fast" so I raise the nose but then the FPM drifts up and I have to reduce power and then he'll "dont settle"...robbing Peter to pay Paul it seems.

Just got to practice I guess.

Years spent landing my (v) F16 in FBMS not serving me well.  Flare to land = squat to pee.

Mower...

Great quote about "robbing Peter to pay Paul", especially when it comes to Nav Av carrier approaches. You are alot closer to the right answer than you know, especially in powered approaches all the way to the deck. For the most part, yes.... throttle controls RoD and stick controls speed, but there is some "overlap" as you are finding out, they are NOT completely independent of each other. Yes, it does take practice.

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

EZ...

...Remember that Naval Aviation is backwards from most other forms of aviation...

Nothing backwards about naval aviation.  This is how every aircraft approach works.  If you really want to land a Cessna right, this is how to do it.  Large tubeliners only get away being "backwards" because there is a relative lack of precision (they're aiming ot hit a 2,000' touchdown zone).  Combined with the long lag times for engine spools, it works better to fly speed with power and descent rate with pitch.  
Truth is though that it's all the same physics and behaves the same way.  So when they power up to speed up, what's really happening is their descent rate decreased, they drop the nose to stay on glideslope and as a result speed increases.  Just a different way of thinking aobut things given how relatively slow it all happens in these birds.

I think he's just talking about how other pilots tend to work the landing and their priorities. If you look at this article (sure you've probly seen it), the Hornet driver talks about landing with this mentality with the Viper. Which is ironically funny in this case, since Mower is the guy who's crossing over to FSX Hornets (Nav Av) from a Viper sim.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/169261-f-16-vs-f-18-navy-test-pilots-perspective.html

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

Mower...

For the final 3/4 mile I have trouble seeing the meatball clearly, even with Javier Fernandez's or Lamont Clark's.

Have you done the Dante Lights fix as well as changed the runway lights scalars in your FSX.CFG? I know this gives me a really clear meatball at 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Also, do you get "you're low" calls all the way in the groove or in-close? I've been getting those IC/AR alot lately, and keeping a steady approach, get a 4 wire. If more people have this happening, I might include a possible fix to this in my email with Serge.

Later
Sludge

[Mower]

"In the Hornet, the throttle is the primary control for the FPM; in the Viper, it's the stick."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/169261-f-16-vs-f-18-navy-test-pilots-perspective.html#ixzz2LNKX6Iq4

Yep, there it is, the source of my troubles landing on the Boat.

Cheers Sludge.

[Mower]

Have you done the Dante Lights fix as well as changed the runway lights scalars in your FSX.CFG?

Not aware of either, got any links please kind Sir?

[Sludge]

Mower...

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=2821.msg23722#msg23722

Funny you should ask, we've had this discussion before here, so follow this thread to my post where I have a Dantes Lights Fix.ZIP downloadable and the scalars you should start out with in your FSX.CFG file.

Later
Sludge

[Mower]

Copy, I'm on it, thanx again Sludge. :-)

[Sludge]

Mower...

No Prob. Once you get it installed and working to your liking, would you let me know what you experience in your passes w/the vLSO? If you get those "you're low" calls even though you end up with a good pass OK 3-wire approach. Trying to give Serge some feedback based on a hunch I have as to why it keeps calling stuff low.

Later
Sludge

[GOONIE]

Also, do you get "you're low" calls all the way in the groove or in-close? I've been getting those IC/AR alot lately, and keeping a steady approach, get a 4 wire. If more people have this happening, I might include a possible fix to this in my email with Serge.

Later
Sludge

Sludge, I also get a lot of (LO)AR, even though I crest the ball for the entire approach, which usually means I catch a four wire, or bolter. I sent Serge my logbook and also some pictures from FSX (HUD view and otw view) and his assessment is I am still low (he actually compared my vertical profile to one of you passes). Can't argue with the LSO or the vLSO I guess.  

 Send him your logbook, to see what he thinks.

GOONIE


p.s. acutally the picture in my banner below is from one of the pics I sent Serge to show my AR position (seems like the hook is at the correct height to me, or at least not a little low).

[Sludge]

Goonie...

Long time, buddy. Yeah, I may do that when I get a chance and enough passes to warrant sending the logbook file.

My suspicion is that the meatball, the visual model, and/or the glideslope reference point are not matching up or have some type of flaw that we are missing. I know that the carrier visual model is not correct. A while back, was flying with Molly (SYM;ShutYoMouth) Badger and she pointed out something that Sandpro and his gang found out... the carrier dimensions are not correct. If I remember, I think the FSX version is smaller and its compounded by the fact that the overlap of Javier's carrier makes things a little disoriented.

The reason I have my suspicions is that what we see in FSX (carrier meatball and wires) dont represent well and the fixes I've done with the Sludge (wire caught pee-pee dance) using this knowledge that the carrier physical model and activity (wire catch zones) areas dont match up. IMO, a possible vLSO fix would be to move the g/s datum points backward, so that they correspond with the visual model, to make the whole process transparent to the vLSO user. Essentially, the cause of the pee-pee dance was that we were doing a midair engagement on every pass. The wire engagement zones are above and behind of the physical model depictions.

In my opinion, this might be another FSX vs. real-world go-between fix because of FSX carrier's physical model overlay and incorrect scale size difference.

Later
Sludge