vLSO Beta release

[Letourn]

Hi All,

Does someone know the AOA and the Abeam for Dino F-35C and Virtavia A-4?

It would be nice to add them on the Aircraft section

[SpazSinbad]

Carrier Circuit Diagram is from A-4E/F/G NATOPS. There is not a lot known about the F-35C carrier circuit at this point but I'll add what is known by me so far.

The A-4 AoA is in units - not actual Angles of Attack as per this: "“The recommended 17 1/2 units on the A-4F aircraft is consistent with 17 1/2 units on the A-4C & A-4E, and 19 units on the A-4B aircraft. At these recommended approach units, for equal gross weights, the approach airspeed & attitude with respect to horizontal will be equal on all A-4 series aircraft.” A-4G NATOPS Quote

2nd Chart Graphic from NATOPS to show Optimum AoA at different allowed Carrier Approach weights with corresponding airspeed.
____________________________
_______________________________

"The F-35C model is as solid as a rock and pilots land at a much slower speed—high 120s to low 130s [knots]." http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=110
____________________

"The Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons and two AIM-120s.
     The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal and external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations & maximum station carriage weight on the inboard."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
_______________

"The [F-35C] max trap weight will be around 46k lbs, with an empty weight of about 35k lbs.

It will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3° at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum AofA or Donut].

Due to the fact that flap scheduling is completely automatic, the cockpit was designed without a flaps switch. Additionally, the tail hook retracts into the fuselage and is covered by hook doors that have an as-yet-to-be-determined airspeed limitation..."
LT. Dan "Butters" Radocaj VX-23 Ship Suitability
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2010.pdf
____________________

Knowles says the [F-35C] aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt. for the smaller-winged F-35A and B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says.
http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/06/07/awx_06_07_2010_p0-232376.xml&headline=JSF%20Carrier%20Variant%20Meets%20First%20Flight%20Goals

[Letourn]

Thanks Spaz I will try to add them to the aircraft section

[Paddles]

Well guys,
It is becoming more and more obvious that almost everything about carrier ops in FSX Acceleration is modeled pretty loosely.
Here's what I have found during my countless tests of vLSO:

Deck angles of FSX carriers don't match real numbers:

Carrier	FSX model	Real ship
CVN65	12.20	11.12
CVN68 Acceleration	9.193	9.05
CVN68 Javier	8.496	9.05

Guys here at the forum have already mentioned that the visual models of OLS and wires don't match their physical models. But which is most puzzling is that during my tests it appeared that FSX OLS is set to 4.12 degrees, not to 3.99 or 4.00, as we used to think. That's why vLSO and FLOLS glideslopes mismatched (they simply couldn't match!). The same is for ILS needles on the Neutrino's HUD, by the way. I have no idea why they used 4.12, but it's here where FSX disconnects from real world... 

So what? Well, at least your carrier approach numbers should be re-calculated.

The usual altitudes for a 3.75 glideslope:
1 nm   = 400'
3/4 nm = 320'
1/2 nm = 200'

For a 4.12 glideslope the numbers would be:
1 nm   = 440'
3/4 nm = 360'
1/2 nm = 220'

Of course, a steeper glideslope results in a higher descent rate. And here's where FSX disconnects from real world again.

Ok, down to OLS...
In FSX we have an OLS, representing the Mk6 FLOLS with 5 light cells, covering vertical angle of 1.7 degree.
Here's a picture of a real FLOLS:


As you can see, the datum lights axis goes almost between the #3 and #4 cells, or perhaps through the upper part of the #3 cell.
This means that at the moment you see the light switching from #3 to #4 cell (and vice versa), you are crossing the ideal glidepath.
I set my upcoming 0.7 vLSO beta to match FLOLS lights assuming that the ideal glideslope is somewhere there 

A deviation of one or two hundredth of a degree could be neglected, I believe. We will try and see, right? 

[GOONIE]

Very interesting, thanks for investigating in such detail.

Do you think this has something to do with all the (LO)AR scores and "don't settle" calls from the vLSO?

-GOONIE

[Sludge]

Serge...

WOW, great work! Seriously, 4.12, what were they thinking? I mean, the FLOLS and IFLOLS are only supposed to go up to 4.0 IRL, right? At least LSO NATOPS prohibited to 4.0 G/S?

Anyway, cant wait to try your beta when it comes out.

Later
Sludge

[Mickey_Techy]

Awesome work Serge. You continue to amaze me, as always.

[Paddles]

Do you think this has something to do with all the (LO)AR scores and "don't settle" calls from the vLSO?

It certainly appears so.    The focal point of current vLSO 3.99 glideslope is set slightly above, as shown on this picture:



Suppose, you're flying the ball, or descending along the blue glidepath (i.e. the FLOLS 4.12 glideslope). But vLSO expects you descending along the green glidepath (or the 3.99 glideslope), so you will descend lower and lower. At the point #1 the difference between the two glideslopes is almost nil, but at the point #2 (you may call it at the ramp) it is quite significant and vLSO 'thinks' you're little low.

In 0.7 beta the focal point of the new glideslope is set 5 feet lower and matches 4.12 angle.

[Sludge]

Serge...

I changed the Combat HUD G/S variable to 4.12 and it seemed to back up what you say; was really late (or early depending on your point of view), so I didn't get pics... but I'll try to get some when I get back tonight.

The main difference was making the wind over deck component to 35 knots+, p/ NATOPS specs. If you want some fun, try it with gusting winds and (light) turbulence enabled. Definately makes passes more challenging in that holding that cresting ball.

How will this affect the T-45C? I mean, 3.99 was bad enough (stormy pitching deck NATOPS ball limits), but now 4.12?

Later
Sludge

[GOONIE]

Thanks, Serge (I think we should start calling you Paddles).

I know you are not supposed to argue with Paddles, but I was sure my (LO)AR didn't seem right based on what I was seeing on the FLOLS. Dang FSX 4.12 g/s!!!

Thought this was appropriate to share, and could be adapted for vLSO 

It was a bright sunny day aboard the Big E,
When I powered my Hornet just over the three.
The ball it stayed steady, my glideslope was true,
Got an OK for sure, that’s the one thing I knew.

When Paddles came down they were on the attack,
My groove length was long, and my pattern was slack.
And then came the words that I feared they would say,
Fair pass 301, had you high all the way.

F@!! YOU PADDLES!!! You guys must be blind!
F@!! YOU PADDLES!!! Are you out of your mind?!
There’s no way I was high, so why can’t you see,
I only just barely got over the three.

That night was as bright as most any I knew,
The full moon lit up the horizon in blue.
So I felt quite alright with a sagger tonight,
And I only just barely dropped into the two.

Then Paddles came down and they started their dance,
Didn’t let me explain, never gave me a chance.
A stitch? Ticked the one? I wasn’t that low!
You’ve never flown Prowlers, so how would you know?

F@!! YOU PADDLES!!! You guys must be blind!
F@!! YOU PADDLES!!! Are you out of your mind?!
First I’m too high, and now I’m too low,
Just tell me where it is you want me to go?

The next night was dark with some storms rolling in,
The thunder was making a terrible din,
Easy Rider is gone put your taxi lights on,
CLARA ship, and they talked to me all the way in.

They came straight downstairs with a squish in their boots,
With their soggy wet hair and their dripping flights suits,
“The deck took a swing, you did just the right thing,
You did great 105,” and we started to sing.

HEY THANKS PADDLES!!! You guys are the best!
NICE JOB PADDLES!!! You passed the big test!
All our pilots survived, they all made it aboard.
We could swear that your voice was the sound of the Lord.

The next day was clear, a bright sunny day,
It was a bit windy, I got carried away.
And powered myself a bit over the three,
But not high enough for Paddles to see.

When Paddles walked in, his boots were still damp,
“Fair pass 210, too much power at the ramp.”
I thought for a sec, ‘bout the storms yesterday,
Before I decided just what I would say.

F@!! YOU PADDLES!!! You guys must be blind!
F@!! YOU PADDLES!!! Are you out of your mind?!
There’s no way I was high, so why can’t you see,
I only just barely got over the three.

[Paddles]

How will this affect the T-45C? I mean, 3.99 was bad enough (stormy pitching deck NATOPS ball limits), but now 4.12?

Sludge, my guess is that when they decided on the OLS GS angle the only aircraft they considered was the Hornet. You're right, 4.12 seems too much for the Goshawk. Hey, what 3.99? It has always been the same 4.12! 

Thought this was appropriate to share, and could be adapted for vLSO 

Brennan, a very, very, very good verse! Brilliant! And I must admit you were right that (LO)AR didn't seem right. Dang FSX 4.12 g/s again!!!

[Sludge]

Goonie...

I like it, uh-lot!! Good news is that Serge OFFICIALLY (according to me) has a new callsign, PADDLES.

Paddles...

Right, I guess now that if you program the HUD with 4.12 and put 35+ knots of wind, the little Goshawk will have a great time coming aboard. Good thing we dont have real world maintenance issues with FSX, otherwise Airframes would be doing jack-n-smacks on the gear all the time just to keep the birds FMC.

Later
Sludge

[pyroperson87]

Guys,

This is why I love the small FSX Nav Av community...SH!T GETS DONE! I just can't wait for the .7 beta to be released. Great work Paddles!

Sludge,

Where is the g/s variable located? I'm assuming one of the xml's. I'd like to adjust that on my jet.

Pyro

[Mickey_Techy]

....................Good news is that Serge OFFICIALLY (according to me) has a new callsign, PADDLES..................

I hear ya Sludge.

TOTALLY agree with you.

Serge is 'Paddles' from today. Don't know of anyone who would personify that call sign more.

[Sludge]

Pyro...

Ya, definately great work.... +1 on can't wait for .7 vLSO beta.

Its in the main F-18 HUD .XML under the Glideslope <macro>. If you have trouble go to the FIND tab and look for "3.99" specifically. It should highlight as a MACRO and just change that from 3.99 to 4.12, then save.

Mickey...

Ya, thats what struck me. And it was one of those "its been there in front of our face for the longest time" truths. If anyone rates that callsign, its Serge. Sorry, I meant Paddles.

Later
Sludge