Sludge Hornet Modifications

[Razgriz]

Heh if you want to play that game, I noticed two on the first 15 seconds.  I'll watch the full video clip later, I have to get going.

- 30 degree rotation after catapult launch
- off speed for the turn and climb

[Sludge]

Trent...

Glad you have you aboard here.  Its been a while since we've had some new blood that actually knows what a decent carrier pattern is and not just flying in a blind circle and slamming the Hornet onto the deck with no idea about glideslope or they are aiming for a 3 wire.  Wait for Spaz to give you his grades, I'm definately up for that one.

Raz...

Dont get all carried away on the guy, just give some good critiques and pointers.  He's come here in good faith for us to critique on his pattern... which I might say, is a really good effort on his part.  Remember, either of us are not the end-all, be-all of carrier patterns either...

Spaz...

Tee it up.  I'm definately waiting for your critique.  Also, when you are done, can you compare how your critique is from real world against FSX.  The usual stuff, 4.0 meatball (FSX) and 35+ kts WoD vs. 3.5 meatball (RW) and 25+ kts WoD.  What differences that makes in the pattern (AoB turns, 180 turn RW/180 turn FSX).  I mean, of all people, you'd know about the differences... and I think Trent would like to hear the difference from you as well?

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

Skimmer...

I didnt see it at all from the VC.  I even moved the effect up the nose to just -10.00, so I could see it literally coming off the sides of the radar nose cone, and still couldnt see it in the VC.  So I'd have to say no on that one.

Later
Sludge

[SpazSinbad]

Trent & Sludge, I was hesitant to give any feedback for several reasons. Firstly I do not have nor intend to use the VRS Super Hornet. This forum is about the FSX Accel Hornet with emphasis on the SLUDGE variation because it is so good IMHO. The difference between standard Accel Hornet and 'Sludge' is the difference between usable and unusable. I'll not attempt to explain what has been explained in a lot of threads on this forum about the difference.

However in generalities I can comment [as/if required :-) ] on Trent's request for comment etc. Here goes: Carrier landings are about attempting to achieve perfection and if off the parameters required to get back to them ASAP. Staying close to the required parameters (meatball lineup and airspeed) requires anticipation and not accepting anything other than the parameters are as close as one is able to achieve. I see Trent (with all the caveats from above para about I don't have the VRS etc.) perhaps - and I stress perhaps - remember we are looking at a low quality video at numbers we cannot really see except some big things like? yep meatball lineup and airspeed (Optimum AoA) and we are not in Trent's head. Perhaps Trent can describe if he wishes what he was attempting (or accepting). And I know for a fact it it easy to criticise but that is the request.

Back to the video.... Downwind we see an acceptance of the fast (red chevron). The aircraft needs to be at Optimum Angle of Attack - trimmed - downwind ASAP. Aircraft too long fast and in turn which was good getting on centreline by crossing the wake well. I'll have to count the seconds in the groove because time in the groove may have been not ideal. [Have looked again at video to count from 'wings level' at the start that groove length was a little long at 22 seconds.] Anyway what looks like a good start nevertheless (I'll have to watch again after some hours later trying to remember) seems to stay at about half a ball high for most of the way. Perhaps Trent was trying to get the ball in the middle but he was not making enough control inputs to get there quickly enough and started to go higher in close to get back down for a landing that seems acceptable. Trent did have Opt AoA mostly during the straightaway which was good. Overall a good attempt IMHO with the comment that I think Trent was trying to be 'too smooth' and not flying with enough accuracy perhaps because of trying to be 'too smooth'?

Carrier landings are not civilian / airforce style approaches. When viewed from inside/outside they can look/sound a little rough but what is needed are the three parameters as close to ideal as humanly possible. Nothing else matters. I have seen from the outside A4Gs approaching where the engine smoke is dramatically back and forth but the LSO is OK with that to give a good grade with the nose moving a little but glidepath excellent. That is what it is about - getting the parameters correct and keeping them there despite slight deviations - not accepting any deviation for any time and anticipating when the aircraft might be deviating, to get back to required parameters ASAP. [An old expression is for the pilot 'to be working like a one armed wall paper hanger'.]  

How can we know any of this from a low quality video? Not really; but we can get the drift of some of it perhaps. A video alone - without pilot text explanation - leaves too much conjecture on part of the viewer. Anyway take the criticism as not directed at Trent individually but as an example of what is required for carrier landings: precision with the pilot's best attempt at getting there and staying there.

Did I say it ain't easy? Personally I would not claim such precision but by golly I'm trying to get there and to stay there as best I can. Probably my worst A4G carrier landing flaw (amongst everything imaginable) in retrospect would be my 'attempt' to be smooth, at the expense of better accuracy. On reflection (and after seeing others in the real world from the outside) I should have been willing to be more accurate and less smooth - if that makes any sense.

In FSX we are lucky that we can do endless carrier landings that we can walk away from. Soon more FSX FCLP missions will be available, which is where one is more likely to perfect techniques that will work during carrier landings. Carrier landings require precision and regular practice for sure.

Just to encourage people to use the SLUDGE Hornet (rather than default) will help them a lot to do better carrier landings. I have read comments suggesting that the VRS SuperBug is a framerate killer and if this impacts on aircraft handling 'reality' (unknown to me) then this is never a good thing.

[Sludge]

Spaz...

Damn, you really cut loose.  Guess its been a while since you've had something legit to "grade", eh?  Anyway, in your comments, you wrote about the red chevron "getting on AoA"... what is the rationale behind it?  Ive heard the other way to stay at 150 kts to maintain separation in the pattern but have also heard in Case I patterns, your intervals will keep you separated, so your job is maintain optimum AoA throughout the pattern into the approach.  In other words, Ive heard rationale for both, and hoping you can clarify 'cause I fly an amber donut from establishing the downwind all the way into the wires.

Also, thanks for commenting on Trent even tho its not the Sludge.  The biggest difference with the VRS Bug is its "lighter" on approach.  It can fly a 4.0 glideslope at 73 pct N2, which is about 12-15 pct less than the NATOPS listed 85-88 percent.  Meaning you're noticeably lower on the throttle position, and might've contributed to Trent being high throughout the pass?  Food for thought.

And you talked about the quality of the video.  Did you watch the 720p version of the video?  Im at work now, but unless Im mistaken, he also recorded it in 720p?  And I know the video window was a bit smaller, but I didnt have trouble reading it.  Just curious if it was that bad for you?

Later
Sludge

[SpazSinbad]

Sludge, I take it that you take it that criticism for Trent was not personal. I tried to generalise using his video as an example. The video was saved in .MP4 format which is usually the highest quality, being small made details more difficult to see. I guess in a backhanded way I was hankering after a NEW HUD seethrough that would show better detail probably. Anyway that was not the point as I concentrated on the basics only - meatball, lineup and airspeed.

Possibly the different downwind methods may be due to different NATOPS advice either in text or in the carrier pattern or FCLP graphics for Hornet / Super Hornet (I have not checked this yet). This is why it is nice to have one aircraft type on forum but I can live with any minor differences. My thinking is that it makes sense to be trimmed at Opt AoA downwind - ready to land - because that is one less thing to worry about turning base & flying the ball, although minor retrimming is needed due to power down for slight descent. Some pilots fly with slight out of vertical trim condition claiming that it is better to be fighting either a nose up or nose down trim condition which in an A-4 means something perhaps. Don't know about other aircraft though nowadays with flybywire probably OK to be completely trimmed.

Flying at a set speed downwind (150?) may be dangerous if the aircraft is heavy. Early A-4s did not have an AoA indexer using a set speed (probably plus/minus a few knots) which got their delta wing during base turn into trouble losing some stalling into the ocean, especially when heavy. There was a 'DUH moment' when this was realised with the AoA indexer and Optimum AoA being used instead, not being sure at moment if this was entirely due to Early A-4 &/or the other USN aircraft at that time. Anyway Opt AoA proved to be the winner it is today.

The other day the 4.4GB PDF about A4Gs was uploaded in smaller segments with the front part at 1GB having all the info about 'how to deck land' (plus bits about NAS Nowra and stuff). I was thinking to make a 'how to carrier land' PDF out of the material but it is not / will not be specifically for that purpose here as such because it is only background info for those not familiar with NavAv, to help explain what they see the A4G doing in the PDF embedded videos. Probably too much info but it interests me anyway. Below is the FCLP advice for the Hornet from NATOPS with text describing 'how to' with more NATOPS to follow. Now with Hornet NATOPS carrier landing circuit diagram included below.

[SpazSinbad]

Interestingly here is the advice from the VRS SuperBug Manual (freely available via download): (13.7Mb)

http://www.vrsimulations.com/documentation/VRS_SuperbugXV2.zip

"...Pattern Entry
"A normal break is performed by executing a level turn to downwind with the throttles reduced to IDLE and the speedbrake function enabled (if required to reduce airspeed).

[ ] Speedbrake EXTEND (if required)
[ ] Airspeed 250 KCAS
[ ] FLAP switch FULL
[ ] LANDING GEAR lever DOWN

Downwind leg -
The desired abeam distance is 1.1 to 1.4 nm. The g-level required to achieve the desired abeam distance will be a fallout of break airspeed.

Trim the aircraft hands-off and on-speed. Compare airspeed and AOA.

Onspeed AOA is approximately 136 KCAS at 44,000 lb gross weight (max trap). Subtract (add) 1½ KCAS for each 1,000 lb decrease (increase) in gross weight. Complete the landing checklist. When wings level on downwind, descend to pattern altitude (600 ft AGL for the low pattern). Ensure the ground track pointer is on the exact reciprocal of runway heading.

To assist in achieving the desired abeam distance of 1.1 to 1.4 nm, select the 10 nm scale on the HSI display. Select ship’s TCN and adjust the course line to the BRC. On downwind fly to place the wingtip of the HSI airplane symbol on the course line. Ensure the ground track pointer
is on the exact reciprocal of the BRC. Select ILS if desired and available.

[ ] Altitude 600 FT (RALT)
[ ] LDG checklist (CHK page) COMPLETE
[ ] Airspeed ON SPEED
[ ] ILS TUNED/ON (if desired)
[ ] TCN steering TUNED/ON (if desired)
[ ] ATC ENGAGE (if desired)

Approach auto throttle (ATC) may be engaged if desired. Approach autothrottle, available in PA mode, will attempt to capture and maintain proper landing AoA (8.1°) regardless of GW or attitude.
 
WARNING

Approach auto throttle is not designed to operate in aggressive maneuvering flight. Aggressive attitude changes cannot be countered quickly enough for predictable and consistent speed adjustments."

The manual then goes on to describe a 'velocity vector' approach without reference to the basic 'meatball, line up and airspeed' method. One may not agree with basic approach method but it does get you there better IMHO. However I cannot comment because I don't have/use the Bug of Much Superness.  

Even though is babble about using the VelocityVector there is good info about AoA in same PDF as shown here below.

[Sludge]

Spaz...

Oh yeah, definately not personal.  I just meant you jumped right into it with some gusto, which is what I was hoping.  No worries about the video though, I was asking if it was that bad for you.  I agree I dont care for that HUD (too overdone, thick lines) either and the cockpit is setup for the wrong default eyepoint, as if its done from a child sitting in the seat looking up.  The HUD glass damn near touches the top bow of the canopy frame.  Thats a common problem, as even the default and Sludge Hornets are too low in their eyepoints.  If we can ever get a collimated HUD, this error will get fixed.  And I'm still trying to get that accomplished.

And basically, I just wanted your take on flying most of the pattern on-AoA, since Ive heard both sides of the argument.  I know it can be done both ways in FSX using the Sludge Hornet, but I fly the on-AoA method from establishing on the downwind to the wires.  I think Ill keep doing that.  Also, another good pull from VRS site, that basically confirms what you were saying about flying the pattern on-AoA.  I think the VRS manual takes alot of it from a mid 2000s SuperBug NATOPS, so we can go with that.  Also, good legacy NATOPS pulls. 

Good debrief on the pattern and pass tho...

Later
Sludge

[SpazSinbad]

Sludge, the graphic in my last was posted at same time you posted. It is probably easier on forum members if only one aircraft (Legacy Hornet as seen in either Default or Sludge guise) is referenced IMHO. I was looking for Super Hornet NATOPS info to refind the excellent SuperBuggie AoA info instead. More later.... Super Hornet FenA18Eef NATOPS carrier landing diagram below. 'On Speed' = Optimum Angle of Attack.

Next graphic with text with carrier landing advice is from Super Hornet NATOPS also. As always it refers to FCLP advice which will follow... Hmmm both Legacy & Super Hornet NATOPS have scant advice about FCLP (although it is always referenced for carrier landings) but have Field Landing advice (without landing aids such as FLOLS etc.) with the Field Landing graphic saying 'use FLOLS' if available. Anyway the Super Carrier Landing advice earlier is current more or less for both.

[Sludge]

Spaz...

Yeah, maybe FCLPs are one of those subjects thats briefed in real world more than discussed in NATOPS?  Who knows?  Again, good pulls, and it seems the Bug and the Legacy have more similarity than not, with the exception of slower landing speeds in general for the Bug.

Later
Sludge

[SpazSinbad]

Yeah NATOPS can be a 'hit & miss' publication for a lot of things one would think would be there - with a lot of tech stuff that puts one to sleep (otherwise known as 'the little [or big] blue sleeping pill' in the USN). The good stuff are emergencies and what to do etc.

[Razgriz]

While we're on the topic of the G-Vapor, I found something intresting.  There was an extremely weak vapor at the high alpha, so maybe our logic for activating still isn't spot on?

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

Watch at 5:00

[Sludge]

Raz...

Thanks bud!!  Really good video that just gave me an idea, about multiple vapors.  Right now, I'm gonna use 4.5/8.5 for a baseline.  Watch from :57 on, when he get about 4.5, the vapor look similar to what I have now.  Then go to 7:10, and watch how big the vapor is during higher G pulls.  I got the "lo" part of the Hi-G/alpha along with a good logic for the same effect you saw, but with less transparency... and I'm using the numbers 4.5 G/8.5 alpha for its starting point.

Here's the kicker.  As a test, I'm making a 2nd separate/co-functioning gauge that will now enable at 6.5 G/10 alpha, that looks more puffy and thicker.  As Ive noticed the harder the G pull, the bigger the vapor gets behind the LEX and onto the blended area.  Im gonna start with using the old gauge to over lap and plug in the new numbers just to test the theory.

When its done, in theory, it should work like this...  1.  At 4.5 G/8.5, the first gauge starts and I get "lesser" vapor I have now.  2.  Keep pulling past 6.5/10 alpha and the 2nd gauge kicks in and makes a thicker, longer, puffier vapor.

Will let you know the results.

Later
Sludge

[Razgriz]

That is what I was thinking, but my idea is more complex.  At different Alpha/G combinations (pre-set in the XML), a different vapor shows.  It has about 5-10 stages and they blend together seamlessly in the air.

[WilliamCall]

You can always convert VB.NET to C++, but that is bound to cause problems.

Hurrah, a subject I know more about than the local gurus for once.  C++ is nothing like Visual Basic, for what it's worth.  It's probably the hardest mainstream language to become reasonably competent in, and unequivocably the hardest language to become a guru in.  C++ meta-template programming can cause brain damage.

Or, for an aviation-themed metaphor... C++ is to programming as a carrier landing is to general aviation ;-)

Forgot my point.  Oh, yeah, I'm a software engineer by trade...  This thread has inspired me to put FSX on my dev laptop so I can get acquainted with the SDK whilst I'm on holiday next week.

And how about this for a random offer... I'll donate an hour of C++-FSX-SDK-fu for every critique I get on my recently uploaded FSX/Superbug carrier pattern (it's the best pattern I've flown against my current standards so I'm looking for more experienced folk to rip it to pieces so I can re-set my standards a little higher):

Trent,
Is your video based on a mission?  I noticed after your carrier landing you got a verbal LSO grade.  How did you get that?