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'?
Man, you know what, that's some awesome feedback. You absolutely nailed it -- I was completely consumed with trying to be smooth from right about the time I got on-speed around the 90 'til I trapped. It was subconscious, too -- I didn't even know I was doing it until reading your comment. Because trying to be smooth took over everything else, accuracy suffered. Granted, not by a huge degree, it was still a 3 wire with pretty decent AoA, lineup and GS, but I definitely understand how I let the subconscious drive for smoothness prevent me from making small corrections along the way (which would have resulted in a less aesthetically pleasing approach, and hey, I was recording it (and the 50+ traps before it), which was probably the biggest catalyst in trying to make it smooth).
Amusingly, had you just left this comment regarding smoothness, I would have come back and questioned whether that meant an untidy (relative) yet accurate pattern would be preferable to a silky-smooth looking yet not-so-accurate one?
....which just happens to be the perfect segue into this enlightening next comment ;-)
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.
Haha, I can see why Sludge was anticipating your feedback. That is a frickin' big dose of mind-altering enlightenment. Prior to now, I've always assumed the almighty 'OK, 3' would be reserved for only the smoothest, silkiest approaches. I've also watched about a billion real-life carrier traps on youtube and whatnot and, recently, have been quite surprised with how... uhhhh... aesthetically-displeasing some (most?) of the approaches (wings level on final to trap) have been. Huge (immediate) corrections, massive (transient) stabilator/aileron deflections, basically... anything but pretty. Here's a perfect example of what I'm refering to at 5:41:
Prior to reading your feedback, I wouldn't have classed that as pretty or silky-smooth. I was surprised to see how big some of the corrections were... especially right before trapping (huge control surface deflections). But, after reading your feedback, it sounds like in real life, traps like that are the norm. That pilot was prioritising accuracy over all else, and as soon the approach parameters deviated from an acceptable level, corrections were immediately made. I think he ended up with a 3 wire trap, too.
Now, as to all this focus on aesthetically-pleasing, silky-smooth-over-all-else patterns. I think I know what's to blame ;-)
(wish there was a youtube posting of this video so I could embed it)
I came across that video ages ago, and it was my first introduction into what a carrier pattern, approach and trap should look like. It's a pretty frickin' good movie. The information in it is invaluable, and it's presented by someone who clearly knows what he's talking about. However, all the patterns flown in that video are absolutely impeccable. The pattern and trap shown between 0:30-1:00 is pure sex -- I can't imagine how you'd get a smoother approach and trap than that. Unfortunately, that video makes it look too easy for it's own good -- flying an approach *that* smooth is frickin' hard, if not completely and utterly impossible for someone just starting out.
So, factoring in your comments, I have an even greater appreciation for that first pattern (which is so smooth because next to no corrections need to be made, not because the pilot opts for smoothness over accuracy). I kinda' get the feeling that maybe 1 in every 50 (100?) real-life patterns/traps would come together that perfectly, where every parameter is so on-the-ball for the entire duration that next to no corrections need to be made. OK 3, UNDERLINED?
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.
Fantastic feedback, really. It's amazing how enlightening the advice is from people who have actually been there, done that in real life ;-) Greatly appreciate it! I look forward to putting it into practice ASAP.
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.
Yeah, I'll give you that, the Superbug is pretty CPU intensive, and thus, it can be a framerate killer in certain circumstances. There are lots of little things you can do (settings wise) to improve things though. When I'm practicing carrier traps over and over in the Superbug, I've found some settings that get me a consistent ~30-35fps @ 1920x1080 with no major reduction in virtual cockpit quality. (Fraps will rip that to pieces though... best I can get is half-sized 24 fps.)
And just as a final note, I have nothing against the Sludge Hornet -- I even spent a few hours trying it out for the first time this evening (many more to come) and really enjoyed it over the stock Hornet. The fly-by-wire system the VRS guys have implemented for the Superbug is fantastic though -- it's amazing how much enjoyable carrier patterns are without the need to constantly trim for level flight (Superbug will maintain level 1g flight when hands are off controls). I couldn't believe how much of my attention span had to be devoted to trimming when I took the Sludge & stock Hornet out for a few laps.
Actually, I'll go as far as saying that the Superbug has ruined flying for me in non-FBW aircraft that require trimming, both in real-life and in FSX ;-)
