Stearmandriver

That surprises me too. There has been much teeth gnashing on here about how ICLS isn't used IRL on a case 1, but the reality is that it's pilot's discretion, and you can find many videos of case 1 traps on youtube with the needles displayed, like this one: Considering that neither a VR headset nor a high def monitor can even begin to render a scene in the same detail you'd see if you were there, and considering the further handicaps we deal with like lack of sensory feel, it seems like you'd want to avail yourself of every aid you could. And at least the ICLS is a realistic aid, unlike the goofy pop-up FLOLS.

Airbus? Ew. No, this is on a Boeing. There are multiple commanded speed indications on the PFD, and there are direct flight guidance cues in the HUD (ie, part of the flight director system) that provide guidance to achieving the commanded speed, no matter which flight guidance or HUD mode is selected. So, the flight director is always providing speed commands, as well as pitch and roll commands. You are correct that transport aircraft are usually flown on approach by adjusting pitch for glideslope and power for airspeed, but of course it's not that simple. They're inextricably linked, and a change in one will almost always require a change in the other. New pilots are taught this method to give them a concrete way of fixing speed and glidepath deviations, but as a pilot gets more comfortable handflying the aircraft, they start to use pitch and power in a more connected manner. For instance, when I cross the parking garage for 27 in San Diego and it's time to duck a little, I don't pitch down... I reduce power briefly. That induces a brief settle and keeps me on speed. ... which really means, keeps me on AoA. What I was trying to say is that, even if we don't directly reference AoA in these aircraft (though we can), that's ultimately what we're trying to control, is AoA. Speed is just used as a proxy indication of AoA. The problem with this is, indicated speed for a given AoA varies with load factor, weight, cg, and other things. But the proper AoA never changes... so doesn't it make more sense to just directly fly AoA if you can? (Regardless of whether you think about controlling AoA with pitch or power. ) Agreed. I do really enjoy the DCS Hornet flight model - it does actually achieve that elusive ability to "feel like a jet" that is so darn hard to find in a desktop sim. But there's no denying that the evidence presented in that thread indicate that the DCS spool times are simply wrong.

Also, there was a bit of ridicule on the last page at the notion that throttle could affect AoA. While I understand the point that in the Hornet in PA mode, the FCS pitches to maintain the trimmed AoA, it's fair to point out that in general, it IS true that throttle does affect AoA; there's no reason to ridicule that notion. In any plane, throttle will affect airspeed, and airspeed changes will affect AoA. Remember, pitch and power are always connected... changing one means you WILL be changing the other. It's just that in the Hornet, the FCS controls the pitch for you. Yup, and at ANY g, it will correspond to the correct airspeed for that wing loading. That's the beauty of directly flying AoA instead of airspeed - you will always be at the correct energy state, with no concerns about load factor changes related to bank angle, gust factor etc.

Again... you don't care about airspeed during approach in any aircraft, you only care about AoA. In civilian aircraft, we often use airspeed as a proxy indicator of AoA, but it's not speed that matters... it's ONLY AoA. That's exactly what the flight director / HUD speed commands are telling you; they're driving you to hold the airspeed the FMC has computed will yeild the proper AoA. In my fleet at work, we do have an AoA indicator in the HUD, we do train to fly an approach using it (although as an abnormal, in the event of an unreliable airspeed event), and the check airmen that truly understand AoA (many of whom are former fighter guys) are careful to point out that it's good technique to use any time. I've had fun discussions with a couple of the others who don't understand it. There's nothing special about a fighter during landing. It's just another jet. The same AoA margin below critical that yeilds the proper energy state for approach in a jet that starts with an F, is also correct for one that starts with a B or A.

To be honest, they do pretty well at both case 1 and 3 recoveries. I know we all like to criticize the AI (usually with good reason), but this mostly works. In Case 1 conditions, inbound flights will marshall overhead until the last jet of the preceding flight has trapped, then they'll hit the inititial and break the deck with always a perfect interval. Now, if you're lead with an AI wingman, you'd better fly a textbook pattern after the kiss-off or he will cut you right off; they fully expect YOU to fly a perfect pattern with a perfect groove time too ;). In Case 3, they'll marshall and push on-time, and Marshall will assign your push time to fit you correctly in the stack. Once again, if you fly the correct profile, your interval will be perfect on preceding traffic, and the next AI will have exactly a 1 minute interval on you. It's really fun to come back from a Liberation mission without being fully aware of the other (AI) flights out there, and to be sequenced properly to the deck. Sitting on the deck after shut-down, canopy open, and hearing jets overhead, looking up to see another flight breaking the deck etc... it's really good stuff. Yes, the SC has issues. Yes, the current multiplayer launch bug needs fixed yesterday. Yes, it's asinine that work on eye-candy features like a ready room is being prioritized ahead of usability fixes like lighted wands. Yes, AI occasionally goes stupid on the deck. Yes all of those things. ... This is still far and away the best simulation of naval air that's ever existed on a desktop sim. I mean, nothing else is even in the same league. If you like carrier aviation, you REALLY need to try it!

Give JSOWs a try now. They used to be shot down 100% of the time, but ED claimed they adjusted the RCS of several weapons and I'm wondering if the JSOW is one of them, because I've gotten several into SA-10 sites recently. My understanding is that in reality this weapon is designed to be stealthy and therefore harder for an air defense system to intercept... I'm wondering if they've tweaked the weapon a bit to model that?

Understood! Not trying to nitpick anything, just curious. I guess I'm in the minority that's already been having good success with the -120s, but I can always use more help ;).

Thanks! So to clarify, are we saying that the -120s now have a greater chance of missing, or a lower chance of missing?

AIM-120. Slightly decreased missile miss standard deviation.

Aviation radios definitely have a longer range than 50nm. Most ARTCC ("Center") transmitter/receiver locations are a couple hundred miles apart.

Basic angle is the angle that the ball / icls glideslope is aimed up. This is normally 3.5 degrees. However, the way I understand it, remaining on this guidance effectively yeilds a roughly 3.0 degree slope flown by the aircraft, because of ship movement. If the ship were stationary, you'd fly a 3.5 degree slope, but the source of your guidance is running away from you.

Absolutely. There's a large difference between flying precisely, and overcontrolling. The first is mandatory... and the second will make the first impossible.

Not exactly. You're correct that AoA holds special importance in carrier aviation because touchdown attitude is critical (as far as I understand), but AoA is also the critical parameter you're controlling on approach in any other aircraft. It's just that the convention is to use airspeed as a proxy indication of AoA. A given Vref is calculated based on weight and CG, and these things are estimates, not always known precisely. Thus, a Vref speed can be considered to yield *roughly* the correct AoA.. but why not just fly AoA directly, and therefore always be *precisely* on the correct AoA? That's the entire thing you're trying to achieve... Airspeed *does not matter*. Only AoA actually matters. There's an AoA indicator in our HUDs at work. It's so much simpler to fly than speed.

Can I ask what would make it qualify as unstable? I would assume the military uses similar stabilized approach criteria to 121 aviation? I frequently fly similar approaches in 737s to places like Petersburg and Juneau. Straight in, wings level "groove time" in these places can be shorter than a case 1, but the approaches certainly meet the 121 standard for stabilised. What would be unstable about the case 1 turn?

Every aircraft should fly a stabilized approach. A properly flown case 1 is quite stable. There's nothing to be gained by ramming the throttle back and forth if conditions don't require it (ie, a normal day). Ruddy is right that overcontrolling will only destabilize you. Much seems to be made here of the idea that a fighter is some sort of special case in aviation. What makes them unique is their mission and ability to carry weapons, but when it comes to basic flight maneuvers like landing... they're just airplanes. They work the same as any other. Stabilized approaches are just as much of a concern (and an emphasis item).

Haha I know, just kidding too. And I know what you mean and I know you know this, but it probably bears repeating for folks who may not: airspeed doesn't actually have anything to do with a stall. A plane doesn't stall because it gets too slow, it stalls because the wing's critical AoA has been exceeded. Always, every time. That's literally the only way a wing can be stalled. And this can be accomplished in any attitude, and at ANY airspeed, by varying load factor. The only parameter that must be managed to avoid a stall is AoA. Bunny is right that there's historically been too little emphasis on this in civilian training, but that is happily changing. The FAA is emphasizing AoA control and giving manufacturers an expedited road to certification for AoA indicators. Good article here: https://www.flyingmag.com/story/avionics/angle-of-attack-guidance/

At what speed? I mean, the Hornet flies and the rock doesn't, so...

My entire career, I've never understood why we don't use AoA in the civilian world - although we're starting to. Sounds like the Air Force is in the same boat. All the focus on calculating base Vref + adjustments - with bank angle / load factor limitations - that we use are in reality just secondary ways to determine exactly one thing: the correct AoA to fly for desired wing performance. But AoA is itself directly measurable, and it's actually easier to measure accurately than airspeed. If you have an AoA indication, airspeed becomes irrelevant on approach, no matter conditions, no matter configuration, no matter bank angle or load factor. You have a *direct* indication of wing performance instead of secondary ones.

Well, he does make a fair point, if a little emotionally. The actual manual has been outdated for even the stable version for the whole time I've been using the Hornet. Sure, even the stable version is still "early access", which is an easy-to-hide-behind excuse for anything unfinished, including the manuals; but when a person spends real money on the module (it's not as if it's cheap because it's early access), it IS fair to expect actual documentation about how to use what you've just purchased. Instead, we're often left trying to decide if what's in the manual is up-to-date, or if this youtube video or internet post we found is more current, or contains errors... the base point the OP makes, that there really should be exactly one official, go-to source for information on the product, IS fair. The old superbug product switched to an online wiki for a manual, and that worked really well as it could be updated in real time.

Came here to report the same thing. @Flappie, thanks for the quick update. To clarify, does this mean a fix is being worked on already?

Interesting. For us, it's completely repeatable that the problem exists when someone hosts the server in their game, but disappears on the dedicated server. I'm not doubting you at all, just saying what a weird bug!

If it's relevant, my friends and I have discovered that this problem only exists when one of us is hosting the multiplayer mission; and it's usually the host who the deck crew ignores until he's the only one left on the boat. Conversely, I've started hosting Liberation missions on a dedicated server, on the same machine that I fly on, but using a separate instance of DCS launched with the --server and --norender arguments... and the problem does not exist. We can all hook up and launch at the same time if we want. Supposedly, doing this affords a performance advantage, and while the jury is out on that one, it DOES seem to solve the problem of disobedient deck crew.

I don't know if it's a Hornet issue so much as a DCS issue, but wake in DCS is highly overdone. Flying through the wake of a warbird is the same as flying through the wake of a Hornet, or a -135. It's fairly realistic for the -135 sized jet, but comically strong for smaller aircraft.

Depends on the clouds. You aren't feeling a variation in air density; you're feeling the updrafts and downdrafts that are found in cumulus clouds. Stratus - type clouds are typically glass smooth to fly through. Basically, if the cloud is a flat layer with smooth edges, it'll be pretty smooth inside. Clouds with sharp edges and extensive vertical development will have the bumps.

Was really hoping for some Corsair news concurrent with the 2.7 release...