ttaylor0024

I’ve never heard of the combat recovery being used. The break is a level turn, you’re correct there, but it’s from 800’(which you actually have in your picture). You descend from 1200 (initial) to 800 after the initial for case I Ops. That picture does seem to be misleading, the 450 is the 90 altitude (rhinos actually use 500’, which comes from the 450’ 90 altitude + the 50’ deck height of the boat to keep you above glideslope). Using math you can realize that rolling out in the groove at 370’ would mean you’re over a mile from touchdown, which would be a ~25-30s groove length. You want the radalt tone to go off at 370, which should coincide with crossing the wake at the 45 position as a spot check, you’ll roll out at the start lower than that obviously. As far as the groove itself goes, it’s just 15-18s, not necessarily 3/4 mile, reason being is the ball is so sensative that you need time to establish yourself on the ball and energize it (move it up and down). It becomes 16x more sensitive from the start to touchdown (16’ cell height to 1’) so you want to force it up and then bring it back down. This comes from the CV natops, and is engraved in pilots from day 1 in jet training. So just to reiterate, 1200’ at the initial, descend to 800, break, sow to on speed gear/flaps down, descend to 600’, 180 is wherever you need to turn for the 15-18s groove length (usually LSO platform to rounddown), 450-500 at the 90, 370 crossing the wake, roll out on glideslope, bump it up, slowly bring it back on at touchdown. Never be low.

Carrier aviation has been around for over 100 years. Yes, you do it by the book seeing as the NATOPS was written in blood by aviators for aviators. Please stop thinking you know what your talking about. You have 0 credentials or credibility on the topic and are being very defensive because you were called out for being incorrect. What makes you think that you can do just whatever you want? You're flying a multi-million dollar jet at very high speeds, low altitudes, and extremely exacting. You don't just learn it one way in training then stop doing it, you do it for specific reasons; safety and uniformity.

IRL you don't just add power, you add a little, pull it back a little, and try to find the new neutral power point. It's a constant battle to try to find it. This doesn't mean that you should be slamming the throttle to mil stop and idle stop the entire way down (looking at you, super-E video), but your left hand will be moving the entire time. That being said, a little power in close is essentially a thought of power. You should be proactive with your ball flying though, accepting a center ball isn't your goal, but instead to show up at the start on glideslope, bump it up just a touch in the middle then SLOWLY set it back down on the datums. If you're high at the start look to slowly step the ball down to touchdown. If you're high in-close, keep the ball from rising, and at most your goal is to cut the height in half at touchdown. Second point, the amount of throw you have in your HOTAS throttle is not 1:1 with the IRL throttle movement. Check it out next time in game, look down in game at your throttle and move it a little, it will actually displace the in game throttle a little more. Thirdly, if you're on the high side of the lens you are flying a steeper glideslope, so your neutral power point will be farther back, and your throttle will have to be back even more-so to come down. That being said, keep the ball on the happy side, don't be low (not even on touchdown). You will trap with a stable ball (not climbing) on the lens no matter how high. That being said, your problem is likely to do with adding too much power, the aircraft have inertia and won't immediately start descending (or climbing).

The ball goes from a 16’ sensitivity per cell vertically at the start down to 1’ vertically at touchdown. The smallest power changes make a large difference, and once the power is in there’s no undoing it. If it’s relatively difficult, that’s because it is. Just keep practicing, feels pretty close to realistic

I asked you what you were trying to say because none of it makes sense and literally all of it is incorrect. You should probably go back and do your homework. Referencing videos done in DCS is not an accurate source. Actual aviators fly the numbers as published in the book, and are exacting to the foot. 800’ break, 600’ pattern, radalt goes off 370’ over the wake, 15-18s groove length. If you’re 370 at the start your either full tall or long in the groove. Wags does a great job with his videos, but he’s not exacting in his procedures (and does get thuroughly debriefed by aviators about it). Go watch Jabbers’ video if you’re going to use a reference. He uses book diagrams and got input from several active navy pilots. Pilots also break behind the boat too, pretty common for the first guy out of the stack. If you’re showing up NESA out of the shit hot your technique is bad. If you show up NESA otherwise, your 180 is incorrect. 15-18s. Not sure what you mean about those level base turns in the pretty natops diagrams, they all show descending turns to the groove off the 180, the Navy doesn’t have a base leg at all. This stuff has been done for over a hundred years, no need to nuke it by discecting a video done by a non-winged aviator. It’s literally written in black and white.

What? 15-18s is standard, 600’ is pattern altitude, never be low. You start your descent from 600 at the 180

I was referring to my previous post when asked if you extend farther if you’re flying it at 1500’ instead of 600’. You extend ~15s off the abeam before you reach the 180 at the field, however the 180 changes depending on wind. The correct position for the 180 is defined as where’s you start your turn to arrive at a 15-18s groove length.

Nope, you turn at the same point to end up with a 15-18s groove length, you just have to stuff the nose and not worry about AOA till short final or you will be too high. Like I said, it’s just annoying. As it stands right now, you can’t even do FCLPs because of the lack of a lens, I’d just keep working at the bot for practice if I were you.

Fly it the same as you do at the boat, 800/600 pattern with the same abeam distance. Only difference is you turn 15s past the abeam position in order to have the same groove length. Civilian fields generally have traffic pattern information posted in the IFR Supplement (military)/AFD(civ) (not to be confused with approach plates). Usually turbine aircraft have a 1500’ traffic pattern at civ fields however the “carrier break” is normally requested, and granted as long as the field isn’t busy. It’s not a practice thing, it’s a breaks are fun especially showing off for civilians thing. For DCS purposes with 0 sky chickens flying around and everyone flying similar aircraft, just do the normal 800’ break and 600’ pattern. Trying to descend from 1500’ at the abeam position sucks.

Because when the plane touches down the nose strut will compress from the impact initially to the main gear, then the nose, meaning the rear of the jet will extend higher, raising the hook off the deck causing a hook skip bolter. There are contacts for both fully extended and fully stowed. On deck with the hook handle down and the plane heavy, you’ll get a hook light because the hook cannot extend fully down because the plane is compressed. If the hook handle was up but the unlock failed then you will get the same light. It doesn’t have anything to do with ensuring it can snag a wire on deck or an aborted takeoff, just that it can’t get fully down because the ground is in the way.

Humidity is a large function as well. If relative humidity is low you won't get any. They are working on it last I heard.

1. They've mentioned multiple times it's a USN hornet they're modeling. 2. PG is the only map with more than 2 VOR stations, and even then you generally have enough tacan coverage. 3. There's no navigational difference between a VOR/DME and TACAN, they do the same thing. Only difference is how they work, and that doesn't matter in the plane 4. You can drop a waypoint on the station

It’s a 5900’ runway, I wouldn’t expect it to be comfortable. Larger, faster, heavier aircraft need more runway to slow down. With higher performance aircraft like this that don’t have nearly as much drag you have to factor in breaking distance when thinking of where to land.

This is the answer to the thread. You use anti skid to maximum extent ashore, common procedure is to trap if you’re anti-skid failed ashore as well. You’re not going to beat the machine braking, all you will do is shred your tires instantly. With Anti skid on, you can touch down and slam on the breaks full force and it will modulate the pressures to minimize skids and slips to an exact level that a human cannot, that simple. Any case to be made to the contrary is worthless because that’s not how reality works. I’d be pretty uncomfortable trying to slow a jet down without antiskid. As for break fires, those can happen with anti skid on and off. That’s just a function of converting the energy into heat. Usually it’s not an issue unless you’re on you’re 2nd high speed abort in a short time or max braking in a very hot environment when heavy.

It’s how it actually is, it’s called the wings level transition. With the reorientation of the lift vector vertically, you have a higher vertical component of lift. Only way to counter that and keep the nose from coming up at the start is to throttle back prior to rolling wings level.

Just because you get used to it doesn't mean it's correct.

That's why I said instrument pattern with visual lookout... You break in relation to your interval to set up proper spacing. Instrument pattern also means it's flown that way, not that you're buried heads down. It's not even about difficulty of flying +-0, it's about flying a good approach to show up to a good start. If you're having to correct for a high or low off the start the pass isn't going to go well, and if you've undershot or overshot you've created even more problems because the ball isn't giving you the correct glideslope information. Don't need to be splitting hairs here Just look for the 1.8ish with the bearing pointer at 45* left of nose. Another trick is to be in 10nm scale on the hsi and put the wingtip on the BRC course line

Seems that way but in reality it's an instrument pattern with visual lookout until you're in the groove, then you take over visually. Need to be on precise numbers, and .1DME or 50' high/low makes a noticeable difference when flying. When in the approach turn you're told to not even look outside till the 90, and even then it's just a glance to see how you're doing turn wise (am I going to undershoot/overshoot/i'm good).

3/4 mile isn't a thing in case I or II, that's just from the movies. It is just whatever it takes to get 15-18s, don't really do any math, just use experience and gouge.

As in you've read the virtual LSO stuff? IRL there's comments for at the ramp, to land, in the wires, and over the wires

That's not true either

No ADF approaches Technically not approved for RNAV approaches, and the WP Offset specifically isn't done to shoot an approach course off of, but for SA on where you're at on an approach, or exactly where a point you're flying to is. It's not for putting an offset to the runway and flying to that (especially with tacans not located on the field it is inaccurate and diminishes the safety margin). You just fly the approach plate and you're good to go. It's also far less safe to shoot your own self contained WP approaches, and if you're ofp doing your own thing you'll conflict with others if they're shooting the actual approach, but in the scope of dcs sure.

Yikes, nope, not at all accurate. Literally the farthest from the truth.

Been pretty busy lately and hard to find the motivation to get on to play around on DCS after work. I'll take a rain-check!

As far as the F-16 stuff goes, not well versed in the systems of it, hud tapes look similar to how the E bracket woks in the Navy. Again, green is too slow / too high AOA, red is fast / too low aoa in the Navy. Makes perfect sense to all of us ball fliers, as it gives us the corrective action in complementary fashion, whereas the air force system gives contradictory information from an ergonomics standpoint when compared to daily life, in fact we think their system is messed up. We however require precise AOA control, and it's our primary method of controlling our speed in the pattern. I can understand why seeing red would be a stall warning like indication, but our needs are different. More than one way to skin a cat I suppose. There was a lot of ergonomics stuff built into Navy aircraft that aren't evident on the surface, such as AOA light indications. They didn't used to be this way, but someone along the line was like, green means go when driving around in a car, let's integrate that. Can also be thought of as the ball below the green datums, which would also require a power on correction, as well as seeing red (red ball) you would want to pull up (LSO rule: if you're low and slow, fix the low before the slow), and at home red would mean stop in a car.