ttaylor0024

I have just the cheap saitek pro flight pedals. Here’s the thing with sims though, control input is a series of compromises. No one setting is going to represent the real thing at all regimes of flight. IRL the rudder pedals have more throw each side and more resistance as well. Normally our feet are on the deck and just our toes are on the bottom of the pedals.

It should be on, you shouldn’t be putting in large rudder inputs, gotta be careful on touchdown and when at high speeds to keep it straight. The sim doesn’t need help either though, so try editing your rudder axis and putting a large curve on it, mine is normally in the 40s or 50s for the rudder.

Work hard, play harder

F-4s and F-8s have done so as well, although not recommended.

I was referring to looking through the hud onto the ground. Wouldn't want the glass to be tinted when landing on the deck at night. The entire reason we reduce the brightness on the HUD at night is to be able to see through it still. I use them every day as well, and the product so far does look great, just a note for down the line revisiting from another dude that can't live without the hud anymore.

Nope, they’re not anywhere near that dark, essentially clear. Night flying would be much more difficult if you had a dark tinted square in your face. Pictures posted look accurate to what it does IRL. I’d just rather have other stuff worked on first, as would everyone else im guessing.

It's definitely a little dark, but give them some time to fix it. They have a lot of other stuff on their plate. IRL huds look the same as the pictures shown here of them- pretty much no tint (barely noticeable).

You don't taxi aircraft from the mx deck anyway. When you walk to get your jet they tell you the parking spot and your jet is there and loaded up. From parking you'd taxi to the cat, launch, and when landing you'd just taxi to a parking spot similar to the one you were in intally. The elevators and stuff are really cosmetic anyway in regards to DCS, as you wouldn't use those in game and really wouldn't even be pulled around with the tug while sitting in the cockpit, as all of that is usually taken care of before you'd even get to the flight deck.

Only when atomized It would definitely be venting fluids from the rest of the system, and in the case of having a midair your mind is not operating as it normally would, and would not notice if the spray isn't as far laterally as the wing would have been. Actually the picture you provide here disproves your theory of igniting vented fuel and damage all in one. They were belly to belly when the collision happened, A-4 climbing and F-15 descending blind to each-other. This would mean that the debris would be forced up and away of the tail. Also you can see here the fuel is not ignited, which is due to the conditions not being anywhere near ideal for ignition. There's a reason we have compressors. Do I really have to explain how moment arms work to an engineer? Pretty simple stuff to understand there. You can produce 1 unit of lift at the wing root, but the quarter unit of lift at the tip will have a greater effect because it has a 15' moment arm to work off of. Higher airspeed need a lower angle of attack to maintain level flight, thus aileron control will increase the aoa on the farthest point on the wing, causing much more lift to be produced with much less control deflection at high speeds. Pilots don't examine numbers when they fly, they just do what it takes to get the performance they desire. Incorrect again. The plane can be flying level because it's flying much faster than normal. The aileron will be deflected, the rudders will be deflected, but the longitudinal axis will be aligned with the runway, and lateral axis parallel to the ground. The higher speeds is precisely why this can happen. Landing speed isn't max tire speed either. The max tire speed in my jet is about 1.7x the normal landing speed. Different tires have different tire speeds, and that number is posted as a safety margin, above that speed, all bets are off, which is similar to G limitations on aircraft as well. If you exceed it, you don't know what will happen. As you said, keep your emotions out of it because it was an event that actually happened, and as mentioned, well documented.

It's a little hair raising the first few times you are in bumpy weather, but just like with using an airspeed approach you just kind of average it out. As far as corrections go on glideslope, it corrects quicker than you'd think as well.

^ Possibly the most informative post I've seen on the forums. Too bad they got rid of the rep system. I just know what goes on in the cockpit, but the engineer side of the house produces something of quality every once in awhile. +1

Funny you use that example, because if you notice, every time he pushes/pulls the stick the indexer immediately follows with a fast/slow indication. Your opinion has no say in how naval aircraft get aboard the ship, and again, because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's correct. Again, there's a reason it's done this way whether you see it now or not. You don't fly it, you don't have any experience with it, so what's the point of arguing with people that actually do this on a daily basis?

This works for non-fbw aircraft too. The first time you're introduced to this in training you have manual trim and hydraulic controls with no fbw and it works the same. In GA aircraft when you think you're trimming for an airspeed it's really an AOA, just start a turn and you'll see your airspeed increase in order to maintain the AOA you're trimmed at

The word your looking for is navy aircraft. Look up some cockpit videos, or research it if you don't believe me, anyone with experience will corroborate what I'm saying if you don't believe me.

It's much easier to trim on speed level before descending

Runways are in relation to magnetic north, which is what's displayed in the aircraft.

That was in reference to your "add thrust the nose pitches up and you let it wander uncontrolled around" statement. You fly on speed, you make 3 part power corrections, and you bracket your VSI as you energize the ball on the way down. This works the same on non-FBW aircraft as it does on the hornet. You're overestimating how unruly the aircraft is. You trim on-speed and the aircraft seeks it (FBW or not). You add power the aircraft will want to maintain the same AOA, which would mean the nose would come up relative to the amount of power you add. Works the same pulling power off. You'll see the throttle moved around a lot in videos because it's nearly impossible to set the exact perfect power setting, and that will change as well when you hit turbulence or the burble. The quick adjustments are normally bracketed as you come down the groove. You're correct in that if you go MIL your nose will start climbing away, however you don't normally select mil unless you're low or waving off/bolter.l As said before, it's a little more difficult to fully understand until you've actually done it and have experience with it. This is how the Navy does it, and is the most reliable and safest way to get board. Sometimes you just have to hit the "I believe" button until it clicks. You'd be hitting that button all the time IRL because it just takes time to understand why. All of these procedures were created with blood, and you don't have enough lives to make them all yourself.

It doesn't wander uncontrolled. You trim for an AOA, it maintains that AOA. Get the VSI correction you want? Reduce power to maintain it. The nose doesn't flop around like a fish out of water, even on aircraft without FBW.

That's exactly how it's done actually, you really don't have to bump the stick forward or aft. Power controls you. You're going to get some bad oscillations through on speed and some bad grades if you go around controlling the nose on the approach.

I think we both know the point I was making. In my post originally was an image of the formula for lift (can't see it on kobile for some reason, maybe I accidentally removed it when I was fixing my formatting), and if any variable is there (Cl) then there is obviously a relationship. The easiest way to understand aoa is to understand that they're not directly (visibly) related for all aspects of flight, because using (the only) example where a certain airspeed produces a stall extreme oversimplification, which is why I went into detail on many parts about the relationship. Vso and Vs1 aren't even published for the hornet, because it references AOA.

We will ignore TAS here, it varies quite substantially depending on atmospheric conditions and altitude, etc. The only airspeed that really matters to the airframe itself is IAS, as that's what is read out and is the direct indicator of how many molecules of air the wing is seeing at that given instance of time. The doughnut is AOA. AOA is explicitly the angle between the chord like and the relative wind, and has nothing to do with airspeed. I can be at 300kts at 15* AOA, or 20kts at 15* AOA. If you're flying level, the relative wind is essentially coming from the horizon level in front of you. While flying level, if you increase your airspeed and maintain level flight, AOA decreases as you have to pitch down in order to reduce the extra lift from increasing your IAS. Without pitching down (decreasing AOA) you will start a climb, as lift is a function of IAS (density and velocity combined) and the coefficient of lift, and the coefficient of lift is essentially for our discussion AOA. Now lets dissect this into an approach configuration. If you start a descent by pulling power while on-speed AOA WITHOUT decreasing your pitch angle (you'd actually have to continue to pull back on the stick), you will have a higher AOA (green slow chevron). If you have the aircraft trimmed on-speed AOA and pull some power back and do not pull back on the stick, the aircraft will naturally want to keep the trimmed AOA and maintain on-speed (the hornet's FCS does this, and even non-FBW aircraft will want to stay at whatever AOA you have it trimmed for, even in a skyhawk). If you start a level turn you will have to ADD power in order to maintain level flight while on-speed. This is because while turning your lift vector gets cut in two- the horizontal and vertical component. So only the vertical component will be counteracting your weight, so it would have to increase in order to maintain level flight, and doing so would require a power addition in order to increase your total lift vector enough to increase the vertical component enough to keep you level. This is why in a level turn, while on-speed your IAS will actually indicate HIGHER than when you're level. So now let's look at your normal VFR landing pattern. You will dirty up and stabilize on-speed, gear flaps out trimmed on the downwind. You do a quick mental calculation depending on your aircraft's weight at the time to get a rough IAS number which is used ONLY to verify your AOA is working correctly. If you're on speed and the IAS reads close to your predicted number, you're good to go and don't look at it anymore. At the 180 (not abeam) you will start your turn and start a gradual descent to meet your altitude targets. Usually about 200-300fpm is your initial rate of descent, increasing to gradually meet ~600 on final depending on the winds. During that initial descending turn you will have to add a touch of power to maintain that initial 200-300fpm because while descending, the turn takes too much of the vertical component of lift for you to pull power, or even maintain power for the descent. You will pull a little power to increase your ROD as you continue your turn, and rolling wings level in the groove you will have to pull power as that vertical component of lift becomes greater and greater during the wings level transition. This entire approach turn you will be flying on-speed, but your IAS will be changing. On-speed is calculated for the optimum approach speed in relation to optimum hook point. The hook point is essentially making sure the main gear and hook touch at the same time in order to prevent hook skips or IFEs (in flight engagements, catching a wire without having the gear on deck, makes for a bad day). Again, we ignore IAS, TAS, GS, etc after we do our initial calculations to ensure AOA is working. I'll check GS briefly and calculate a rough VSI as well, but that's it. But again, I can't stress enough, avoid using anything but IAS when discussing approaches if you're trying to talk about the aircraft's airspeed, because any other speed (TAS, CAS, EAS, GS, etc) is not in relation to what the wing is seeing, and will only cause confusion.

Yeah I'm not trying to sound like a dick or anything, just tone is hard to translate over words on forums. Yes there are different ways to land the hornet, however seeing as most (if not all) will be attempting carrier landings in the bird, may as well have them learn the correct way from the start. Over the course of 100 years of trial and error now a very good system has been constructed through mishaps along the way, which is the reason we practice ball flying so much. It's not easy in the beginning but it's imperative we learn it a certain way and keep current so it's something we don't have to worry (as much) about at the end of a long day, because in the end, while the navy pilot does take off and land from the boat, the real mission is putting warheads on foreheads carrying out the mission, navigation/takeoff/landing is all expected and a secondary part of the job.

That is just mentioning if you do one, not that you will do one every time. Pretty difficult to flare and land with a center ball. What about it? It's basically the same, you fly at home like you fly at the boat. The pattern is the same (minus the approach to the angled deck), and you fly the ball to touchdown.

welcome to the future