neofightr

Heh, great question and right on topic. The only time I ever heard of the C having this loadout was during trials and initial testing. Simply put the drag forces make this extremely unrealistic and the old saying of "putting all your eggs in one basket" applies. These hollywood pictures of jets decked out with max missiles or bombs is just that hollywood. There is a realistic balance between loadouts and peformance that must always be considered in real life. I won't go into detail for obvious reasons. The other factor that nobody considers is weight. Taking off with a ton of missiles or a full rack of bombs, is doable but landing (especially on the ship) because of an aborted mission or emergency not so much. I remember this one time I took off with two mk82s just two mind you, and I have a hud failure right as I go airborne. After consulting with my CO on the ship, we decided I would come back with the bombs so as to not waste them. Keep in mind my CO had faith in my stick flying based on a good track record for landing on the ship that I had built up. Had he not he would have ordered me to jettison the bombs. Remember with no hud, the primary AOA reference is gone and you are forced to use the backup indicator on the dash. This makes the big wigs nervous because hornet pilots never land without the hud full up. As I hoped, I had no problems making the numbers and got an OK underline (better than an OK) which is only given for well made emergency landings. The one thing that stood out for me was when I landed I could literally feel weight of the bombs stress the wings and the body of the aircraft, it was quite a force and made me appreciate the plane that much more.

Ah air refueling. Let me tell you about air refueling in the F18C. First off, unlike carrier landings this really does have many nuances that can be applied. Every pilot has there own unique way of getting the probe in the basket and there is no single correct way of doing it. Unfortunately this opens up to all kinds of success and failure rates but unlike killing yourself (and others) on the ship for using a bad "technique" you are simply sent back to the back of the que or you are told to go home (alternate airfield). I was fortunate in that I had very little trouble getting the probe in the basket and plugged in quickly almost every time, but it was never easy and required a tons of focus and effort. Because I was in and out so quick, I got a chance to stick around flying form on the tanker watch others make their attempts while waiting for the rest of my cohorts. I remember watching this marine pilot, try multiple times and never get in, and it was nerve wracking to watch because he came very close to ripping off his pitot tube which would have resulted in an emergency flight back to the airfield. The Pitot tube is a primary input for the flight control computers. If you are hamfisting the stick and you let the probe come off the lip of the basket it can cause the basket to violently whip around and smack against the nose of the aircraft. This is never good and rarely seen. That's typically the C130 scenario with the soft hose, now the big air force tankers like the KC135 that was a whole different game, you start messing around with that solid boom, there's a good chance that operator in the tail is going to retract the boom and wave buh bye as you are sent home in disgrace.:cry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZV3Ffm2qIQ

When landing on a carrier the pilot is trained early on not to reference anything in the cockpit other than the AOA indexer (in the hud or on the upper side dash). It is imperative that pilot's attention is on the indexer and meatball with an occassional milisecond glance at the center line of the landing box to correct for alignment. You are either just eyeballing it with the nose of your plane or using the huds symbol for the center of the plane. There is simply no time to reference anything else. You can see that when looking at the videos of the pilots in action. Now after you catch a wire, you are not sure which one you caught until you reference your wing to where it stops on the carrier deck. If the plane feels really forward and you are just past the OLS platform then you caught the 4 wire. If you see the OLS platform well in front of you when you come to a stop then you caught the 1 wire. If you are "railing it" then you are keeping the meatball lined up dead straight with the datum lines or half a meatball high, this will make sure you catch either the 2 or 3 wire. This changes if the LSOs are having you target a specific wire other than the 3 wire. Note: this is based on my experience with the old-school Optical fresnel lens system. I never had the chance to try out the improved system that came online after I stopped flying.

I was always envious of the navy pilots that got a chance to fly the F16 via the exchange programs. Although the falcon is not as good a dogfighter as the hornet she was built for speed. Just looking at those razor thin wings and engine dominated fuselage told you that she was the corvette of jetfighters and could leave the hornet in the dust if she wanted too. I would have loved to flown in that plane and marvel at her performance. Looking forward to the day ED does the F16.

Be as cynical as you want but I like my privacy in this age of the internet. Those that know the business well enough know if I am lying.

I am calm and I did read the article and I read between the lines and saw what he was doing with the plane. That line where he says his RIO saw the ball go from the upper edge and rapidly all the way down tells me he was pushing the nose down with the stick while pulling back with the throttle. This is about the time when the LSO screams power and gives the wave off lights when at the ship. It reminds me of one of my very first flights in the T2 when I was first being introduced to the lens. I am pretty sure I did the same thing and didn't realize it all I remember was my instructor getting really excited with his voice and slamming the throttles forward because we were about to drop like a rock while only 100 ft in the air and the spool up times were really bad in the guppy. Since this was one of my very first jet flights I was given some slack like most students are during this formative time and did not get a down. That memory and debrief was seared in my brain and kept me from never ever using the stick for glideslope corrections again.

I don't get it, you guys think the basic role of the stick and throttle for carrier landings are somehow subject to pilot interpretation and nuance based on the jet they fly. They simply are not, this goes all the way back to dawn of jet carrier aviation when the optical lens was first introduced and jet speeds started to increase. The technique for controlling the craft (any craft) was well-established in the 60s and from then on designs of the jets were made to ensure the pilot could adhere to these techniques consistently so that no matter what jet trainer they flew (T-2,TA4, T45) their valuable honed skills (accrued over hundreds of training hours) with stick and throttle would transfer easily to the new fleet jet craft, whether it was the F4 S3,A6, A7, F14 or 18 they all consistently behave the same way when given the exact same inputs. Sure some planes required the airbrake out to ensure high throttle settings for faster spoolup times while others didn't. The F14 had a pilot aid to compensate for the huge wingspan and the hornet had larger control surfaces controlled by computers but in the end they all behaved exactly the same when given the same basic inputs. You can argue that the jets of the 50s and early 60s may have had deviations due to the early nature of the jet age sure but not the current and last gen jets. And whenever a pilot comes along who decides that he/she is somehow going to game the system and has a better way to nail this glideslope and decides to deviate from the rules he gets blown up asap before he gets into trouble. And those that stubbornly refuse gets flushed out before they become a tragic mishap.

The LSO gave him a slap in the face because he saw that this FNG was ignoring all the training he just went through in Meridian and was determined to stay on glideslope no matter what it took to impress no one. In the end the LSO probably saved his career (assuming he had one) and his life by getting him to drop the bad habits (using stick and throttle for glideslope) before they formed. Bad habits that you clearly think are valid for some reason.

Sorry but I don't think it's necessary to conduct a background check, you either take my word for it or assume I am troll lying through my teeth getting off by fooling everyone on this board. I am not interesting in posting my bio but I will say I was mentioned in the "air warriors" book.

Oh that's right just like in Top Gun, my trusty wingman is in position and ready to make that kill. Sorry but real life isn't that neat and in the heat of battle (even simulated battle) sometimes wingmen lose sight of you or are way out of position. I remember this one training mission where my wingmen and I were about to engage two Egyptian F16 fighters. All was going according to plan until my lead lost sight of the bandits as we approach the merge, I call out visual on the contacts and as briefed I took the lead at this point, within 30 seconds after merging and making our hard turns my wingman loses sight of me all the while I was now falling into position on the six of one of the F16s (he obviously did not see us). Things got really exciting when I called trigger down over the radio, the F16 decided to execute an aggressive maneuver to get me off him by actually hitting his chaff button (out of habit to break my gun lock) and releasing actual chaff. This was a big no no because it came very close fodding my engines. The training was called off at that point. The point is neither my wingmen nor I had visual of each other after I took the lead and engaged a bandit and I assumed he was in position backing me up but he no where close to supporting me and I never did figure out where the other F16 was. That is how real life goes, it's random and even the best of plans fall apart once the action starts. And I will assume this revelation fellow is an actual tactical pilot as well and has covered this topic well enough:smilewink:.

I didn't know about the details of the Syria event, need to look that up. I remember reading the headline about a hornet making a kill but didn't bother with the details. :thumbup:

Yes I claim to be a retired F18C pilot mostly flying on the east coast and with an air medal from my time in operation southern watch in the late 90s. I flew the T45, T2 and T34C for my training.

Ironically for me I love WW1 planes the most, there is just something about the simplicity of the planes that I find alluring and yes the combat was up close and personal, and WW2 is definitely my next favorite time period. I guess having done the real thing with Hornets, I don't care for the combat other than watching cool explosions I guess. Now flying around and practicing landings in the different aircraft is always fun and I really like the F86 and mig15 modules, there is just something cool about flying the icons of the golden age of jets.

I did read the article before my responding and evidently you didn't read the following paragraphs of the article "When it came to my turn, the LSO informed me that he was giving me an UNSAT (unsatisfactory) grade for my landings, otherwise known as a “down." I was surprised, but accepted it from someone who had a lot of experience with carrier landings. I had made it all the way through the training command and gotten my wings without any UNSATs, so needless to say this was difficult to swallow. But realistically I knew that I was struggling to land the F-14 well." He was surprised he got the down but I was not based on what he said he did and the irony was he wasn't even at the boat, he did this on a runway. I have never heard of any pilot getting a down at the airfield after the training command, at the boat yes all the time, but airfield no. So yeah, he wasn't doing it right ...period. In my career I personally knew of 2 tomcat pilots that washed out and heard of at least 5 others due to poor landing skills. The tomcat was a beast to land on the carrier no doubt about it. We can agree to disagree but please don't imply I don't know what I am talking about. I know exactly how different the f18 is compared to the tomcat because I had extensive conversations with my fellow pilots talking about the nuances between the birds that only we knew about and could communicate when we hung around in the ready rooms and ward rooms. Yes I am very familiar with the F4 history as my other posts state.

Nope my assumption is not inaccurate, poor missile reliability and training on both sides was the factor for the ratios. The air force wanted a gun installed to improve their chances as a back-up for the hit or miss missiles of the time and the Navy went the training route (in other words funding priorities). There is a reason why Top Gun's logo is a gunsight and not a missile lock-on or did you miss that. By the way, I was stationed at Fallon and worked closely with Top Gun staff and of course I went through the standard strike training curriculum they provided to all the hornet pilots. My department head in my squadron help authored the text book on what was then current tactics used by Top Gun students. The gun is the last tool in the toolbox for a fighter pilot, it has a high reliability factor due to it's less complex design compared to a missile system and comes standard with any jet that has a chance in a dogfight. Bottom line having a gun improves the potential kill ratio that much more than just missiles and training alone. Basic Fighter Maneuvers: it is in the bread and butter training of all hornet pilots and has been that way since the start of Top Gun and guess what? It starts after the last missile is fired and assumed to miss and ends when time, gas or a simulated gun kill is reached. The Tomcat the last navy interceptor had from it's inception a gun designed into it because of the lessons learned from the gunless Navy Phantom it was replacing. "you mean like the AV-8B, A-7, F-8, A-4, and the list goes on" Looks like you didn't pick up on the pattern there did you? All those planes had a terrible safety record and all had 0 survivabilty rate when the engine suffered a mishap( bird strike, flameout etc). Each and every one of those aircraft guaranteed the pilot was going to have to eject. So what did the navy do? Insisted on designing two-engine aircraft (tomcat, hornet, original F35 navy design) of course. In my flying career I saw three declared Hornet emergencies involving an engine where the engine was forced to shutdown and of course the plane and pilot came back in one piece to fly another day. Of all the services which service do you think screamed bloody murder when it was announced that the unified F35 would no longer feature dual engines? Air force? Navy? no try the Marines and why is that. One word: Harrier, one of the most notoriously dangerous planes due to those huge intakes which were magnets for bird strike mishaps. So of course the Marines were looking forward to a two engine bird. The only reason why the Air Force went with the single-engine F16 was cost, it was great bang for the buck for what the Air Force needed. There's a reason why the Air Force didn't pursue a super-falcon and chose the F22 and I am sure you can guess what that is by now. Just poor tactics? you make it sound too simple my friend :lol: There an established understanding among pilots and especially mil pilots, once you are in the air and in the thick of it, your brain shrinks down to the size of a pea.

The tomcat was considered harder to land on the carrier because it was an older design and the only other jet that was harder than that was the A-6/E/A6 an even older design. For the tomcat it's engines had a longer spool up time making it much harder to control the glideslope with the throttle but let me make it clear, using the stick to nudge a descent or climb is not using the stick to control glideslope. There is no such thing as juggling the stick and thottle to remain on glideslope, doing so would lead to hook slaps and bolters almost every time. There was no exception for the tomcat, especially the tomcat with it's long tail and low clearance. In the hornet I typically nudged the stick forward to start my descent once I started my turn from the abeam point (at the 180). But that was it after that it was all throttle and the stick was never considered for glideslope. To do otherwise was to start a bad habit that would get you washed out of the program eventually. It was as notorious as spotting the deck. Seasoned LSOs could tell when pilots were spotting the deck (using the hud to aim the plane to the point of landing) and once they saw enough of it from a given pilot, that pilot was on a COD back to the FRS for remedial training and one more chance at keeping his job. It was even easier to see when pilots were using the stick to control glideslope, not only could an experience LSO see the nose movement but they would see the AOA repeater in the nosewheel confirming the behavior. This too was another way pilots eventually washed out. If you are using the stick and throttle to maintain glideslope you are doing it wrong, period regardless of platform. The stick is used for alignment to centerline and maintaining a constant AOA. That is what the pilots are doing in the videos when moving the stick, they are trying to keep that green donut lit and rock steady on the AOA indicator while using the throttle to maintain glideslope by keeping the meatball lined up with the datum lights. That's how it works, period.

People assume since Jane's has the F18 at a max speed of M 1.8 that it will indeed be a racer. No need to get on someone's six eh? Did you know the first version of the Phantom when it was the cutting edge of fighters back in the day didn't have a gun? Yeah back then the smart people thought there was no need to worry about lining up on someone's six for a gun shot since the cutting edge sidewinder and BVR missiles is all you would need. Well we know how that turned out didn't we. Point is even with the new head mounted displays and off boresight tech all it will take is that one time when the HMD, or missile system decides to fail just as you start your intercept run on an incoming bandit. Or you fire off your 9x's only to find out they were spoofed or you fired them off at too high an angle out of excitement. Then what are you going to do? Wave hi as you zoom past that SU-27 bandit at full burner hoping to run away from that bad boy. :music_whistling: That is not going to happen. I don't know about you but I plan to setup many an engagement with guns only because A: it's a realistic but undesirable position to be in B: it's hella fun trying to win the luffbury circle and and going into a scissor fight and C: shooting missiles at range can be boring and it's always interesting to see the differences amongst the different platforms in close dogfights. And as I mentioned before the Hornet is one of the best dog fighters out there if not the best. And ironically enough the smart people are back and designing next gen aircraft with no guns again oh and to add insult to injury they plan on single engines for blue water ops. Imagine that. Dollars to donuts there will be a revision slapping on a gun some point down the road. By the way, the argument that interceptor designs shouldn't have guns because they are BVR fighters only is valid only when the design of the jet has it being a poor performer at slow speeds. Planes like the Mig-25 never bothered with a gun because it was not expected to be in a dogfight and would lose badly if it was. But a fast mover like the Mig-29 or Su-27 with great turn-rates definitely had guns at the ready. This is the current argument being made for the phantom not having guns initially back in the sixties. The question then is asked then why did the air force slap on a gun for the revision, answer is simple really, it turned out to have a decent turn-rate against the competition and warranted guns for a last ditch effort when things went subsonic and missiles were spent. All of this is academic in due time when drones replace manned jet craft and they will in due time.

To all, thanks for the polite responses. I appreciate the kind feedback on my posts.

well, I tried to get vlso to work with p3d v4 but nojoy, it's buggy as hell and I can't get the carriers to even work. That aicarrier program just pukes at me when I try to install it. Real shame too cause the videos of it in action look exciting. So much for 8 yr old homebrew programs I guess. Looking at the VLSO's program's manual details it seems to be a very nice little program. I really hope ED can look into something like this as a possible add-on for the F18C. It would be very immersive and worthy of purchase.

Thank your for pointing this LSO app out for me. Can't wait to check it out asap. Yeah looks like boeing got around to upgrading the T45. Back in my day with the T45A, they were only rumblings that the useless hud would get an upgrade. I assumed it was a hornet hud in the video because it does resemble it. I assume the T45C got an upgraded engine as well, the spool up times of the RR engine was scary in the T45A.

Here is an outstanding video made by an enthusiast about the carrier pattern. Really great and thorough but with some much needed corrections. I highly recommend the video because it's a complete picture on carrier ops from the training perspective. Below are my corrections for the video. _____________________________________________________ "I know this is very late feedback, good presentation but a couple of corrections for you. Never correct a high or low position with the stick, always with the power. You use the stick to correct alignment to centerline and maintaining the proper AOA. "At the 45" is not past the carrier wake it's before it (edit: on it or slightly before it). The 45 position is halfway between the 90 and rolling out on the groove. Rolling out on the groove is just that rolling out on the groove all lined up with the centerline. The reason why you said it was hard to see the ball initially when talking about your "starting the groove position" slide is because based on your position you were really long in the groove. When you roll out in the groove you are actually pretty close to the carrier and it shouldn't be hard to see the meatball assuming you are at the proper glideslope position. If you are hitting your numbers you should clearly see a center ball when when leveling your wings at the start of the groove. You were starting your turn at the abeam way too late, you need to start that turn before you pass the fantail. This will have you much closer to the carrier on roll out. A better reference for the abeam is when you can see the hangar deck opening clear through and are lined up with it, start the turn right then do not go past the ship before starting the turn. You should not be referencing the wake at all. The last reference checkpoint is the 45. If that wake reference call is in natops then that's news to me, since it's only an unnecessary distraction for the pilot. Keep in mind my flying days were twenty years ago. The position calls are only for training by the way, by the time you are flying the hornet those comms are no longer necessary. The only call you make is your ball call. Typically the LSO says nothing other than acknowledge your ball call with lights or by voice so you intialize comms with your ball call. Oh and its not "4 decimal 2" it's "4 point 2". You do not wait until you are a mile past the carrier to start the break turn, the break turn starts about 2 seconds after passing the bow. The mile thing might be a training thing but if that was practiced in fleet ops it would stretch out the carrier pattern and really screw things up. Oh and one last thing, if you really want to do it like in real life make sure you are not looking at the carrier deck when the meat ball is in sight, you only make very quick glances at the centerline to make sure you are lined up with it but 95 percent of the time you are looking at the meatball and scanning your AOA indicator and that's it. If you are getting in the habit at staring at the deck and using the velocity vector to point yourself to the deck then you are doing it wrong."

in close perspective Here is a good video showcasing the turbulence as you are about to touchdown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhZnly5q--Y It starts with old school footage but eventually shows modern footage. at 3:14 This is a hornet hud I believe. Notice the hud symbology. The AOA indicator is represented by the lines that look like a big E right alongside (on the right) the velocity vector pipper (circle with 3 lines) as the jet approaches the threshold you will see the AOA indicator bouncing up and down, this is the turbulence caused by the burble with thermals adding to it as well. As you can clearly see the plane is being affected constantly and rapidly making it hard work for the pilot to maintain proper glideslope and just as importantly maintaining the proper orientation of the craft via the AOA indicator. Oh and btw, the plane is slowly drifting to the left of the ship due to the landing zone being aligned off center to the ship thus forcing the pilot to occasionally dip the wing to maintain centerline while on the glideslope. Just before this hud footage you see what I believe is the inside of the E2 cockpit where you see the pilot moving that throttle like mad. This happens because of the turbulence raising and lower the craft from the ideal glideslope line. E2s are notorious for this because of it's huge wingspan and lift. It's the same thing for jets, the throttle and not the stick is used to maintain proper glideslope descent while the stick is used to maintain the AOA (orientation of the plane) and centerline because it's essential for the plane orientation to stay fixed for the hook to grab the wire on touchdown. Moving the stick up and down to maintain glideslope would eliminate any chance for the proper landing on the carrier. When you look at the OLS you will see the pilot does a good job at maintaining a center ball, he is doing this by constantly and rapidly adjusting power countering the rising and falling caused by the turbulence. I really hope DCS can pull this off with the simulation but it won't be easy. Like I said earlier it may be too much for the sim to handle. As we get closer to early release of the hornet and assuming carrier landings are available I will talk about the carrier landing pattern, something of which nobody gets right in the flightsim youtube videos. Even better E2 cockpit video at 4:30, notice all the work the pilot on the left is doing. Both pilots as you can see are stressed and focused because it's never ever easy. Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar.

We all have heard through shows and the movies about how small the carrier looks as you approach for a landing. Well believe it or not once you are inside a quarter mile the carrier and flight deck start to look real big. Sure the landing area is still relatively small but the ship is huge and fills up your periphery real fast. It's is this peripheral picture that continues to be missing in flight simulators that attempt to model carrier landings. I know getting the scale right between aircraft and ship (by the numbers) is a no brainer for modern flight sims but getting that sight picture scale when sitting in the cockpit continues to elude from what I have seen. It's hard to get this right because all references come from camera footage at a given FOV setting. On top of this the FOV setting for the first person perspective in the cockpit does not do a good job of representing peripheral human vision. This is where VR goes a long way in rectifying and time will show it getting better once FOV expands with next gen vr tech.

Yes seat of the pants feel is a huge feedback factor missing in flight simulation. For daytime landings it is big factor combined with sight picture. It's what makes landings at day much less stressful because you feel you have full situational awareness as you land. This is the reason why night landings are extremely stressful, seat of the pants can be so misleading at night since you lost most of your peripheral vision. You feel like you are in a (moving) flight simulator at night. I remember many times at night getting a surreal feeling that I was in a flight sim and not actually flying (I use to be a huge flight sim player before I actually started flying). VR: It is simply put the future and if I was in charge of naval aviation I would be doing everything in my power to secure cutting edge vr technologies for training. It is huge even with out seat of the pants (g effects etc) and motion. I really really appreciate what DCS and their rivals 777 studios (IL-2 series) and Gaijin (warthunder) have done with their flight sims with regards to VR. It is truly impressive how optimize VR is in this game. I am running with max settings on the Rift in this game and loving it. It is a huge step forward in providing a realistic flight experience. TrackIR can only go so far. In fact I have easily flown formation with the AI with VR and it's very satisfying. Now about Carrier landings, There are two ways DCS can go with this 1: Hollywood 2: realistic. Visually it's easy to nail down but aerodynamically so far, no one is getting it right. I haven't tried carrier landings with prepare3d but so far the only one that comes close is warthunder and that's easier because they are using slower prop planes but even that's hollywood because no one is modeling turbulence in close on landings. I reallly really hope that DCS/Belsimtek are consulting their real-life pilots and getting the info on the "burble". The burble is the disturbed air coming off the island off the modern carrier flight deck. The burble is the single biggest factor that separates carrier landings from airport landings. You can easily mimic the carrier box on a landing strip by painting a mock up but you can't replicate the burble at an airfield. Why is the burble so critical for simulating carrier landings? Simply put, it randomizes each and every landing you make on a carrier. One day you come in and you have nothing but smooth air and a small drop (add a little power) 1 second before touchdown for the easy 3 wire. The very next time a few hours later you come in and you are dropping like a rock just 200 ft away on approach going full throttle hearing LSO (screaming "POWER") catching the 1 wire and getting a no grade or missing the wires and boltering. This is due to the thermals going on near the ship and the burble. A wicked combination no doubt. This is why navy pilots can brag about being in a class of their own compared to air force pilots. Each and every carrier landing is incredibly harder than landing at the airfield. I hope DCS studies this but I will not be surprised if they don't implement it because they may wish to focus on what most flight simmers want which is shooting guns and missles and dropping bombs. That already is a lot on their plate to get right. And also it takes a lot of math to simulate turbulence and get it right which might be too much for the flight engine for now. I will go on with a part 2 on visuals shortly.

It's been twenty years so memories fade. I don't remember the EPE being a discussion topic amongst the pilots. I can't remember when they were introduced into the fleet inventory to be honest. The only time I noticed engine performance was switching jet platforms. The mighty guppy T2 was my first jet then I switched to the T45, I saw a modest gain in performance but of course going to the F18 was a whole new ballpark. I biggest memory with regards to performance was how you really don't feel or hear anything when going supersonic. The only visual cue was the huge white jet vapor cone building on the wings and tail when I looked in the mirrors. What a sight.