cw4ogden

Jester no longer tunes TACAN properly, either via manual or TAC tune. Front seat TACAN functioning normally. Can provide a track, but want to see if anyone else is experiencing the issue first.

Had this problem last night in f-14a. Maneuvering flaps would only extend once airborne. Tried everything and eventually had to take off to convince myself it wasn't a binding problem.

Lift in rotary wing is perpendicular to resultant relative wind. If that doesn't answer the other questions that followed let me know. "I don’t know if it was intentional but the autotrotative force in region C seems to occur with a more angled blade" - only speculation, but possibly they are trying to show the twist (angle of incidence) of the blade increases as you move inbound.

It would seem so, but no. The trick to the rotor maintaining RPM without power - is lowering the pitch angle enough that the total aerodynamic force (light blue vector on the chart) points slightly forward. The rotor needs to be producing virtually zero lifting forces, because those lifting forces cause the total aerodynamic force vector to move rearward. "C" is what you want. The TAF (total aerodynamic force) pointing slightly forward of vertical. As the diagram indicates, this only occurs on portions of the blade. The driving region of the rotor maintains rotor RPM during autorotative flight, overcoming the areas that are still a net drag on the rotor speed. The more you twist the blade, the more you rotate that TAF rearward. To ensure this is actually the case should you need it as a pilot, the rotor linkages are adjusted and or checked for correct rigging during maintenance test flights. Under XYZ conditions, when power is removed and collective is lowered - the RRPM must maintain within certain limits.

Never flew the huey. But I've heard anecdotes about how much inertia the rotor held. These must be taken with a grain of salt, but they were asserted to me as true, and not urban legend. Hal Beauchene (my primary instructor pilot) told a tale of showing off to a harrier pilot. Something akin to the harrier pilot saying, "I can do anything you can do.' Hal said he rolled the throttle to idle, then pulled up to a 50 foot hover, then autorotated. Asking then if the harrier if he could do what he just did. Other was a guy named Jalmer Blad (instrument instructor). This guy had an engine failure combined with sprag clutch failure, meaning the engine was being driven still by the rotor adding drag on the rotor. He explains(ed) his survival by crediting the huey's high rotor inertia. To me the huey autorotation feels pretty good. I don't care for the huey flight model, mainly forward flight stuff, but the autorotation modelling feels fairly realistic to me.

Syria is currently King. P.G. has been around longer, so still plenty of hosts, but Syria is the current go to.

Fair enough. Have a good night.

@Taz1004 Maybe it's because you asked for help. And then went on and on to be vague about what the hell you were even asking. Call me crazy... And color me stupid for trying to read and make sense of all the posts only to get an F you in return. Have a nice night.

I take your point that your numbers were exaggerated on purpose. This above is what I was attempting to answer. I avoided procedures, and focused on the “what would happen with a faster carrier.” if you want to see a scientific comparison, I’d suggest it, or could possibly post two comparisons with the tomcat flying the autopilot coupled approach to the deck. Eliminate the user from the equation or it’s going to be hard to quantify or eliminate differences in how each approach was flown by the human.

I think we tend to agree the OPs numbers are flawed. That was what it took me a whole lot of words to say. I only took issue with the nature of your initial response, and I'm still unsure what you took issue with? The wordiness of it maybe offended your something, I don't know. I saw a whole lot of people not answering his question because, and I think this is where it all got off track - his question was flawed. It was based on erroneous assumptions of what the factors discussed would actually produce, in terms of crab angle and pilot response. Which you and I, ironically are both saying is going to be negligible. So all that said, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot.

Boat speed is not irrelevant because if you have to manufacture the wind i.e. if you have to drive the boat to make that wind, it’s not coming directly down the runway, it’s coming directly down the ships bow. You may have flown for years but It sounds like you’re making the same case that moron I had for an instructor made 20 years ago. let me be clear where I disagree besides your initial tone of voice with a total stranger, which I find personally offensive, is are you asserting forward airspeed has no relationship to crab angle? Go fly a wright flyer in a 40 knot cross wind and tell me it holds the same crab angle as an F 16 at 400 knots. It doesn’t.

That was my whole point. It’s hardly noticeable. if you think fast birds and Cessnas hold the same crab angle for the same winds, then then you are missing something fairly fundamental. Your crab is your component of forward airspeed, that you direct into the wind. More forward speed means I need less crab angle to counteract the crosswind. Period. And on the contrary I think I’m the first guy to answer the actual OP’s question. Not sure what you’re so up in arms about…

You can use a crosswind component chart, or some geometry to figure out the component of crosswind that will result from increasing the ship's speed. Put the speed increase on the vertical axis. Put the difference between BRC and runway heading is the angle you use. You have to get into the corner of the graph, but a 10 knot speed increase by the boat would result in about a 2 knot increase in sidewind component. Almost impercebtible at 130 knot touchdown.

Last piece being I think you are figuring the angles here using pure crosswind component. Meaning if the increase in speed of the carrier translated into pure croswind, yes it might have a 5 degree or so affect, but it's nor pure crosswind. BRC and runway heading are almost the same. So a 10 knot increase in wind is only a fraction of that in increase to the crosswind component, because the runway is going basically the same direction as the ship. The math would probably be closer approximate 1/2, to one degree of correction for a 10 knot change in boat speed. I'd have to do the math to be sure, but that is going to be close. One degree or so, not several degrees of crosstrack, from a speed increase of the ship. Because only a sliver of that increase in speed is coming at you sideways.

This would be why I suspect they don't land in a crab. Upon touchdown, a crabbing aircraft will right itself with the direction of travel, but it takes a half second or so and it induces transient forces in the aircraft that might make boltering difficult.

Trying to process all that's been said. Reference you initial question: I think what's being missed possibly is the relationship between speed of ship and speed of approaching aircraft. Meaning a difference of 10 knots of boat speed will be almost imperceptible to an aircraft on approach at 130kias. For example, a 13 knot change in boat speed would be a roughly 10 percent change in your crab angle. If you are crabbing 5 with 23 knots, it's now 5.5 degrees at 10 knots boat speed. I ran into this arguing with an instructor pilot many years ago. The degree of crab has more to do with your speed than the boat or wind. The faster you are, the less crab required and vice versa. He was convinced and f-16 at 400 knots needed the same crab angle as a cessna at 120 to compensate for wind. It's just not the case. Slightly different scenario, but the same principle is at work. The difference between 10 and 20 knots of boat speed will only be detectable by someone with a lot of facetime in the bird. Regarding landing in a crab. I'm not sure if that's what you are holding all the way to touchdown, or if you mean on final, but I *assume* any crosswind component should be corrected for prior to touchdown. Maybe they touchdown with a crab to get all three on the ground simultaneously. My assumption, is they cross control nearly every landing to some extent because, the BRC versus boat angle means every landing is a slight crosswind landing to a moving target. Either speed, or any speed above zero, and you are now aiming for a moving target, meaning you want to point the VV where the ship will be, not where it is.

Recently discovered the community A-4 module. It's a great full fidelity model on par with the f-14 era avionics. It's free and it's my favorite aircraft at the moment. Of the two listed: F18 is every mission set in the game. What you learn in the F-18 will tranfer to the A-10 / F-16 / Av8B to some extent. But the f-14 is more fun to fly in my opinion. And not by a little bit. F18 is a jack of all trades, master of none. If this was dungeons and dragons, the F-18 is a druid or hybrid class of some sort. F-14 is a more pure experience that wont translate to any other module really.

IIRC you need to be in VSTOL mode as well, not A/A or A/G. Then you should be able to see real time weight in you mfds as indicated prior.

If I had to guess, from description alone, I'd ask are you unloading the rotor system then loading it faster than the engines can catch up, causing rotor RPM to droop? If you reduce power to the point the upflow is driving the rotor system, it can take a while for the engines to spool back up, when you transition back to engine driven flight.

I think the simple answer was overlooked here. To follow a magnetic course (no wind) of 300 you turn the aircraft until 300 is under the lubber line, or the 12 oclock position. A bearing to a target or airfield is just a heading. If the tutorial is about using the tacan, or if the reference a "radial" to fly that may be different, but for awacs calls, it should be just pointing the aircraft the direction they indicate bogies are. Basically what Snappy said. Didn't see He'd said much the same thing.

It turned out to be a hidden button that I couldn’t see because the software wouldn’t let me maximize it. No amount of attempting to resize or alt enter showed the full calibration page, and with no scroll bar on the side, the software being totally on unadjustable regards maximization or resizing, just couldn’t see the option. The fix was moving the windows taskbar from the bottom of the screen to the right side of the screen and then I could finally see calibrate axis.

May be interested if it doesn't sell right away. Your price is fair, but need to sort out my open ticket before diving into more products.

I did, thanks. Was hoping it was a config setting somewhere, honestly. Not sure what else that I haven't tried though. Every axis works except Y bottom half (pulling direction). I don't know if there's 2 Y and 2 X sensors, or if only half a sensor could fail. Initial reply from Vipril received but it was only to gather the information the support ticket already had filled out, for the most part.

Just received Warbrd base and pairing with warthog stick. Calibration through windows and vipril software yields same results. Symptom is all directions work, except Aft Y axis. On vipril software, neutral stick polls around 16000. Any movement aft, goes to zero - for three quarters of aft travel, then begins to register for the last quarter of travel. neutral - 16000 Pulling aft stick - 16000 immediately jumping to zero for most of the travel followed by a ramp up to around 300 at full aft deflection. thanks in advance.

Sounds like a fairly decent fraud protection measure.