FOLS Question

[Destroyer37]

Will the FLOLS, OLS, or IFLOLS be adjustable for the specific aircraft on the Forrestal Carriers?

Edited May 11, 2017 by Destroyer37

[bC3660]

????? what?

[SuperSix2]

I don't think they do adjust? Going off a basic PAPI or VASI they are all designed for a 3.0 glideslope. I'd assume it's somewhat the same.

[VampireNZ]

I don't think they do adjust? Going off a basic PAPI or VASI they are all designed for a 3.0 glideslope. I'd assume it's somewhat the same.

 

Each aircraft trapping on the carrier has its own setting for the pilots head position relative to the hook location (Hook-to-Eye).

Something like a foot high 'path' that the pilots head needs to travel down to catch the third wire in the Tomcat for example - this OLS glideslope alignment obviously would not be exactly the same in say an E-2C.

 

See para 4.2.8 in link - http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf

 

I believe this is what the OP is asking? I can only assume this will be done automatically by the sim for each aircraft type?

Edited May 10, 2017 by VampireNZ
Grammar...

[Destroyer37]

Each aircraft trapping on the carrier has its own setting relative to the pilots head position relative to the hook location (Hook-to-Eye).

Something like a foot high 'path' that the pilots head needs to travel down to catch the third? wire in the tomcat for example - this OLS glideslope alignment obviously would not be exactly the same in say a E-2C.

 

See para 4.2.8 in link - http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf

 

I believe this is what the OP is asking? I can only assume this will be done automatically by the sim for each aircraft type?

 

Exactly my question. Thanks for finding that I've been looking for a source for the last twenty minutes!

[Robert31178]

I dunno if it would do it automatically. The F-5 has an adjustable seat, and now that I think on it I don't know if there is a way to set a specific seat position in it.

 

Interesting stuff!!

[Destroyer37]

I dunno if it would do it automatically. The F-5 has an adjustable seat, and now that I think on it I don't know if there is a way to set a specific seat position in it.

 

Interesting stuff!!

 

This really isn't a seat issue, it's an issue of Hook to Ramp clearance over the stern between different aircraft. Longer aircraft will need a different glide slope ratio than shorter to maintain hook to ramp clearance in order to facilitate the capture of the ideal wire. And in order to do that correctly and IRL PRIFLY sets the lens to the appropriate angle for the specific aircraft shooting the approach. The same question could be asked about the tension on the wires. A heavier aircraft needs more tension or resistance where a lighter aircraft needs less.

[Alicatt]

This really isn't a seat issue, it's an issue of Hook to Ramp clearance over the stern between different aircraft. Longer aircraft will need a different glide slope ratio than shorter to maintain hook to ramp clearance in order to facilitate the capture of the ideal wire. And in order to do that correctly and IRL PRIFLY sets the lens to the appropriate angle for the specific aircraft shooting the approach. The same question could be asked about the tension on the wires. A heavier aircraft needs more tension or resistance where a lighter aircraft needs less.

 

Same as the catapult needs a different steam pressure to launch the aircraft based on the aircraft's weight and flying speed.

[Robert31178]

Makes sense. Like the F-8 vs A-4. Gotcha

[Ahmed]

Lens angle also depends on wind conditions (WOD).

 

Best option IMO would be to let the mission builder decide the base GP angle using the ME.

 

Ideal option would be to have an LSO view and allow for the LSO to change it live on a multiplayer session (maybe even MOVLAS but that's probably asking for too much)

[Curly]

Lens angle also depends on wind conditions (WOD).

 

Best option IMO would be to let the mission builder decide the base GP angle using the ME.

 

Ideal option would be to have an LSO view and allow for the LSO to change it live on a multiplayer session (maybe even MOVLAS but that's probably asking for too much)

 

 

I think it should all be automated. Most of the math is based around the relationship of right triangles. So It's not very computationally taxing.

 

I'm not sure most people would have the practical knowledge to setup a FLOLS system which would simulate a realistic and safe approach. For instance, the Saratoga can't safely land aircraft using a 3 degree glide slope, while her sister ship the Ranger is cleared to, and that's just based on the hook touchdown point. Once you get into computing base angle vs effective glide slope and hook to ramp clearance; my faith in peoples ablity to calibrate the system correctly is nil.

 

Also even if you had a virtual LSO station, most of the changes to base angle, hook tuchdown point and roll angle (hook to eye) are not done at the LSO station but in Pri Fly by the Air Boss.

[Destroyer37]

I think it should all be automated. Most of the math is based around the relationship of right triangles. So It's not very computationally taxing.

 

I'm not sure most people would have the practical knowledge to setup a FLOLS system which would simulate a realistic and safe approach. For instance, the Saratoga can't safely land aircraft using a 3 degree glide slope, while her sister ship the Ranger is cleared to, and that's just based on the hook touchdown point. Once you get into computing base angle vs effective glide slope and hook to ramp clearance; my faith in peoples ablity to calibrate the system correctly is nil.

 

Also even if you had a virtual LSO station, most of the changes to base angle, hook tuchdown point and roll angle (hook to eye) are not done at the LSO station but in Pri Fly by the Air Boss.

 

Correct on all accounts!

[tekrc]

saw an instructional video on calibrating the system not too long ago. probably not the same model system but it largely still works the same way. so good info still.

 

[aaron886]

This brings up a related question. Has Heatblur stated that they will model both the 5-light FLOLS and the 12-light IFLOLS? The difference in precision while on the ball is significant.

[VampireNZ]

This brings up a related question. Has Heatblur stated that they will model both the 5-light FLOLS and the 12-light IFLOLS? The difference in precision while on the ball is significant.

 

I imagine they will be using whatever system is fitted to the Forrestal class of carrier.

[tekrc]

I imagine they will be using whatever system is fitted to the Forrestal class of carrier.

 

this.

also based on the time period. Im not sure when forestals retired and if/when they had their IFLOLS updated. so whatever is period appropriate is what we will likely see

[gospadin]

Per wikipedia, IFLOLS was first tested on CVN-73 in 1997 and became standard in 2004.

 

The last Forrestal-class carrier decommissioned was the Independence in 1998.

[tekrc]

Per wikipedia, IFLOLS was first tested on CVN-73 in 1997 and became standard in 2004.

 

The last Forrestal-class carrier decommissioned was the Independence in 1998.

 

 

 

so we shouldnt be getting an optical landing system at all?

[probad]

how'd you arrive at that? before the iflols was flols and the mls and they're all optical landing systems.

 

most likely we'll get flols considering the post-vietnam timeframe for the f-14.

[Northstar98]

We will get an optical landing system in some shape or form. Whatever is accurate to the Forrestal class being developed. Either the earlier mirror landing aid/MLS, with light being reflected off of a mirror from lights at the aft of the ship; the FLOLS - which replaces the mirror and lights at the aft of the ship with fresnel lenses; or the IFLOLS which is again a later improvement.

 

I'm guessing, like what probad said that we'll likely get FLOLS obviously whatever is accurate to the Forrestal class being developed.