Setting realistic expectations for the Hornet

[Fakum]

Hes lucky he only seen the airboss that day, as opposed to his maker!

[Outlaw24]

It's not often you come across an informative and enjoyable read but this one is top shelf, many thanks to the neofightr for participating. This read one along with the Essays written by the "Cheif Instructor" in the Spitfire forum are both outstanding!

[neofightr]

It's not often you come across an informative and enjoyable read but this one is top shelf, many thanks to the neofightr for participating. This read one along with the Essays written by the "Cheif Instructor" in the Spitfire forum are both outstanding!

 

Thanks for the kind words. I will be creating a new thread on my impressions of the Hornet module once it's released.

[Fakum]

neofightr, I realize this is off topic, but I thought you would enjoy this photo. Thats me up on CAT 2 giving the "Extend Launch Bar" signal to the pilot. The photo was taken by our V1 Division Plat Camera spotter who was a good friend of mine in the division. It is unique for me as I have many flight deck pictures, but this was is special because it is the very 1st F18 that landed on our flight deck while doing touch and goes. I was amazed at 1st site! What stood out the most to me was the unobstructed view,,, I digress,,,,, LOL looking forward to your new thread and the Hornet release of course!

[neofightr]

nice pic.

[aaron886]

Wow, cool pic! That paint scheme is unusual, looks like a McD company jet or operational flight test scheme. Anyone able to find more pictures?

[Fakum]

I have bags of pictures from my old Kodak 110 (LOL). I will sift through when I have some time,,Im about 30 years over due from going down memory lane,,,

[Fri13]

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.

 

That is the interesting part that I don't get really by some virtual pilots. That they load up more than the mission requires for a specific task (like drop a two bombs, then they load four or six in case if they "miss" or "need more") and then they expect that you can always land without ever jettisoning anything or they just jettison all as "it costs nothing". Like what would be actions taken to them if they would be required waste weapons such way?

 

I know that there is a challenge for pilots to design the armament, fuel, routes etc just hour before take-off when it is daily training, but how to do it efficiently when you are called in quick reaction times? Requires just lots of training to do planning, calculations, load up the mission data to aircraft computers etc.

 

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.

 

I don't remember what it was called the carrier cable room (the room under deck where all the arresting cables systems were, where they visually inspected cables and kept trapment log of the landings based weight of the aircraft hooking to the cable before requiring changing cable) but IIRC, didn't they get the information for each aircraft landing weight from the tower after pilot calling it in at approach for checking is the landing possible in the cable wearing limits , or was it added only after the successful landing (as actual hooking)?

 

As my impression is that there has been situations where a suddenly heavier aircraft has been wave off as one of the arresting cables has not been in limits withstanding such unexpected heavy weight?

[Majinbot]

Strangely no everyone like to read good stories from an ex pilot. They even gave me bad reputation once when I asked for more good insights from neofightr.

[Hermit713]

I have been perusing some of the threads here with regards to hopes and desires for the f18 performance model. Having flown a decent amount with the f-86, f5 and mig-15 products, I am convinced that DCS and it's partner will nail it with the hornet performance model.

Their attention to detail so far has been impeccable in my eyes.

 

-Retired F18C pilot (lots 10-20) back in it's heyday before the E/F came on the scene.

 

 

Would like to know how you feel about the tanker pilots in this sim? Would like to know if a real life tanker could pull the same game that the AI pilot does in this sim?

 

Example "you think you are all lined up to get some fuel?? , well I am going to pull up away from your f15c just enough, so the fuel boom doesn't reach the tank and every time you try to pull up to meet it, I am going to keep doing it!"

 

I used the example of a friend driving the car away from you just as you try to get into the vehicle, he drives forward 1 foot!>... :lol::megalol: Except I would pull him out of the car and beat the snot out of him!..... (not really, but can you feel my frustration?)

 

In my eyes the refueling in this simulator is either glitched or set WAYY to difficult. I am guessing that a REAL tanker, would not do this sim does... meaning it would be WAY More stable to fly behind, Unlike the sim..

Perhaps I have it all wrong, and should just go do something more enjoyable.... as it isn't fun any more...

Edited January 24, 2018 by Hermit713

[neofightr]

Would like to know how you feel about the tanker pilots in this sim? Would like to know if a real life tanker could pull the same game that the AI pilot does in this sim?

 

Example "you think you are all lined up to get some fuel?? , well I am going to pull up away from your f15c just enough, so the fuel boom doesn't reach the tank and every time you try to pull up to meet it, I am going to keep doing it!"

 

I used the example of a friend driving the car away from you just as you try to get into the vehicle, he drives forward 1 foot!>... :lol::megalol: Except I would pull him out of the car and beat the snot out of him!..... (not really, but can you feel my frustration?)

 

In my eyes the refueling in this simulator is either glitched or set WAYY to difficult. I am guessing that a REAL tanker, would not do this sim does... meaning it would be WAY More stable to fly behind, Unlike the sim..

Perhaps I have it all wrong, and should just go do something more enjoyable.... as it isn't fun any more...

 

Sorry I have yet to check out tanking. I will definitely check it out once the F18 module is out.

I will definitely have a good reference to see how tanking is for the game when I can do it in the F18.

 

If you are sensing the tanker pulling away from you (while maintaining speed) then something is not right.

[sobe]

neofightr

First, I stopped reading this thread several months ago when some jerk kept questioning your responses. Last night, as the F18 module is getting closer, I decided to reread the thread and to my pleasure, DCS removed his comments and I was able to read the thread in one sitting. I especially enjoyed your instructions on the use of the stick and throttle for landing and the pattern around the carrier.

Second, as I am on the wrong side of 70 (and collecting VA benefits), my eyesight is not as good as it used to be. Therefore, putting some gauges, especially the MFDs on a second screen is really important to me. I have used pre-made Helios profiles for most of the modules that I fly that were prepared by Capt Z. http://www.captzeen.com/helios/profiles.asp and he has stated that he will be doing one for the F18 shortly after it released. However, this gave me an opportunity to try my hand at a very simple version of the 3 MFDs and the UFC. See attached. When the F18 is released, the 3 MFDs in the profile will show what is seen in the cockpit. Neat.

[neofightr]

neofightr

First, I stopped reading this thread several months ago when some jerk kept questioning your responses. Last night, as the F18 module is getting closer, I decided to reread the thread and to my pleasure, DCS removed his comments and I was able to read the thread in one sitting. I especially enjoyed your instructions on the use of the stick and throttle for landing and the pattern around the carrier.

Second, as I am on the wrong side of 70 (and collecting VA benefits), my eyesight is not as good as it used to be. Therefore, putting some gauges, especially the MFDs on a second screen is really important to me. I have used pre-made Helios profiles for most of the modules that I fly that were prepared by Capt Z. http://www.captzeen.com/helios/profiles.asp and he has stated that he will be doing one for the F18 shortly after it released. However, this gave me an opportunity to try my hand at a very simple version of the 3 MFDs and the UFC. See attached. When the F18 is released, the 3 MFDs in the profile will show what is seen in the cockpit. Neat.

 

Looks great, hope this works out for you.

[neofightr]

That is the interesting part that I don't get really by some virtual pilots. That they load up more than the mission requires for a specific task (like drop a two bombs, then they load four or six in case if they "miss" or "need more") and then they expect that you can always land without ever jettisoning anything or they just jettison all as "it costs nothing". Like what would be actions taken to them if they would be required waste weapons such way?

 

I know that there is a challenge for pilots to design the armament, fuel, routes etc just hour before take-off when it is daily training, but how to do it efficiently when you are called in quick reaction times? Requires just lots of training to do planning, calculations, load up the mission data to aircraft computers etc.

 

 

 

I don't remember what it was called the carrier cable room (the room under deck where all the arresting cables systems were, where they visually inspected cables and kept trapment log of the landings based weight of the aircraft hooking to the cable before requiring changing cable) but IIRC, didn't they get the information for each aircraft landing weight from the tower after pilot calling it in at approach for checking is the landing possible in the cable wearing limits , or was it added only after the successful landing (as actual hooking)?

 

As my impression is that there has been situations where a suddenly heavier aircraft has been wave off as one of the arresting cables has not been in limits withstanding such unexpected heavy weight?

 

You are correct, they dial in the settings based on what the pilot communicates as he is about to land.

[Gearbox]

The big difference was around lot 20 (can't remember exactly), we had a pretty digital map to look at instead of the old plastic film moving maps on the center lower MFD.

 

At the time, typically the Navy preferred to keep a squadron with a specific lot. So lot's 10s (which were the oldest) were all upgraded for a squadron at the same time. It was no fun for a pilot to deal with varying lots in a squadron with the exception of the training squadron which had a mix of all the lots.

 

I've been reading through this thread because it's pretty interesting and this stuck out. How did this work? Would you create a map with waypoints and such on it using a system at the base/ship and then get it printed on a transparency and loaded into the display?

[neofightr]

I've been reading through this thread because it's pretty interesting and this stuck out. How did this work? Would you create a map with waypoints and such on it using a system at the base/ship and then get it printed on a transparency and loaded into the display?

 

No the map itself was a static background on a sort of film that scrolled with symbology projected/displayed over it. It's been so long that it's hard to remember if this was the exact detail. I spent more time with digital maps that I don't remember much about the old map tech.

 

But the map films were preloaded depending on where we were in the world. I am sure if you look around on the internet you are bound to find an old documentary talking about it.

Edited January 25, 2018 by neofightr

[Gearbox]

No the map itself was a static background on a sort of film that scrolled with symbology projected/displayed over it. It's been so long that it's hard to remember if this was the exact detail. I spent more time with digital maps that I don't remember much about the old map tech.

 

But the map films were preloaded depending on where we were in the world. I am sure if you look around on the internet you are bound to find an old documentary talking about it.

 

I had pretty bad luck finding any information about it. Did find this amusing bit about the film-based system in the SR-71 though: https://books.google.com/books?id=6svmtOFa1JIC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=film+based+moving+map&source=bl&ots=pwCfwfL22I&sig=KPKP_5ViqhDRwiLR1VjPFjqAnMo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikrJ-J8_PYAhVETd8KHQPDAGsQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=film%20based%20moving%20map&f=false

[Sceptre]

thanks for this thread it's been a great read and I have learned a lot. fascinating to hear from someone who flew the hornet first hand. I do have a question, was the F/A-18D twin seater used only for training, or was the back seat for an RIO? thanks

Edited January 26, 2018 by Sceptre

[neofightr]

I had pretty bad luck finding any information about it. Did find this amusing bit about the film-based system in the SR-71 though: https://books.google.com/books?id=6svmtOFa1JIC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=film+based+moving+map&source=bl&ots=pwCfwfL22I&sig=KPKP_5ViqhDRwiLR1VjPFjqAnMo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikrJ-J8_PYAhVETd8KHQPDAGsQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=film%20based%20moving%20map&f=false

 

The mystery pic bit was amusing.

 

I suspect the early hornets used the advanced version of this type of moving map film.

[neofightr]

thanks for this thread it's been a great read and I have learned a lot. fascinating to hear from someone who flew the hornet first hand. I do have a question, was the F/A-18D twin seater used only for training, or was the back seat for an RIO? thanks

 

Primarily as a trainer with a small subset used for specialized missions.

Remember the D model sacrificed fuel for that 2nd seat so it had less range than a single seat.

The Marines used a lot more Ds than the Navy.

 

The F model was the primary replacement for the Tomcat. So I remember Tomcat RIOs expecting to transition to the F during the early 2000s.

 

I am not sure how that program eventually worked out (I was done flying by then). I don't think all the RIOs transferred over and I suspect there isn't as many Fs as they are Es in the inventory.

Edited January 26, 2018 by neofightr

[Sceptre]

Awesome thank you for the reply. Always thought the F and D models were pretty similar but as I said before I have learned a lot from this thread ( :

[Gearbox]

Awesome thank you for the reply. Always thought the F and D models were pretty similar but as I said before I have learned a lot from this thread ( :

 

The E and F are a completely different airplane that happens to be sort of the same shape as the original A-D.

[Hummingbird]

Hey Neo, I forget if I've already asked but did you ever perform DACT vs the Tomcat, Eagle & Viper? and if so what were your impressions from these?

[Weasel]

Dear Neofightr

 

Thanks a lot for this very interesting thread. I really appreciate to have you here in our community :thumbup:

 

I have a question. There is a thread about ILS. Is it correct that only the RAAF and the canadian hornets have a civilian ILS? What ILS do the navy hornets have? Is this an ILS that only works for carrier landings? How do you do PA (precision approach) on military airfields?

 

Thanks and regards

Weasel

[neofightr]

Dear Neofightr

 

Thanks a lot for this very interesting thread. I really appreciate to have you here in our community :thumbup:

 

I have a question. There is a thread about ILS. Is it correct that only the RAAF and the canadian hornets have a civilian ILS? What ILS do the navy hornets have? Is this an ILS that only works for carrier landings? How do you do PA (precision approach) on military airfields?

 

Thanks and regards

Weasel

 

it's been a long time but the thread is correct. The hornets I flew did not have a civ. ILS we did have a similar ILS for carrier and navy airfields which were integrated in the hud display. I want to say it was officially called CILS, I can't remember.

 

Also we commonly used controller precision approaches, the controllers liked the training experience.