Wheel Brakes arent strong enough?

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

I've definitely noticed the same thing. Every time I land the F-18 even below 130 kts I'm praying that the thing will stop before the end of the runway. Depending on where I put it down at it usually takes 75% of the runway to get it stopped. It shouldn't take 75% of the runway to get a Hornet slowed down and stopped. I also think that the brakes are bugged (or at least a bit off). Just a small tweak would make it feel right.

 

 

Why have anti-skid if you can't apply enough brakes to make it kick in or be useful?

It could be several factors.

Once touchdown is done, deploy your airbrake.

Then pull the stick back.

Let the speed bleed up and apply wheel brakes softly.

I have no problem stopping the Hornet using that.

 

Apparently naval aircrafts don´t have powerful brake system, they have a hook for that matter :D

 

happy flying and even better (short)landings!

[bbrz]

It could be several factors.

Once touchdown is done, deploy your airbrake.

Then pull the stick back.

Let the speed bleed up and apply wheel brakes softly.

I have no problem stopping the Hornet using that.

And how much distance do you need with this method?

[AvgWhiteGuy]

I see people talking about 'wheelbrakes Axis Inverted' and it's confusing me because I DID have Seitek Cessna pedals and they were inverted but now my new TM TPR pedals are NOT inverted. Anybody know what is correct for TPGs? See attached screenshot.

 

Regarding the braking itself, I have no problems stopping as long as my landing is good. If I flair at all then it can be a problem; especially at Batumi. I just hit the deck, extend speedbrake and stuff the pedals WITHOUT NWS engaged.

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

And how much distance do you need with this method?

I don´t know exactly but never overshooted the opposing end of the runway, or flipping over due to clearing the runway at too much speed.

I even let the hornet roll hardly applying wheelbrake pressure on long runways such us Nellis or Al Minhad.

[bbrz]

Regarding the braking itself, I have no problems stopping as long as my landing is good. If I flair at all then it can be a problem; especially at Batumi.

Apparently you do have a problem ;)

 

The runway at Batumi is 8000ft and the landing distance for a flared landing at 30000lbs IRL is 3800ft.

 

This means that you should be able to come to a full stop halfway down the runway if the brakes would work as they should!

Edited August 9, 2019 by bbrz

[KittyVCAW-1]

u guys are under 33,000lbs when you land or no? I've never had an issue using more that 50% of the runway to slow down.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Jonnie2Bad

[David OC]

Quick test

 

On speed AOA

Zero wind

28,000 pounds

(4000 feet)

 

With flare add 1200 (No Flare in this video)

 

Looks right to me from the A1-F18AC-NFM-200...?

 

See page 11-261

 

Unless I'm missing something....?

 

 

Not tested other weights

Edited August 9, 2019 by David OC

[bbrz]

28,000 pounds (4000 feet)

How did you get 4000ft? Using the landing distance table I get 2600ft (without flare)?

 

edit: just watched the video, I didn't notice any flare and you didn't cross the threshold at 50ft either.

Edited August 9, 2019 by bbrz

[David OC]

Yep,

 

Not printed, looks around that from the 1.0 density.

 

I was plenty short...? and was a little late to brake.... Will test again to see.

 

 

Needed an extra 1000 feet to stop, from the 2600 marker

Edited August 9, 2019 by David OC

[bbrz]

I highly appreciate your tests :), but it would be great if you could aim for standard no-flare landings (like the above one), which will result in the most precise measurement.

 

Brake application was almost immediate in the above video btw :)

Edited August 9, 2019 by bbrz

[Weta43]

And how much distance do you need with this method?

 

For me: sea level, 20 degrees @ 28800 lb - pretty consistently 1.13km (3,700 ft)

[HWasp]

There seems to be some confusion here: we should be talking about 2 separate things.

 

That table in the manual is ground roll, meaning the actual distance from touch down of the wheels and brake application (wherever that might be). That is around 2600 ft according the table (28000lbs)

 

You get the landing distance by adding the additive corresponding to your landing method (like 720 with 4 degrees glide and no flare and 1200 with flare)

 

So for a normal flared landing you cross the threshold at 50ft, then you touch down 1200ft from the threshold, and from that point it should take another 2600ft to stop with maximum braking.

 

There is clear evidence in the manual that shall not be posted here, yet they are just moving the threads around doing nothing... Even posted a clear bug report with track just to have it merged into the whish list thread

[Wizard_03]

The performance charts from the above mentioned document do not apply to DCS hornet. Ours has the EPE 402 engines. The document listing it’s performance charts is not publicly available. That one is for the 400 engines.

[HWasp]

The performance charts from the above mentioned document do not apply to DCS hornet. Ours has the EPE 402 engines. The document listing it’s performance charts is not publicly available. That one is for the 400 engines.

 

Thank you for your valuable input!!!

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3996582&postcount=54

 

in that post I have a track, where I touch down 1300ft beyond the threshold at 30k lbs and then proceed to have a ground roll of 3800 feet until coming to a full stop.

 

ground roll in manual (which is not applicable due to different engines :doh:) : 2800 feet <---> 3800 feet in the track.

 

Since the difference is 2800 vs 3800 would you kindly allow me to use that manual just for reference please?

[Wizard_03]

No I won’t, because you have no idea what the actual difference might be. Your free to post whatever you want though :)

[HWasp]

No I won’t, because you have no idea what the actual difference might be. Your free to post whatever you want though :)

 

:megalol: You are such a serious professional, that I won't even dare to talk to you anymore. My apologies.

[Wizard_03]

The problem is: you folks aren’t using them as a “reference” your using them as holy scripture.

 

Which first off they aren’t used that way IRL

Second and probably most importantly you have the wrong one which invalidates most if not everything about your tests.

Third it wouldn’t matter because you have no idea if ED has deliberately changed the performance.

 

They said it’s correct in their game. But some people refuse to accept that, as if their being cheated by ED, if it’s not 100 percent accurate which is ludicrous because it can’t be.

[Robert31178]

I have heard USN planes are skimpy on brakes, figured that statement was accurate since they really don't need them the same way that a USAF striker might. Good to know that it might not be true. This has been a very interesting discussion, thank you!

 

~Rob

[bbrz]

Third it wouldn’t matter because you have no idea if ED has deliberately changed the performance.

 

They said it’s correct in their game. But some people refuse to accept that, as if their being cheated by ED, if it’s not 100 percent accurate which is ludicrous because it can’t be.

If you honestly believe that there's zero difference in braking capability between anti-skid braking and locked/sliding wheels, then any further discussion is useless.

 

Not 100% correct? We are talking about a 50% error!

 

Please enlighten me, how to actually read/interpret the performance tables since you claim that 'they aren’t used that way IRL'

Edited August 9, 2019 by bbrz

[Wizard_03]

If you honestly believe that there's zero difference in braking capability between anti-skid braking and locked/sliding wheels, then any further discussion is useless.

 

Not 100% correct? We are talking about a 50% error!

 

Please enlighten me, how to actually read/interpret the performance tables since you claim that 'they aren’t used that way IRL'

 

It doesn’t matter what I believe. You don’t know what the real performance should be. So you can’t say if the 402 makes that big of a difference. Your assuming it won’t but you don’t know. They won’t change anything based on beliefs and assumptions.

 

You people aren’t going about this scientifically, ED already made the call so unless you prove that their wrong and they then decide they are willing to change it, it doesn’t matter.

 

As far as real life goes, no pilot is going to sit and measure the stopping distance and compare it too NATOPS Their gonna say the hornet takes forever to stop, and call it good.

[Akula]

Is it just me or are the Wheel Brakes far to weak?

 

Did a few Runway Landings and had a hard time bringin this Bird to a full stop.

I had Speed Brakes fully extended and hitting the Brakes hard but the Runway is barely enough to bring it to an stop.

 

Anti-Skid is on so slipping is not the problem.

 

You think the Hornet is too hard to stop? Lol, try landing the F-5 or the SU-25.

 

:megalol:

[Jack McCoy]

You people aren’t going about this scientifically

Well, Professor, which people do you represent? :smartass:

[Oesau]

I have heard USN planes are skimpy on brakes, figured that statement was accurate since they really don't need them the same way that a USAF striker might. Good to know that it might not be true. This has been a very interesting discussion, thank you!

 

~Rob

 

From what I’ve been told (by a former Hornet driver) is that it has very good brakes.

 

I had noted last week that the braking power seemed to be worse as of late (couldn’t pin point the build when it started) but I don’t often use it on land so it could have happened a while back.

[raelias]

As far as real life goes, no pilot is going to sit and measure the stopping distance and compare it too NATOPS Their gonna say the hornet takes forever to stop, and call it good.

 

 

That's just incorect, no plane in the world would land without assessing the stopping distance, of course they are not gonna be fiddling with it in the cockpit unless something very unexpected happens and in doubt, IRL they would know all the possible alternate fields were the airplane "fits" as per landing distance, no one lands a plane guessing if it will stop or not, unless it's an extreme emergency in which case a fighter pilot would just eject

[David OC]

It doesn’t matter what I believe. You don’t know what the real performance should be. So you can’t say if the 402 makes that big of a difference. Your assuming it won’t but you don’t know. They won’t change anything based on beliefs and assumptions.

 

You people aren’t going about this scientifically, ED already made the call so unless you prove that their wrong and they then decide they are willing to change it, it doesn’t matter.

 

As far as real life goes, no pilot is going to sit and measure the stopping distance and compare it too NATOPS Their gonna say the hornet takes forever to stop, and call it good.

 

402 engine........

 

Landing weight same

AOA same 8.1

 

Does the 402 have different brakes? lol

 

It's going to be in the ballpark to what we should see I'm thinking.

 

That's just incorect, no plane in the world would land without assessing the stopping distance, of course they are not gonna be fiddling with it in the cockpit unless something very unexpected happens and in doubt, IRL they would know all the possible alternate fields were the airplane "fits" as per landing distance, no one lands a plane guessing if it will stop or not, unless it's an extreme emergency in which case a fighter pilot would just eject

 

Yep,

 

Was going to post the same thing.

 

All maintenance is done around making sure those charts are correct. They should be a little bit generous if anything.

 

 

You should also allow a bit.... too on the charts, as per this scary video.:cry:

 

1000 feet or 300 meters is a lot extra. I would have thought you could use the anti skid, like you can on a car, right up to when it engages.

 

Or is it standard on the F/A-18 to just use full braking all the time to stop.

Edited August 9, 2019 by David OC