AOA and the Hornet

[ruddy122]

Different concept when the USAF teaches Vref and the Checklist or Dash One for the KC10

 

Jabbers and Spudknocker and Hornet Pilots tell you of AOA

 

Here’s my personal views

Don’t chase AOA what I mean don’t make overly excessive throttle movements you will destabilize yourself

 

When ATC is resolved for full flaps you can get close and let the computer mess with the throttle

 

Small but positive inputs. Big inputs will destabilize you or you might PIO

 

Both bad

 

My technique is let the AOA come to you

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swift.]

I assume you are talking about when you are in the landing gains for FCS, ie you are about to land. Throttle has no bearing on AOA at all, its all stick and stick trim.

[ruddy122]

Jabbers and Spudknocker say AOA critical for Carrier and FCLPs to land safely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swift.]

1 hour ago, ruddy122 said:

Jabbers and Spudknocker say AOA critical for Carrier and FCLPs to land safely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I agree wholeheartedly. But throttle movement does not change AOA in hornet.

[Stearmandriver]

My entire career, I've never understood why we don't use AoA in the civilian world - although we're starting to.  Sounds like the Air Force is in the same boat. 

 

All the focus on calculating base Vref + adjustments - with bank angle / load factor limitations - that we use are in reality just secondary ways to determine exactly one thing:  the correct AoA to fly for desired wing performance.  But AoA is itself directly measurable, and it's actually easier to measure accurately than airspeed.  If you have an AoA indication, airspeed becomes irrelevant on approach, no matter conditions, no matter configuration, no matter bank angle or load factor.  You have a *direct* indication of wing performance instead of secondary ones.

[ruddy122]

The F-16 drivers are AOA aware the KC10 guys are not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruddy122]

Swiftwin9s is right

Excessive throttle will destabilize you on approach

The best is anticipation not reactionary

Like Jabbers said there is no magic throttle setting just understand what power means

Remember to use your stick as a buffer till your throttle catches up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You drop like a rock below 130


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruddy122]

A rock is more aerodynamic than an F/A-18 at that speed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stearmandriver]

At what speed? I mean, the Hornet flies and the rock doesn't, so...

[ruddy122]

Joking but more seriously below 130 knots real handful and stalling more than likely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bunny Clark]

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

My entire career, I've never understood why we don't use AoA in the civilian world - although we're starting to.  Sounds like the Air Force is in the same boat. 

I've wondered this too. I think a lot of it is directly related to a overall lack of AoA probes on civilian aircraft, something that is just starting to be corrected. The staple single engine prop trainers don't have them and pilots don't learn to land by AoA, then things just progress from there - we never used it so we don't need it. We've even seen this recently on the 737 Max, a "new" aircraft with AoA sensitive flight systems but a backup AoA sensor was an upcharge at purchase.  

[RaisedByWolves]

9 hours ago, ruddy122 said:

Jabbers and Spudknocker say AOA critical for Carrier and FCLPs to land safely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

spudknocker is a spudknocker. not sure about jabbers. 

[Jetguy06]

3 minutes ago, RaisedByWolves said:

spudknocker is a spudknocker. not sure about jabbers. 

That may be, but they're still both absolutely correct. Improper AoA during a carrier trap could result in your hook sailing over the wires (too fast/too little AoA) or an in-flight emgagement, where the hook catches a wire before your wheels hit the deck (too slow/too much AoA, and IFEs are very dangerous). Maintaining proper AoA will, most of the time, avoid these two scenarios, though you may still have a hook skip bolter. But those are not typically due to bad AoA, just sometimes bad luck.

[Stearmandriver]

2 hours ago, ruddy122 said:

Joking but more seriously below 130 knots real handful and stalling more than likely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha I know, just kidding too.  And I know what you mean and I know you know this, but it probably bears repeating for folks who may not: airspeed doesn't actually have anything to do with a stall.  A plane doesn't stall because it gets too slow, it stalls because the wing's critical AoA has been exceeded.  Always, every time.  That's literally the only way a wing can be stalled.  And this can be accomplished in any attitude, and at ANY airspeed, by varying load factor.  

 

The only parameter that must be managed to avoid a stall is AoA.

 

Bunny is right that there's historically been too little emphasis on this in civilian training, but that is happily changing.  The FAA is emphasizing AoA control and giving manufacturers an expedited road to certification for AoA indicators.  

 

Good article here: 

https://www.flyingmag.com/story/avionics/angle-of-attack-guidance/

[ruddy122]

Thank you for the correction

Pilots look at the Airspeed Indicator if you are in a bad spot plus the plane will tell you if it’s angry by feeling the buffet

Some planes have a stick shaker or horn to warn the pilot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you keep doing this I will stall and you won’t be happy do something like adding power or relax the pull


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[randomTOTEN]

OP:

23 hours ago, ruddy122 said:

Here’s my personal views

Don’t chase AOA

...don’t make overly excessive throttle movements

...My technique is let the AOA come to you

...The best is anticipation not reactionary

...use your stick as a buffer

...Pilots look at the Airspeed Indicator...the plane will tell you if it’s angry

 

Also OP:

16 hours ago, ruddy122 said:

You drop like a rock below 130

...below 130 knots real handful and stalling more than likely

...A rock is more aerodynamic than an F/A-18 at that speed

 

 

It's not a heavy tanker. It doesn't fly a stabilized approach to a stationary airfield. Give "the Navy way" a chance before you knock it.

[ruddy122]

No knocking didn’t mean to

Some limitations you got to be careful and aware

All planes have limitations a good pilot is aware of them and gets the most out of your plane

My favorite airplanes are the A-10, F-14, F/A-18 and the F-16


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[randomTOTEN]

Learn to fly AOA behind the boat (or FCLP). Get used to moving the throttles a lot, and by a large amount if needed. You don't need to wait for improvements to the ATC to do these.

Edited May 4, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[ruddy122]

If you need a lot of throttle or chop the throttle do it

Anticipate what the F404 engines does to you

Look at you tube videos of actual Hornet pilots and see how hard they are working to make the landing look easy when they land on the boat

If you are not working hard something you are doing something wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[randomTOTEN]

On 5/3/2021 at 11:40 AM, ruddy122 said:

I mean don’t make overly excessive throttle movements you will destabilize yourself

 

3 minutes ago, ruddy122 said:

If you need a lot of throttle or chop the throttle do it... If you are not working hard something you are doing something wrong

glad we got you sorted, sir! carry on...

[Bunny Clark]

15 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Bunny is right that there's historically been too little emphasis on this in civilian training, but that is happily changing.  The FAA is emphasizing AoA control and giving manufacturers an expedited road to certification for AoA indicators.  

I'm glad to see things moving this way. Honestly, I've learned more about flying on-speed approaches using AoA in DCS than I did in any of my PPL flight training or ground school. I don't fly anything fancier than a Skyhawk IRL, but it would be super cool to have an AoA indicator in it. 

[Stearmandriver]

4 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

It's not a heavy tanker. It doesn't fly a stabilized approach to a stationary airfield. Give "the Navy way" a chance before you knock it.

Every aircraft should fly a stabilized approach.  A properly flown case 1 is quite stable.  There's nothing to be gained by ramming the throttle back and forth if conditions don't require it (ie, a normal day).  Ruddy is right that overcontrolling will only destabilize you.

 

Much seems to be made here of the idea that a fighter is some sort of special case in aviation.  What makes them unique is their mission and ability to carry weapons, but when it comes to basic flight maneuvers like landing... they're just airplanes.  They work the same as any other.  Stabilized approaches are just as much of a concern (and an emphasis item).

[randomTOTEN]

22 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Every aircraft should fly a stabilized approach.

We're talking about a different idea than you probably are, or at least different conditions than you may be expecting to judge them.

23 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

A properly flown case 1 is quite stable.

Nope. In his tanker realm it would qualify as unstable by definition.

24 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Ruddy is right that overcontrolling will only destabilize you.

His initial assertion was to undercontrol. He stated the outcome of that policy in the replies.

28 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Much seems to be made here of the idea that a fighter is some sort of special case in aviation.

No, just that it's procedures have some subtle differences is all. That's what we're talking about.

[Stearmandriver]

32 minutes ago, randomTOTEN said:

Nope. In his tanker realm it would qualify as unstable by definition.

 Can I ask what would make it qualify as unstable?   I would assume the military uses similar stabilized approach criteria to 121 aviation?   I frequently fly similar approaches in 737s to places like Petersburg and Juneau.  Straight in, wings level "groove time" in these places can be shorter than a case 1,  but the approaches certainly meet the 121 standard for stabilised.  What would be unstable about the case 1 turn? 

[Brun]

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Much seems to be made here of the idea that a fighter is some sort of special case in aviation.  What makes them unique is their mission and ability to carry weapons, but when it comes to basic flight maneuvers like landing... they're just airplanes.  They work the same as any other.  Stabilized approaches are just as much of a concern (and an emphasis item).

 

The importance of AOA with regards to *carrier-based aircraft* is to maximise the chances of the arresting gear working as intended. That's the special case.

 

I'm no aviator, but does the following hold true?

 

Naval: Glideslope > AOA > Airspeed

 

AF/CA/GA: Glideslope > Airspeed > AOA

 

Or in other words, a naval aircraft's approach speed will vary by virtue of AOA being the primary concern. In the other cases, AOA will vary depending on target airspeed.