CV-59 Forrestal Feedback Thread

[Silver_Dragon]

Forrestal configurations, can be check here:

 

[Northstar98]

Speaking of radars, looks like Forrestal is also missing its AN/SPS-64 surface-search/naigation radar.

It's diifcult to see in RL images (I only found one from Forrestal where it's clearly visible), but at least on publicly available CV 60 plans (see the first page for the distribution statement) it's in front of the AN/SPS-48 antenna:

 

 

In DCS though, it looks like the mount is there(?) but the antenna is not:

 

The AN/SPS-64 version the Navy uses is the AN/SPS-64(V)9 (the RM 1120 6X is a civilian version), which has an antenna 6 ft wide (this example is from CVN 71):

Edited December 8, 2023 by Northstar98
Added DCS image

[AG-51_Razor]

Hey there HB, I just recently saw a video by an influencer of your Tomcat release for another platform and noticed that he mentioned there were 4 other Forrestal class CV's included in that release. What are the chances of us seeing them in the world of DCS anytime soon??

Edited December 12, 2023 by AG-51_Razor

[AG-51_Razor]

C'mon Fellas, it's not like this is a very difficult question to answer and it's not going to influence my decision to purchase the Tomcat since I already have it. I'm just wondering about how much longer it will be before we see the rest of the carriers in the Forrestal class.

[D4n]

On 12/4/2023 at 7:09 AM, Nealius said:

Carrier operations are not (typically) conducted with crosswinds. 

Interesting... But then the real pilots would have to be at a constant roll angle if they want to stay aligned with the slightly-sideways-moving deck with a headwind instead of slight crosswind... simple physics really.

[D4n]

Quote

On 11/19/2022 at 2:42 PM, Бойовий Сокіл said:

So I guess the FLOLS is never getting fixed?

GUYS this is REALLY getting FRUSTRATING now!!!!! HOW IS THE FOV LIGHTS-BUG STILL NOT FIXED AFTER OVER 2 YEARS?? Does NONE of the HB testers EVER do night landings?????

 

[fagulha]

On 1/27/2024 at 9:48 AM, D4n said:

Interesting... But then the real pilots would have to be at a constant roll angle if they want to stay aligned with the slightly-sideways-moving deck with a headwind instead of slight crosswind... simple physics really.

That´s why when you´re in the groove you align the E-Bracket with the "Crotch" (right side of the runway end) for compensate the runway always drifting to the right due to the boat movent.

"Carrier operations are not (typically) conducted with crosswinds as stated. It´s needed 30 kts of headwind for recoveries/launches and the aircraft carrier "chases" the wind for that reason".

Edited January 31 by fagulha
Quotes missing

[draconus]

9 hours ago, fagulha said:

carrier "chases" the wind

I'd say that carrier goes against the wind rather than chasing it.

[Nealius]

On 1/27/2024 at 6:48 PM, D4n said:

Interesting... But then the real pilots would have to be at a constant roll angle if they want to stay aligned with the slightly-sideways-moving deck with a headwind instead of slight crosswind... simple physics really.

Per US Navy documentation (NATOPS, CNATRA, burble research paper from the Navy Academy) carrier ops are conducted with natural winds oriented down the angled deck, i.e. from 9-ish degrees left of BRC. There are provisions for crosswinds and there are limitations when necessary however straight down the angled deck is ideal.

Edited January 29 by Nealius

[fagulha]

11 hours ago, draconus said:

I'd say that carrier goes against the wind rather than chasing it.

You know what i was talking about.

[D4n]

On 1/28/2024 at 10:46 PM, fagulha said:

That´s why when you´re in the groove you align the E-Bracket with the "Crotch" (right side of the runway end) for compensate the runway always drifting to the right due to the boat movent.

Doesn't the F-14 lack the E-Bracket, doesn't only the Hornet have that?

 

On 1/29/2024 at 2:17 PM, Nealius said:

i.e. from 9-ish degrees left of BRC.

Is BRC the carrier's heading or the heading of the landing-runway on the deck?

 

And I recently realized that for a perfect carrier recovery without any sideslipping, a slight wind would have to come from 90° to the left of the landing-runway on the deck, that way the wind continuously pushes your jet slightly sideways so that you perfectly stay on glideslope. I guess the danger of that would be if there is a gust, it could slam your jet into the "island", making it a very VERY bad day for the ~5000 soldiers on board...

Edited January 31 by D4n

[razo+r]

43 minutes ago, D4n said:

Doesn't the F-14 lack the E-Bracket, doesn't only the Hornet have that?

No, it also has one.

 

[near_blind]

43 minutes ago, D4n said:

Doesn't the F-14 lack the E-Bracket, doesn't only the Hornet have that?

 
That E Bracket? You'd put the flight path marker in the crotch of the ship, but otherwise...

[fagulha]

1 hour ago, D4n said:

as BRC the carrier's heading or the heading of the landing-runway on the deck?

BRC = boat heading (CASE I/CASE II)

FRC (Final heading) = runway heading ( CASE III).

[draconus]

2 hours ago, D4n said:

And I recently realized that for a perfect carrier recovery without any sideslipping, a slight wind would have to come from 90° to the left of the landing-runway on the deck, that way the wind continuously pushes your jet slightly sideways so that you perfectly stay on glideslope.

You mean the actual drift that puts you into imaginary straight flight into the wires. That's possible with infinite combinations of left crosswind direction, wind speed and carrier speed, still preferably flying into the wind. But it's not how they do it IRL.

[D4n]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

But it's not how they do it IRL.

Yeah I imagine because of the danger that I mentioned before.

[D4n]

3 hours ago, near_blind said:

 
That E Bracket? You'd put the flight path marker in the crotch of the ship, but otherwise...

Thanks!!! By flight path marker you mean velocity vector? Because the guide (Chucks) says that the aircraft reticle should move into the E-Bracket, not the velocity vector.

Also interesting: DCS' default view-setting in the Tomcat is in the way that you will loose sight of the velocity vector when E-Bracket and reticle meet, it will vanish behind this thing (screenshot below), if you don't change the default view to a higher position. Wouldn't it make sense to change the default view position then?

Edited January 31 by D4n

[razo+r]

48 minutes ago, D4n said:

Thanks!!! By flight path marker you mean velocity vector? Because the guide (Chucks) says that the aircraft reticle should move into the E-Bracket, not the velocity vector.

Also interesting: DCS' default view-setting in the Tomcat is in the way that you will loose sight of the velocity vector when E-Bracket and reticle meet, it will vanish behind this thing (screenshot below), if you don't change the default view to a higher position. Wouldn't it make sense to change the default view position then?

 

If you click on that thing, which is a video tape recorder, you can remove it.

Also, yes you line up the aircraft datum symbol / aircraft reticle with the E bracket. The recorder should not obstruct it, otherwise you are seating in a wrong position.

Edited January 31 by razo+r

[RustBelt]

2 hours ago, D4n said:

Yeah I imagine because of the danger that I mentioned before.

Also pilots have zero problems landing in a crosswind. Because that’s almost always what you have on land. 

[Nealius]

Flight path marker in the Tomcat isn't particularly accurate enough to place it on something you want to fly towards. I put my mental velocity vector on the crotch of the ship as I would if the HUD were out (or flying a warbird, or a helo). 

Quick note on the Tomcat's E-bracket that I think often confuses people: Unlike the Hornet where the E-bracket is aligned on the flight path marker, it's aligned with the fixed attitude T symbol in the HUD.

 

Edited February 1 by Nealius

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Nealius said:

Flight path marker in the Tomcat isn't particularly accurate enough to place it on something you want to fly towards.

It actually is accurate in DCS but, as SME said, it shouldn't be.

10 hours ago, D4n said:

Yeah I imagine because of the danger that I mentioned before.

No, because they fly into the wind.

[freehand]

12 hours ago, draconus said:

You mean the actual drift that puts you into imaginary straight flight into the wires. That's possible with infinite combinations of left crosswind direction, wind speed and carrier speed, still preferably flying into the wind. But it's not how they do it IRL.

"imaginary straight flight into the wires"  sorry not understanding your reply ?

[draconus]

36 minutes ago, freehand said:

"imaginary straight flight into the wires"  sorry not understanding your reply ?

In the case we discussed, in the pilot view, he flies perfectly straight onto the carrier landing area just like it was an airfield. In reality the carrier sails forward and slightly right of the aircraft but the aircraft also drifts right because of the left crosswind.

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

It actually is accurate in DCS but, as SME said, it shouldn't be.

Weird, I usually see it way off on the superstructure or even further starboard when I come in 

[draconus]

8 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Weird, I usually see it way off on the superstructure or even further starboard when I come in 

I'd have to check it out again in current version. Don't want to misinform.