A-4E-C Nose Wheel Steering missing.

[GBU10]

Just updated to the latest version of the A-4 mod and I no longer have the ability to map NWS. Any suggestions? Thanks! 

[WinterH]

It was removed intentionally as this variant apparently didn't have that ability IRL. Need to use differential braking now.

[GBU10]

30 minutes ago, WinterH said:

It was removed intentionally as this variant apparently didn't have that ability IRL. Need to use differential braking now.

Awesome! Thanks for the support!

[Shrike88]

Yea I found out and was disappointed.  Still find it troublesome, no matter the practice.  I know its more "True to form now" however wish we had the option as a checkbox on the special options tab to revert to the older method.  OH well

[Uteman]

On 12/21/2021 at 8:09 AM, Shrike88 said:

Yea I found out and was disappointed.  Still find it troublesome, no matter the practice.  I know its more "True to form now" however wish we had the option as a checkbox on the special options tab to revert to the older method.  OH well

You are not the only one, if the makers (who have done an excellent job by the way) want to remain true to life then the option of a checkbox should be there because as I understand the history of the AC, NWS and spoilers were retrofits installed on many of the aircraft. Also as the makers authors have stated they are not adding later versions to the A4C a checkbox is applicable if one is going to use some of the country liveries supplied given they were using later generation aircraft. Consistency? just saying. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Uteman
typo

[Shrike88]

very well said Uteman,  However we shall see.  The A-4 Community while helpful on this awesome free module, is not very nice when it comes to asking for things or suggestions in the special settings menu.  I was Castigated on their discord for asking for such.  Oh well. Its ashame as its almost insanely unable to be used and extremely more difficult on the HMS Melborne mod Carrier with the smaller deck.  Oh well.

Edited January 3, 2022 by Shrike88

[LtCol_Davenport]

I am also joining to ask for NSW back or at least as an option. I really can’t fly the plane this way, if not starting on the runway.

Also, without pedals, I think it is even more difficult!

[Rudel_chw]

2 minutes ago, LtCol_Davenport said:

I really can’t fly the plane this way

 

But have you really tried and made an effort to learn how to use the differential braking? .. it took me quite a few tries, but eventually one gets the hang of it and that's it.

Tip: Reduce speed before a turn.

Tip 2: Enable the Controls indicator .. it has a circle that shows you the position of the nosewheel, helps a lot while learning:

 

[Cueball]

On 1/6/2022 at 5:11 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

But have you really tried and made an effort to learn how to use the differential braking? .. it took me quite a few tries, but eventually one gets the hang of it and that's it.

Tip: Reduce speed before a turn.

Tip 2: Enable the Controls indicator .. it has a circle that shows you the position of the nosewheel, helps a lot while learning:

 

But the real pilots didn't have this feature either! Sorry I had to say it. It is hard to get used to I have pedals but have know feeling in my feet so I am screwed no matter how they set it up. I would be happy with holding a button for NWS while taxiing feature would be nice. . I just started flying the A4 and made several missions. So I am struggling with the Dif Braking. But I will find away to make it work. It is also a struggle with some of the warbirds as well.

[EvilBert VR]

9 hours ago, Cueball said:

But the real pilots didn't have this feature either! Sorry I had to say it. It is hard to get used to I have pedals but have know feeling in my feet so I am screwed no matter how they set it up. I would be happy with holding a button for NWS while taxiing feature would be nice. . I just started flying the A4 and made several missions. So I am struggling with the Dif Braking. But I will find away to make it work. It is also a struggle with some of the warbirds as well.

But the real pilots had lots of training and handpicked instructors to teach them those things. Sorry, I had to say it.
The thoughts of @Rudel_chw lead to a good way. It's a helpfull feature to learn using the differential breaking. And lots of practice is the key to success here. I hated it as well but I had to cope with it. At the end it is a simulation and not just a game.

Cheers

[zaelu]

I have serious problems with it for now but... I will make it work! Imho it should be true to how it was... No point in having NWS/NWS HI where it wasn't available. Keeps the planes personalities intact.

[LtCol_Davenport]

On 1/6/2022 at 11:11 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

But have you really tried and made an effort to learn how to use the differential braking? .. it took me quite a few tries, but eventually one gets the hang of it and that's it.

Tip: Reduce speed before a turn.

Tip 2: Enable the Controls indicator .. it has a circle that shows you the position of the nosewheel, helps a lot while learning:

 

Take note. I have no pedals unfortunately, I have no space for them.

 

I even bought (for my dad) the L-39 (without knowing the steering think) and he called me that he was unable to use it.  At first I was confident but after I tried for like an hour, I wasn’t able to taxi the plane, at all. He also doesn’t have pedals.

After the release of this A-4 we both tried again and failed, again, together.

I am probably stupid or not good enough to, that’s for sure since I see people online taxing perfectly but I don’t know what to do. Moreover, have to bound the pedals brakes to the keyboard it is really a pain, at least for me.

On 1/12/2022 at 3:49 AM, Cueball said:

But the real pilots didn't have this feature either! Sorry I had to say it. It is hard to get used to I have pedals but have know feeling in my feet so I am screwed no matter how they set it up. I would be happy with holding a button for NWS while taxiing feature would be nice. . I just started flying the A4 and made several missions. So I am struggling with the Dif Braking. But I will find away to make it work. It is also a struggle with some of the warbirds as well.

Sure, but at the end of the day, this is a game. I know this is not a popular opinion but that’s the truth. I’m not asking something crazy like weapons or whatever. Even if the real plane didn’t have it, I personally won’t find it a deal breaker experience, moreover, people could always choose if using the real differential braking or enable the option.

Honestly, I don’t find it much different to other plane option to change cockpit language, gyro drift, INS ready and such. We are not real pilots nor have the same time has them. It is a job in real life, not for us, I have just a couple of hours per week. At least me.

[Hiob]

As much, as I love the A-4E, I have to admit, that the Steering by differential braking works much much better in other modules.

Compare e.g. the ease of use in the Yak. From my pov the problem is that the front wheel in the A-4 barely reacts to the differential braking - or that the speed window in which it will work is very, very narrow. Above a certain speed (certainly below usual taxiing speeds) it won't react at all anymore.

It's not a deal breaker for me, but I can understand the frustration.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hiob

[Captain Chuck]

It's a terrible shame really...because now the sim version of A4 braking  will present the module as unpopular....which will mean it will be included less in various MP servers. Like the I-16 is currently.

 

[RedeyeStorm]

Well personally I have no issues but do you guys know that in the ‘specials’ menu you can select the option to steer with the rudder.

[4eyes]

Try teaching this to a grandchild.  Please provide an option in the Specials Menu to use or not to use. 

[RealA4EPilot]

On 12/19/2021 at 9:42 AM, WinterH said:

It was removed intentionally as this variant apparently didn't have that ability IRL. Need to use differential braking now.

Hi, guys,

I've been asked to comment on nosegear steering and I guess steering the A-4 in general. Let me apologize right up front for the sermon that follows discussion on differential braking.

The number of tactical jets that use differential breaking to steer is more extensive than one might imagine and while most of them are fairly easy to maneuver around, the A-4 can be a real pain in the ass, especially on the flight deck of a of a carrier with a steel deck when the non-skid coating has lost it's effectiveness and the deck has a fine sheen of oil and hydraulic fluid on it. In those conditions I've seen scooters crabbing 20 to 30 degrees just to keep from going over the side when the ship is in a turn. 

Obviously oil and other slippery liquids complicate the problem of taxiing using differential braking, but the reason the scooter is so difficult is that the main gear are so close together. If you compare the distance between the main gear on an A-4 and something like an F-86 or a MiG 15, you will see the moment arm for the MiG and the F-86 is almost twice what it is for an A-4. What that equates to is a light tap on an MiG15's brake should get the nose swinging around, but the A-4 requires a heavier foot and more forward motion. As several here have noted, once you get the hang of it, it's okay. I do have a suggestion that might help.

I know this will not be as much fun as tearing holes in the sky at 600KIAS [knots of indicated air speed] Spend as much time as it takes to become proficient at taxiing the aircraft at an air field. Use the lines in the concrete for lineup. Try to get to the point where you can make a 90° turn from a NS line to an EW line and bring the aircraft to a stop with you butt directly above a line that is 90° to the direction your aircraft is pointed. Work at becoming a precision taxi pilot.

That brings us to nose wheel or nose gear steering. The A-4E did not have nose gear steering. NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] may have promulgated an AFC [air frames change] to retrofit the A-4E aircraft with nose gear steering, but to my knowledge there were only two A-4Es that got nose gear steering, and those two aircraft were the two ECHOS that were rebuilt into the prototype A-4F flight test aircraft.

Homework Assignment:  What's the difference between

1. indicated airspeed
2. calibrated airspeed
3. true airspeed
4. mach number

I've only read about 40 of the 60+ pages of posts by the members of the A-4E DCS community, but from what I’ve read I’ll hazard a guess that I’m the first member with significant amount of flight time in in A-4 aircraft. I say this because there are more than a few forum postings that are factually incorrect or flawed. An example of what I’m talking about is the misinformed discussion of how an A-4A, B, C, or E was positioned on the catapult for launch, that grew out of a Q&A exchange of how you steered an A-4E on the flight deck. The discussion participants concluded that that because of the difficulty of steering an A-4 without nose gear steering, A-4E aircraft were towed into position on the catapult. That is incorrect. differential braking got you in the approximate position and the fine tuning was done by a blue shirt on a tiller bar.

Even when an A-4 was towed into position on the catapult for the next launch, the aircraft was spotted behind the position where it is hooked up to the catapult. When it was time for launch, the aircraft was started and taxied into position on the catapult steered by the sailor with his hands on the tiller bar. The tiller bar was basically a piece of thick walled aluminum tubing with a handle on one end and a short piece of tubing mounted at 90 degrees that slipped into the axle of the nose wheel of the A-4.

Positioning an aircraft on the catapult is a critical maneuver. The aircraft must be aligned with catapult and as close to the center line of the catapult as possible. I do not know the exact tolerance allowed for misalignment, but more than an inch or two off the center line of the catapult would result in a sinusoidal path L-R down the cat, the severity of which increased exponentially with an increase in line up error.

The tiller bar allowed a flight deck enlisted man to easily steer the aircraft into position on the cat, but while the tiller worked well, asymmetric braking by the pilot could yank the tiller out of his hands, injure him and/or fling him away from the nose of the aircraft, but the coup de grâce to the idea that each A-4 was towed into position on the catapult is the excessive amount of time it would have taken to do that. Launching a 20 to 30 plane strike group from 2-catapult 27C class carriers, i.e., Oriskany (CVA-34), Hancock (CVA-19), etc., would have probably been impossible, and the increased time might have overtaxed 4-catapult carriers’ ability to top off the strike group’s fuel before they set off for the target.

The community discussion of nose gear steering reveals that while members may be gifted digital stick and throttle jockeys, many in this community do not have a thorough understanding of:  

•    Standard Operating Procedures for the A-4E aircraft.
•    Standard Operating Procedures around the carrier.
•    How the flight and hanger deck work.
•    Etc.

The “missing” knowledge is not something that any member of the A-4 DCS community should feel defensive or inadequate about. Those knowledge gaps and confusions exist because you haven’t received any training in those areas. When a Naval Aviator trains to fly a different tactical carrier aircraft, his or her training begins with at least a week of 8 to 12 hour days of ground school and home study on the new aircraft. After passing the aircraft exam, 1:1 training in simulators or procedure training devices gives the pilot a thorough grounding in aircraft specific standard preflight and postflight procedures as well as emergency procedures. Flight training for the new aircraft is broken down into three broad categories, familiarization or transition, mission training, and the final phase of training was carrier qualification which included 10 arrested carrier landings, six during the day and four at night. Woven into all that training were standard operating procedures both at the air station and around the ship.

No gamer or VR DCS A-4E simulator pilot needs detailed, intensive training in these areas to enjoy a low altitude visual navigation mission, performing acrobatics like chandelles, wingovers, loops, ½ and full Cuban 8s, aileron rolls, or just simple sightseeing. However, if you are willing to spend a little time teaching yourself the basics of mission planning and execution as well as strictly observing the standard operating procedures, especially around the carrier, you will gain an appreciation for what it means and takes to be a mission ready carrier pilot. You should also develop a greater feeling of professionalism and pride in your developing skill as a digital aviator rather than becoming a one trick monkey-see, monkey-do digital button pusher.

At a minimum, I recommend that all hands take an hour or so and download the NATOPS [Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Program] manuals for the A-4E aircraft as well as the NATOPS manual for aircraft carrier flight operations. When you have the manuals, set aside some time to familiarize yourself with the SOP and aircraft limitations contained therein.

Building your proficiency to the point that you can consistently get an OK3 landing grade is worthy goal, but it’s only part of the experience available with a good DCS carrier aircraft. “Thumb” through the DCS based videos and you will see a wide range in quality of mission planning and execution. I believe that people whose only involvement are repetition of monkey-see, monkey-do skills are missing the satisfaction that carefully planning a mission, a thorough preflight briefing with other digital A-4E DCS pilots on the mission, and careful but aggressive execution can provide. I watched a YouTube F/A-18 mission video a few days ago that was reminiscent of combat missions I flew in Vietnam more than 50 years ago.

In a short period of time, this two-pilot or team or section overcame the unexpected, destroyed their designated target, knocked out a SAM site, and shot down 3 enemy aircraft. Their communications were short and to the point, but they kept track of each other and joined up as necessary for mutual support. All in all, it was extremely professional, especially compared to the typical mission demos on YouTube. The only thing that would have improved the quality and sense of accomplishment would have been a return to the carrier with an OK3 rather than plopping down lazily on a 12k foot long runway.

If this post has not been too annoying to everyone and if I see other glaring errors on the order of how an A-4E is spotted on the catapult, I’ll post additional information. Be professionally aggressive but never reckless when you fly your scooter missions.

If you haven’t read John Gillespie Magee’s poem High Flight, Alan B. Shepard’s pity comment on flying on and off the carrier at night, Carey Lohrenz’s extended statement about the lessons of night carrier operations, and LCDR Joe Ruzicka’s lengthy description of landing a fighter on an aircraft carrier on a stormy night, seek them out.

The emotions and rhythms of High Flight strongly reminds me of what it’s like to have an A-4E full of JP5 jet fuel, no assigned mission, and a slice of restricted airspace where you’re the only aircraft . . . the absolute freedom to twist and turn, dive, climb, and soar however it suits you.

Shepard’s comment is a statement that night carrier operations are the most difficult thing to do in aviation bear special weight because of his experience as a test pilot and astronaut.

Carey Lohrenz wrote a complementing and compelling piece about what it takes for night carrier operations that’s worth a read. (Carey was one of the first female Tomcat pilots.)

Ruzika’s piece is broadly informative, but is a bit light in the emotion, immediacy, and intensity of the environment of carrier operations at night in crappy weather. That deficiency is not an indictment of Ruzika’s skill as a writer. It’s a statement of the inadequacy of rhetorical tools to write narrative prose that maintains the tension and emotion brought on by the pressure of night carrier operations from beginning to end. Almost encyclopedic, quasi academic descriptions of things like the profile, vocabulary, and procedures of a case 3 recovery is information that the reader needs to know in order to understand what the writer is talking about, but every academic interlude is narrational stop sign that tends to cool the immediate fervor of the action.

My profound apologies if any of the above was tedious, bored the hell out of you, seemed presumptuous or pompous, or was too long. I do have a tendency to wax on a bit too much.

RMW – Scooter Driver Extraordinaire (at least I was 57 years ago)

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by photowriters

[Hiob]

6 hours ago, photowriters said:

Hi, guys,

I've been asked to comment on nosegear steering and I guess steering the A-4 in general. Let me apologize right up front for the sermon that follows discussion on differential braking.

The number of tactical jets that use differential breaking to steer is more extensive than one might imagine and while most of them are fairly easy to maneuver around, the A-4 can be a real pain in the ass, especially on the flight deck of a of a carrier with a steel deck when the non-skid coating has lost it's effectiveness and the deck has a fine sheen of oil and hydraulic fluid on it. In those conditions I've seen scooters crabbing 20 to 30 degrees just to keep from going over the side when the ship is in a turn. 

Obviously oil and other slippery liquids complicate the problem of taxiing using differential braking, but the reason the scooter is so difficult is that the main gear are so close together. If you compare the distance between the main gear on an A-4 and something like an F-86 or a MiG 15, you will see the moment arm for the MiG and the F-86 is almost twice what it is for an A-4. What that equates to is a light tap on an MiG15's brake should get the nose swinging around, but the A-4 requires a heavier foot and more forward motion. As several here have noted, once you get the hang of it, it's okay. I do have a suggestion that might help.

I know this will not be as much fun as tearing holes in the sky at 600KIAS [knots of indicated air speed] Spend as much time as it takes to become proficient at taxiing the aircraft at an air field. Use the lines in the concrete for lineup. Try to get to the point where you can make a 90° turn from a NS line to an EW line and bring the aircraft to a stop with you butt directly above a line that is 90° to the direction your aircraft is pointed. Work at becoming a precision taxi pilot.

That brings us to nose wheel or nose gear steering. The A-4E did not have nose gear steering. NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] may have promulgated an AFC [air frames change] to retrofit the A-4E aircraft with nose gear steering, but to my knowledge there were only two A-4Es that got nose gear steering, and those two aircraft were the two ECHOS that were rebuilt into the prototype A-4F flight test aircraft.

Homework Assignment:  What's the difference between

1. indicated airspeed
2. calibrated airspeed
3. true airspeed
4. mach number

I've only read about 40 of the 60+ pages of posts by the members of the A-4E DCS community, but from what I’ve read I’ll hazard a guess that I’m the first member with significant amount of flight time in in A-4 aircraft. I say this because there are more than a few forum postings that are factually incorrect or flawed. An example of what I’m talking about is the misinformed discussion of how an A-4A, B, C, or E was positioned on the catapult for launch, that grew out of a Q&A exchange of how you steered an A-4E on the flight deck. The discussion participants concluded that that because of the difficulty of steering an A-4 without nose gear steering, A-4E aircraft were towed into position on the catapult. That is incorrect. differential braking got you in the approximate position and the fine tuning was done by a blue shirt on a tiller bar.

Even when an A-4 was towed into position on the catapult for the next launch, the aircraft was spotted behind the position where it is hooked up to the catapult. When it was time for launch, the aircraft was started and taxied into position on the catapult steered by the sailor with his hands on the tiller bar. The tiller bar was basically a piece of thick walled aluminum tubing with a handle on one end and a short piece of tubing mounted at 90 degrees that slipped into the axle of the nose wheel of the A-4.

Positioning an aircraft on the catapult is a critical maneuver. The aircraft must be aligned with catapult and as close to the center line of the catapult as possible. I do not know the exact tolerance allowed for misalignment, but more than an inch or two off the center line of the catapult would result in a sinusoidal path L-R down the cat, the severity of which increased exponentially with an increase in line up error.

The tiller bar allowed a flight deck enlisted man to easily steer the aircraft into position on the cat, but while the tiller worked well, asymmetric braking by the pilot could yank the tiller out of his hands, injure him and/or fling him away from the nose of the aircraft, but the coup de grâce to the idea that each A-4 was towed into position on the catapult is the excessive amount of time it would have taken to do that. Launching a 20 to 30 plane strike group from 2-catapult 27C class carriers, i.e., Oriskany (CVA-34), Hancock (CVA-19), etc., would have probably been impossible, and the increased time might have overtaxed 4-catapult carriers’ ability to top off the strike group’s fuel before they set off for the target.

The community discussion of nose gear steering reveals that while members may be gifted digital stick and throttle jockeys, many in this community do not have a thorough understanding of:  

•    Standard Operating Procedures for the A-4E aircraft.
•    Standard Operating Procedures around the carrier.
•    How the flight and hanger deck work.
•    Etc.

The “missing” knowledge is not something that any member of the A-4 DCS community should feel defensive or inadequate about. Those knowledge gaps and confusions exist because you haven’t received any training in those areas. When a Naval Aviator trains to fly a different tactical carrier aircraft, his or her training begins with at least a week of 8 to 12 hour days of ground school and home study on the new aircraft. After passing the aircraft exam, 1:1 training in simulators or procedure training devices gives the pilot a thorough grounding in aircraft specific standard preflight and postflight procedures as well as emergency procedures. Flight training for the new aircraft is broken down into three broad categories, familiarization or transition, mission training, and the final phase of training was carrier qualification which included 10 arrested carrier landings, six during the day and four at night. Woven into all that training were standard operating procedures both at the air station and around the ship.

No gamer or VR DCS A-4E simulator pilot needs detailed, intensive training in these areas to enjoy a low altitude visual navigation mission, performing acrobatics like chandelles, wingovers, loops, ½ and full Cuban 8s, aileron rolls, or just simple sightseeing. However, if you are willing to spend a little time teaching yourself the basics of mission planning and execution as well as strictly observing the standard operating procedures, especially around the carrier, you will gain an appreciation for what it means and takes to be a mission ready carrier pilot. You should also develop a greater feeling of professionalism and pride in your developing skill as a digital aviator rather than becoming a one trick monkey-see, monkey-do digital button pusher.

At a minimum, I recommend that all hands take an hour or so and download the NATOPS [Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Program] manuals for the A-4E aircraft as well as the NATOPS manual for aircraft carrier flight operations. When you have the manuals, set aside some time to familiarize yourself with the SOP and aircraft limitations contained therein.

Building your proficiency to the point that you can consistently get an OK3 landing grade is worthy goal, but it’s only part of the experience available with a good DCS carrier aircraft. “Thumb” through the DCS based videos and you will see a wide range in quality of mission planning and execution. I believe that people whose only involvement are repetition of monkey-see, monkey-do skills are missing the satisfaction that carefully planning a mission, a thorough preflight briefing with other digital A-4E DCS pilots on the mission, and careful but aggressive execution can provide. I watched a YouTube F/A-18 mission video a few days ago that was reminiscent of combat missions I flew in Vietnam more than 50 years ago.

In a short period of time, this two-pilot or team or section overcame the unexpected, destroyed their designated target, knocked out a SAM site, and shot down 3 enemy aircraft. Their communications were short and to the point, but they kept track of each other and joined up as necessary for mutual support. All in all, it was extremely professional, especially compared to the typical mission demos on YouTube. The only thing that would have improved the quality and sense of accomplishment would have been a return to the carrier with an OK3 rather than plopping down lazily on a 12k foot long runway.

If this post has not been too annoying to everyone and if I see other glaring errors on the order of how an A-4E is spotted on the catapult, I’ll post additional information. Be professionally aggressive but never reckless when you fly your scooter missions.

If you haven’t read John Gillespie Magee’s poem High Flight, Alan B. Shepard’s pity comment on flying on and off the carrier at night, Carey Lohrenz’s extended statement about the lessons of night carrier operations, and LCDR Joe Ruzicka’s lengthy description of landing a fighter on an aircraft carrier on a stormy night, seek them out.

The emotions and rhythms of High Flight strongly reminds me of what it’s like to have an A-4E full of JP5 jet fuel, no assigned mission, and a slice of restricted airspace where you’re the only aircraft . . . the absolute freedom to twist and turn, dive, climb, and soar however it suits you.

Shepard’s comment is a statement that night carrier operations are the most difficult thing to do in aviation bear special weight because of his experience as a test pilot and astronaut.

Carey Lohrenz wrote a complementing and compelling piece about what it takes for night carrier operations that’s worth a read. (Carey was one of the first female Tomcat pilots.)

Ruzika’s piece is broadly informative, but is a bit light in the emotion, immediacy, and intensity of the environment of carrier operations at night in crappy weather. That deficiency is not an indictment of Ruzika’s skill as a writer. It’s a statement of the inadequacy of rhetorical tools to write narrative prose that maintains the tension and emotion brought on by the pressure of night carrier operations from beginning to end. Almost encyclopedic, quasi academic descriptions of things like the profile, vocabulary, and procedures of a case 3 recovery is information that the reader needs to know in order to understand what the writer is talking about, but every academic interlude is narrational stop sign that tends to cool the immediate fervor of the action.

My profound apologies if any of the above was tedious, bored the hell out of you, seemed presumptuous or pompous, or was too long. I do have a tendency to wax on a bit too much.

RMW – Scooter Driver Extraordinaire (at least I was 57 years ago)

 

 

 

 

Great post, thank you. Intersting read. Can you point a link to the F/A-18 mission you talked about? I'd like to see that.

I have to admit, that goofing around in DCS (regardless the Aircraft) is tempting and - due to limited amounts of time - often the goto modus operandi. But halfway realistic missions are much more rewarding in the end. (Reaching the almost "professional"/"realistic" level is unachievable for me though).

Edited February 10, 2022 by Hiob

[Cab]

7 hours ago, photowriters said:

Hi, guys,

I've been asked to comment on nosegear steering and I guess steering the A-4 in general. Let me apologize right up front for the sermon that follows discussion on differential braking.

The number of tactical jets that use differential breaking to steer is more extensive than one might imagine and while most of them are fairly easy to maneuver around, the A-4 can be a real pain in the ass, especially on the flight deck of a of a carrier with a steel deck when the non-skid coating has lost it's effectiveness and the deck has a fine sheen of oil and hydraulic fluid on it. In those conditions I've seen scooters crabbing 20 to 30 degrees just to keep from going over the side when the ship is in a turn. 

Obviously oil and other slippery liquids complicate the problem of taxiing using differential braking, but the reason the scooter is so difficult is that the main gear are so close together. If you compare the distance between the main gear on an A-4 and something like an F-86 or a MiG 15, you will see the moment arm for the MiG and the F-86 is almost twice what it is for an A-4. What that equates to is a light tap on an MiG15's brake should get the nose swinging around, but the A-4 requires a heavier foot and more forward motion. As several here have noted, once you get the hang of it, it's okay. I do have a suggestion that might help.

I know this will not be as much fun as tearing holes in the sky at 600KIAS [knots of indicated air speed] Spend as much time as it takes to become proficient at taxiing the aircraft at an air field. Use the lines in the concrete for lineup. Try to get to the point where you can make a 90° turn from a NS line to an EW line and bring the aircraft to a stop with you butt directly above a line that is 90° to the direction your aircraft is pointed. Work at becoming a precision taxi pilot.

That brings us to nose wheel or nose gear steering. The A-4E did not have nose gear steering. NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] may have promulgated an AFC [air frames change] to retrofit the A-4E aircraft with nose gear steering, but to my knowledge there were only two A-4Es that got nose gear steering, and those two aircraft were the two ECHOS that were rebuilt into the prototype A-4F flight test aircraft.

Homework Assignment:  What's the difference between

1. indicated airspeed
2. calibrated airspeed
3. true airspeed
4. mach number

I've only read about 40 of the 60+ pages of posts by the members of the A-4E DCS community, but from what I’ve read I’ll hazard a guess that I’m the first member with significant amount of flight time in in A-4 aircraft. I say this because there are more than a few forum postings that are factually incorrect or flawed. An example of what I’m talking about is the misinformed discussion of how an A-4A, B, C, or E was positioned on the catapult for launch, that grew out of a Q&A exchange of how you steered an A-4E on the flight deck. The discussion participants concluded that that because of the difficulty of steering an A-4 without nose gear steering, A-4E aircraft were towed into position on the catapult. That is incorrect. differential braking got you in the approximate position and the fine tuning was done by a blue shirt on a tiller bar.

Even when an A-4 was towed into position on the catapult for the next launch, the aircraft was spotted behind the position where it is hooked up to the catapult. When it was time for launch, the aircraft was started and taxied into position on the catapult steered by the sailor with his hands on the tiller bar. The tiller bar was basically a piece of thick walled aluminum tubing with a handle on one end and a short piece of tubing mounted at 90 degrees that slipped into the axle of the nose wheel of the A-4.

Positioning an aircraft on the catapult is a critical maneuver. The aircraft must be aligned with catapult and as close to the center line of the catapult as possible. I do not know the exact tolerance allowed for misalignment, but more than an inch or two off the center line of the catapult would result in a sinusoidal path L-R down the cat, the severity of which increased exponentially with an increase in line up error.

The tiller bar allowed a flight deck enlisted man to easily steer the aircraft into position on the cat, but while the tiller worked well, asymmetric braking by the pilot could yank the tiller out of his hands, injure him and/or fling him away from the nose of the aircraft, but the coup de grâce to the idea that each A-4 was towed into position on the catapult is the excessive amount of time it would have taken to do that. Launching a 20 to 30 plane strike group from 2-catapult 27C class carriers, i.e., Oriskany (CVA-34), Hancock (CVA-19), etc., would have probably been impossible, and the increased time might have overtaxed 4-catapult carriers’ ability to top off the strike group’s fuel before they set off for the target.

The community discussion of nose gear steering reveals that while members may be gifted digital stick and throttle jockeys, many in this community do not have a thorough understanding of:  

•    Standard Operating Procedures for the A-4E aircraft.
•    Standard Operating Procedures around the carrier.
•    How the flight and hanger deck work.
•    Etc.

The “missing” knowledge is not something that any member of the A-4 DCS community should feel defensive or inadequate about. Those knowledge gaps and confusions exist because you haven’t received any training in those areas. When a Naval Aviator trains to fly a different tactical carrier aircraft, his or her training begins with at least a week of 8 to 12 hour days of ground school and home study on the new aircraft. After passing the aircraft exam, 1:1 training in simulators or procedure training devices gives the pilot a thorough grounding in aircraft specific standard preflight and postflight procedures as well as emergency procedures. Flight training for the new aircraft is broken down into three broad categories, familiarization or transition, mission training, and the final phase of training was carrier qualification which included 10 arrested carrier landings, six during the day and four at night. Woven into all that training were standard operating procedures both at the air station and around the ship.

No gamer or VR DCS A-4E simulator pilot needs detailed, intensive training in these areas to enjoy a low altitude visual navigation mission, performing acrobatics like chandelles, wingovers, loops, ½ and full Cuban 8s, aileron rolls, or just simple sightseeing. However, if you are willing to spend a little time teaching yourself the basics of mission planning and execution as well as strictly observing the standard operating procedures, especially around the carrier, you will gain an appreciation for what it means and takes to be a mission ready carrier pilot. You should also develop a greater feeling of professionalism and pride in your developing skill as a digital aviator rather than becoming a one trick monkey-see, monkey-do digital button pusher.

At a minimum, I recommend that all hands take an hour or so and download the NATOPS [Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Program] manuals for the A-4E aircraft as well as the NATOPS manual for aircraft carrier flight operations. When you have the manuals, set aside some time to familiarize yourself with the SOP and aircraft limitations contained therein.

Building your proficiency to the point that you can consistently get an OK3 landing grade is worthy goal, but it’s only part of the experience available with a good DCS carrier aircraft. “Thumb” through the DCS based videos and you will see a wide range in quality of mission planning and execution. I believe that people whose only involvement are repetition of monkey-see, monkey-do skills are missing the satisfaction that carefully planning a mission, a thorough preflight briefing with other digital A-4E DCS pilots on the mission, and careful but aggressive execution can provide. I watched a YouTube F/A-18 mission video a few days ago that was reminiscent of combat missions I flew in Vietnam more than 50 years ago.

In a short period of time, this two-pilot or team or section overcame the unexpected, destroyed their designated target, knocked out a SAM site, and shot down 3 enemy aircraft. Their communications were short and to the point, but they kept track of each other and joined up as necessary for mutual support. All in all, it was extremely professional, especially compared to the typical mission demos on YouTube. The only thing that would have improved the quality and sense of accomplishment would have been a return to the carrier with an OK3 rather than plopping down lazily on a 12k foot long runway.

If this post has not been too annoying to everyone and if I see other glaring errors on the order of how an A-4E is spotted on the catapult, I’ll post additional information. Be professionally aggressive but never reckless when you fly your scooter missions.

If you haven’t read John Gillespie Magee’s poem High Flight, Alan B. Shepard’s pity comment on flying on and off the carrier at night, Carey Lohrenz’s extended statement about the lessons of night carrier operations, and LCDR Joe Ruzicka’s lengthy description of landing a fighter on an aircraft carrier on a stormy night, seek them out.

The emotions and rhythms of High Flight strongly reminds me of what it’s like to have an A-4E full of JP5 jet fuel, no assigned mission, and a slice of restricted airspace where you’re the only aircraft . . . the absolute freedom to twist and turn, dive, climb, and soar however it suits you.

Shepard’s comment is a statement that night carrier operations are the most difficult thing to do in aviation bear special weight because of his experience as a test pilot and astronaut.

Carey Lohrenz wrote a complementing and compelling piece about what it takes for night carrier operations that’s worth a read. (Carey was one of the first female Tomcat pilots.)

Ruzika’s piece is broadly informative, but is a bit light in the emotion, immediacy, and intensity of the environment of carrier operations at night in crappy weather. That deficiency is not an indictment of Ruzika’s skill as a writer. It’s a statement of the inadequacy of rhetorical tools to write narrative prose that maintains the tension and emotion brought on by the pressure of night carrier operations from beginning to end. Almost encyclopedic, quasi academic descriptions of things like the profile, vocabulary, and procedures of a case 3 recovery is information that the reader needs to know in order to understand what the writer is talking about, but every academic interlude is narrational stop sign that tends to cool the immediate fervor of the action.

My profound apologies if any of the above was tedious, bored the hell out of you, seemed presumptuous or pompous, or was too long. I do have a tendency to wax on a bit too much.

RMW – Scooter Driver Extraordinaire (at least I was 57 years ago)

 

 

 

 

So far, this is the best post of 2022

Thank you, sir, for taking the time to provide that. 

[RealA4EPilot]

9 hours ago, Hiob said:

Great post, thank you. Intersting read. Can you point a link to the F/A-18 mission you talked about? I'd like to see that.

I have to admit, that goofing around in DCS (regardless the Aircraft) is tempting and - due to limited amounts of time - often the goto modus operandi. But halfway realistic missions are much more rewarding in the end. (Reaching the almost "professional"/"realistic" level is unachievable for me though).

Goofing around in a real tactical single seat jet may get you an unwanted write-up in the obit section of your local newspaper, but there's nothing wrong with goofing around in DCS on a solo flight. Getting to the point that you are flying realistic combat missions with three other digital aircraft takes real commitment and intentionallity of all the participants, and it takes time. From beginning to end a 4-aircraft mission with 1+45 flight time will take 6 to 10 hours to execute and will include:

1. Planning the ordnance load. (Done before the day of the mission.)
2. Scheduling the pilots who will participate. (Done before the day of the mission.)
3. Determining the best ingress and egress routes to avoid getting shot down. (Done before the day of the mission.)
4. 2 hours before launch a 90 minute, face to face briefing perhaps using Zoom that covers every step of the flight.
    1. Rendezvous after launch.
    2. route of flight to target including geographic check points.
    3. Supporting forces.
        1. tankers
        2. Iron Hand
        3. Fighter escort, if applicable
        4. Jamers/ECM
        5. SAR Helo
        6. Fleet air defense air intercept control facility/ship (Red Crown?)
    4. Run-in heading
    5. delivery profile including dive angle, release airspeed, release altitude.
    6. Turn off the target and egress route.
    7. feet wet rendezvous point.
    8. SAR procedures.
5. Start engines 5 minutes before launch.
6. Fly the mission. (1+45)
7. OK pass to the 3 wire.
8. face to face flight debrief (Zoom?)

If the above looks like a insurmountable task, that's good. Killing people in combat is not a flippant activity, and sheparding the members of your flight back to their nest on USS Boat is the responsibility of the flight leader. Keep in mind that when a nugget or FNG (F-ing New Guy) in an A-4E squadron few his first major combat mission (20+ aircraft), he had been training for that flight for two and a half to three years, and despite all that intense training all he could do hold on for the ride. No matter how intelligent or gun ho a new pilot is, it takes a while for him or her to get their feet under themselves when they start flying combat sorties from the fliht deck of a carrier. So, it you're overwhelmed at first with multiple aircraft missions, you're in good company.

As to a link to the F-18 flight on YouTube, no I do not have it. I just stumbled over it, and I did not bookmark it. If I see it again, I'll post it.

Just one last thought on flying multi-aircraft combat sorties in the DCS environment. If you want to swim in the deep end of the DCS pool with 4-plane flights, it will be easier if you live in densely populated area where you and your flight team members can get together and look each other in the eye. Although all the planing and coordination for a mission could be done with emails and text messages, what your're trying to accomplish is to build a team of like minded DCS combat pilots, and it's easier to build a team committed to success in person than it is with ignoreable emails and text messages.

Bob

Edited February 10, 2022 by photowriters

[Hiob]

As I said, unachievable for me, mainly due to time restrictions since I have an actual full time job. 

But to be honest, it needs to stay a hobby for fun and not evolve into actual work.

[RealA4EPilot]

3 hours ago, Hiob said:

As I said, unachievable for me, mainly due to time restrictions since I have an actual full time job. 

But to be honest, it needs to stay a hobby for fun and not evolve into actual work.

Roger, out.

[Koriel]

14 hours ago, Hiob said:

As I said, unachievable for me, mainly due to time restrictions since I have an actual full time job. 

But to be honest, it needs to stay a hobby for fun and not evolve into actual work.

This..

We do this for fun. More realism is fun and good up to a point.

When you're flying your hands and fingers have muscle memory. You have physical feedback, you feel the jolts, G, turbulence and aceleration.. You feel the rudders vibrating. When you need to hit switch you glance at it out of the corner of your eye. Other switches or dials you can find blindfolded. Cockpit setup is done with 2 hands sometimes..  

And then compare real life with flying in front of a 27" screen with a generic hotas and fiddling with the mouse while trying not to move your head to hit just this one switch. When I compare setting up a plane I fly in real life compared to a sim, I find it quite a bit more taxing in the sim. 

So I think that a "cheat" would be quite welcome to make the A-4E more flyable and enjoyable.

And I do have the A-4E under control on the carrier fyi.

 

[SoW Reddog]

I'm all for making things as realistic as possible. I'm also all for making things as accessible as possible. Thus, even though I've pretty much sorted my taxi issues after a fair amount of practice, I'd support adding in the NWS option back in for people to make their own choices. Just like the realism that photowriters is talking about in terms of the work that goes into planning and executing a real flightplan isn't for everybody either. TL;DR, Choice is good.

[Reccelow]

I would appreciate an option for NWS just for carrier decks, maybe just to simulate the "tiller bar deck hand" for cat lineup.