Community A-4E-C v2.2 (October 2023)

[Gianky]

15 hours ago, photowriters said:

<snip>

I don’t have a copy of the F-18 NATOPS, but I cannot imagine why it would say that 300 feet is where you should intercept the glide path.

<snip>

It doesn't say it. As you pointed out, the picture on the Hornet NATOPS is essentially the same of the Skyhawk NATOPS, even in the Hornet manual the last indication of height is 450 feet at the 90, there's no indication of the altitude at which the aircraft should intercept the glide path, nor can I find any reference to a 300' altitude in the relevant section (though I just gave a glance at it).

[Calabrone]

11 hours ago, JFCshloss said:

screen shot attached shows the limit i can see if i lower my camera any further down  screen goes black 

i also get the same funnily enough if i watch the agm 88 missile from externals if i look at it from directly behind screen goes black 

not sure if the two events are related  but  thgout id mention it anyways 

So you're telling me that you can basically only see that part of the instrumentation and not the rest of the cockpit located further down. I don't know what to say since everything works great for me. Is it not that the problem comes from DSMC that I have seen is active? 

[Calabrone]

Photowriters I read this post very carefully and felt like a fish out of water. I have tried the autothrottle and dare I say that it is very functional or at least well simulated and of great help after a virtual mission of a good hour. I have found however that I have a tendency to look at the bridge and many times I have made disasters on the bridge, while those few times I have focused on the instrumentation ( six times out of thirty-two ) I have been able to mount quite well. I will try to correct myself thanks to your teachings as a true pilot. For other points you highlighted I will do a mission where I can test them. I certainly agree that piloting the Scooter is definitely a continuous adjustment of pitch and roll, in fact many complain about this, but thank God there is also the autopilot. This is what I remember at the end of reading and now I say goodbye, but tomorrow I will ask you some questions about some of the vocabulary used even if some I have guessed what it might be. Thanks for your time !

Also for You may 2022 be a year of good winds and a following sea.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Calabrone
Added a wish line.

[RealA4EPilot]

13 hours ago, Gianky said:

It doesn't say it. As you pointed out, the picture on the Hornet NATOPS is essentially the same of the Skyhawk NATOPS, even in the Hornet manual the last indication of height is 450 feet at the 90, there's no indication of the altitude at which the aircraft should intercept the glide path, nor can I find any reference to a 300' altitude in the relevant section (though I just gave a glance at it).

Hi, Gianky,

Where the confusion may be is in partial descriptions and a lack of understanding of the geometry or appreciation the mechanics of the turn to final and the final approach. l strongly recommend that in addition to downloading the A-4E/F NATOPS manual that digital scooter drivers also download the CV and LSO [landing signal officer] NATOPS manuals. Chapter 4 in the LSO NATOPS is worth a bit of study.

There are two parameters that are important, the vertical and horizontal widths of the plane of light of a centered ball. If you read chapter 4 in depth you will learn there is not a single beam. In this discussion of approach altitudes, fig. 4-3 in the LSO NATOPS manual is instructive. It shows the horizontal width of the light plane created by the Fresnel lens system is 40 degrees. If you superimpose the vertex of a 40-degree angle on the point where the Fresnel lens is installed and line up the arms so that an extended bisector parallels the centerline of the angled deck you see a couple of things.

• You will be able to see the ball before you cross the wake of the carrier in your turn to final.
• You still have a bit of a way to go from the point that you can see the ball until you are wings level on final.

The point that you are wings level on final approach is roughly ¾ of a mile from touchdown on the carrier and with 30 knots of wind down the angled deck that will take 27.6 seconds to fly

if you’ve kept the ball centered between the datum lights, your altitude should be roughly 350 ft ASL and 27.6 seconds of descent from 350 ft ASL at a nominal 600 fpm rate of descent the aircraft would be at the height of the flight deck of an average nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that the source of the 300-foot altitude is an otherwise silent former A-4 pilot who remembered that he was 300 to 350 when he rolled wings level in the groove and called the ball.

Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together?!?!?

Bob

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by RealA4EPilot
format & missing words

[JFCshloss]

yep thats all i can see if i look down  a it screen goes black  same if im looking let or right and try to look dead front it goes black i also get this as i said when  looking at the agm 88 from directly behind my screen goes black yet i can watch the missile clearly from below  above left or right but not directly behind same =effect so not sure if i need to change something in graphics settings or is just a compatibility issue or something 

[jurinko]

 

[Calabrone]

1 hour ago, JFCshloss said:

yep thats all i can see if i look down  a it screen goes black  same if im looking let or right and try to look dead front it goes black i also get this as i said when  looking at the agm 88 from directly behind my screen goes black yet i can watch the missile clearly from below  above left or right but not directly behind same =effect so not sure if i need to change something in graphics settings or is just a compatibility issue or something 

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this. Do you have the latest version of C++ redistributable installed on your PC ? If you don't have it go to this link: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-US/cpp/windows/latest-supported-vc-redist?view=msvc-170 although I assume you have it. 
Do you have any mod not compatible with the A4-E module ? What graphics card do you have ? Have you done a driver update ? I do not think that the setting of the graphics settings of DCS are the cause of the problem, however I put the screenshot of my settings. Hopefully good.

[Devil 505]

Has anyone experienced an issue taxing the A-4 on the carrier deck?  I have created a quick case 1 mission and every time I land on the deck, I cannot get the Skyhawk to taxi left or right once she hits 90 degrees port or starboard of the wind.  I thought maybe the wind was turned up to fast on my mission so I reduced it, but no joy. 

I was hoping this is a known bug that is being worked.  I am using the latest mod with differential braking (toe brakes).  If you watch the nose gear in the external view once I am facing 90 degrees off the bow, its like the force of the carrier moving forward tries to push the aircraft back the other direction.  To much throttle to turn her around results in loss of brakes left or right and going off the deck (not demonstrated in the video).  Any advice would be welcomed.  Below is a video demonstrating the issue after my landing.  This is in VR as well. 

 

[RealA4EPilot]

How to Fly the Ball – Part 2

I have worked myself through previous posts to MagicSlave's 2021 post about flying the ball. I sent him or her a private message and after reading what I wrote, I thought it probably deserved wider distribution because it addressed issues that might help others make arrested landings on a digital aircraft carrier.

MagicSlave:  03 MAR 2021

Does anybody have any good tips on “flying the ball” in the A-4?

Yes, read my recent posts on flying the ball.

I’m really struggling on keeping her attitude / descent rate under control and making controlled corrections.

Please tell me what actual flight experience, if any, you have. Do you have an instrument-  rating?

Do the following: 

1.     Configure the aircraft at maximum gross landing weight 14,500 lbs

2.     Practice precisely controlled climbs, descents and level standard rate and half standard rate turns in the landing configuration, i.e., gear down, flaps down, hook down.  

3.     Determine and record engine power settings (fuel flow, rpm, EPR) for these flight conditions:

a.     Level flight at optimum angle of attack.:

                                               i.     Straight and level flight.

                                             ii.     25 to 30 degree angle of bank turn.

                                            iii.     Standard rate turn.

                                            iv.     Half standard rate turn.

b.     Descending flight at optimum angle of attack.

                                               i.     Stable decent straight ahead at 500 fpm (feet per minute)

                                             ii.     Stable decent straight ahead at 600 fpm (feet per minute)

                                            iii.     Stable decent straight ahead at 700 fpm (feet per minute)

                                            iv.     Stable decent in a standard rate turn at 500 fpm (feet per minute)

                                              v.     Stable decent in a standard rate turn at 600 fpm (feet per minute)

                                            vi.     Stable decent in a standard rate turn at 700 fpm (feet per minute)

There is a good bit of lag in the engine response to throttle changes, so it feels like it is easy to overcorrect and end up with the nose pitching up / down more than you intended. Then on the other hand it seems kinda responsive around the “sweet spot” throttle setting for on-speed and desired descent rate, where you are able to make small adjustment and get the jet respond quite quickly.

If you do not have the speedbrakes extended, extend them in the landing pattern and don’t retract them unless you miss the wires and bolter. If that happens, don’t forget to extend them when you are established downwind. Extending the speedbrakes keeps the engine speed up which reduces the time it takes the engine to react to When you talk about the “sweet spot” it sounds like you are not keeping the aircraft in trim. There’s an old saw that the way a scooter driver knew he had a control or balance problem was that he ran out of trim. If a naval aviator is hand flying the aircraft, i.e., not using the autopilot, the trim switch is going constantly. One of the things that should be obvious but may not have dawned on many of the digital A-4E drivers is that in a landing approach changing the power setting will require a trim change. Likewise, a change in pitch will require a power change.

So sometimes I feel like the key to success is to anticipate: if I'm sinking too fast, get the power on for 1-2 seconds then throttle back down to "the sweet spot". If I'm too high, then get the power off for 1-2 seconds and then back to sweet spot. Then at other times it seems that what ever I do, is too much or too late and the pitch just gets out of control. Then again other times it feels like it is a matter of finding the sweet spot on the throttle and then making just small adjustments. So I am kind of struggling in my head with what would be the "correct" mindset for this?

Despite the relative violence of an arrested landing, flying an approach to the carrier is an exercise of precision flying with small, measured power changes and flight control inputs. Your description above gives me the feeling you are making power changes and control movements that are excessively large. It also sounds as if your digital aircraft is not properly trimmed during the approach. I don’t know what your throttle is or how you are using it, but early in training as a naval aviator, the SNAs [student naval aviators] learn that they need to reference their throttle movements against an immovable part of the aircraft and pivot the hand around the left little finger anchored on the left wall of the cockpit. If you look at the YouTube video A-4E Skyhawk: Cockpit Tour Tutorial | DCS WORLD, pay close attention to the left console especially when the throttle is moved. Notice how close the light switch on the left side of the throttle is to the left cockpit wall. If you slide your hand to the left, it’s a simple matter to anchor your hand to the cockpit wall.

Now that’s in the real aircraft, but what the hell do you do when your cockpit is your wife’s card table? Regardless of what your Thrustmaster or whatever throttle is sitting next to you,  you need to secure it so it will not move around. If you bolt the throttles to a hunk of ¾-inch plywood you can clamp that to a table or whatever. I’ll leave to you, but you need to add something to your hunk of plywood you can use to anchor your left pinky.

To keep from over controlling the nose or roll of the aircraft, you need to practically immobilize the right arm. The way I do that is to lock right arm to my right leg or knee and just use the muscles in my wrist and fingers to fly the aircraft.

What surprises me is how easily she seems to float with throttle “off”. One would think that with those delta wings it would fall of the sky pretty easily with the power down – or is it just the engine lag and me overcompensating a too high descent rate with too much power and then trying to power off too late?

I recently read this article, and I would agree that the A-4 in the mod also feels like it stays pretty well on the yellow doughnut once trimmed on-speed, as long as you don’t end up needing too large throttle adjustments:

“One of the beauties of the TA-4 was that in the approach environment, it flew exactly like what you were taught to think a navy jet should fly like. Attitude controlled airspeed and power controlled rate of descent. So once you got it trimmed in pitch, it pretty much maintained that speed. If you started to see a change in glideslope from the meatball, you simply made the appropriate power correction to return to a centered ball. I loved flying it, and the way that it flew. “ (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9599/a-tomcat-pilots-early-struggles-to-tame-the-mighty-f-14) I really would love to get the hang of these "appropriate power corrections" and just return to a centered ball! 

So any words of wisdom? What is your tactic with ball flying in A-4?

Let’s call this a few final words of wisdom. Steady state flying is nothing more and nothing less than constant error correction. If you invert that bit of wisdom you end up with something like this:  “If you are not constantly making corrections, you are a passenger in an airplane, not the pilot of the airplane.”

Edited February 24, 2022 by RealA4EPilot
Format

[Calabrone]

Devil 505 This is a big problem. In reality they used the trailer hitch, but here the only solution is to keep the throttle at 75%- 70% and touch the brakes either toe or total and help yourself with the rudder either way. It takes a lot of patience and a lot of practice until you can do it fairly easily. I think you ticked the rudder flag and .... good suerte.

[Devil 505]

1 hour ago, Calabrone said:

Devil 505 This is a big problem. In reality they used the trailer hitch, but here the only solution is to keep the throttle at 75%- 70% and touch the brakes either toe or total and help yourself with the rudder either way. It takes a lot of patience and a lot of practice until you can do it fairly easily. I think you ticked the rudder flag and .... good suerte.

Much appreciated.  If everyone is able to control her at 70-75% then I will give it a shot.  Just wanted to make sure I was not doing something wrong.  Appreciate the feedback! Always love to see anyone else's videos if they have them.  

[Calabrone]

Devil 505 

However, be prepared to have almost infinite patience while on the ground everything goes smoothly, right!

[RealA4EPilot]

J'ai enfin lu tous les messages sur les forums A-4E_C DCS Community qui ont débuté le 28 août 2016.

[Calabrone]

RealA4EPilot Congratulations you are great. But someone didn't believe you were an A4 pilot.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Calabrone
Wrong word

[RealA4EPilot]

3 hours ago, Calabrone said:

RealA4EPilot Congratulations you are great. But someone didn't believe you were an A4 pilot.

Well, I looked in my record for the letter from VA-44 at NAS Cecil that acknowledges that I was a qualified A-4 delivery pilot, but I couldn't find it. The only quick response to whoever doesn't believe that I flew A-4s are the ribbons I wore on my left breast uniform coat from 1966 until I retired from the reserves in the 1990s. The awards from left to right, top to bottom are:

Distinguished Flying Cross, 12 Air Medals, 3 Navy commendation medals with combat V

Navy Unit Commendation, Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Medal

Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, Vietnam Campaign Medal

Almost anyone who made two cruises flying A-4E aircraft with CTF77 would have a similar collections of ribbons and medals. Two of my VA-72 squadron mates were awarded Silver Stars, and our huey rotorhead pilot in VX-5 was awarded a Navy Cross for his actions in Vietnam. The Navy Cross is awarded for combat heroism, and sits just below the Medal of Honor in precedence.

Edited February 25, 2022 by RealA4EPilot
grammar & spelling

[RealA4EPilot]

I debated with myself about posting what follows. First because of the thinly camoflauged "f--cking" vulgarity, and second because it might be mistaken as chest thumping or drum beating. I finally decided to post this in the belief that you will gain not only a better feeling for the camaraderie that exists in a fleet squadron tasked with daily combat operations in the most formidable anti-air defensive environment in the history of aerial combat, but also learn a bit more about the character and integrity of the typical A-4E combat pilot during the Vietnam War.

* * * * * * *

“Luckiest F--cking Guys in the World”

Ironically, my first squadron, the VA-72 Bluehawks, was the first attack squadron equipped with A4D-1 or A-4A aircraft. The first squadron for every naval aviator occupies a special place in his or her memory, but few first squadrons were as remarkable as the collection of aviators in VA-72 in 1965 and 1966, especially the CO and XO (commanding and executive officers). During the first two years I spent in the squadron, the COs and XOs were such exceptional leaders that 50 after we flew together in Vietnam the cohesive, close-knit team they built was still holding periodic reunions.

Until my spouse’s 15-year decline to the end of life in November 2021, I looked forward to and attended every Bluehawk reunion of the pilots who flew together through the skies of North Vietnam in 1965, and 1966. During the last reunion in Fort Worth, I was sitting enjoying an adult beverage or three with a squadron mate who joined the Bluehawks between the 1965 and 1966 cruises when Ed’s comment broke through my momentary reverie. “You know we were the luckiest f--king guys in the world.” My body reacted physically and I did an uncontrolled double take.

We were lucky to be shot at with thousands of rounds of small arms fire, exploding anti-aircraft rounds or flak, and surface to air missiles? Lucky to watch our fellow pilots shot out of the sky and killed or captured? Lucky that we were tasked with achieving vast goals with the half vast wartime leadership emanating from the Oval Office or the Department of Defense? I didn’t think so and I objected to that premise. Ed went on to explain that in the mismanaged fiasco that was the war in Vietnam, our oath to defend the constitution and obey the order of the officers appointed over us gave us no option but to follow the strategically flawed decisions made in the senior most levels of our government. Yet within the panoply of possibilities that was the U.S. Navy’s 7^th Fleet, we flew perhaps the finest tactical aircraft ever produced (it was certainly the most fun to fly), we were led by arguably the finest squadron skippers in the U.S. Navy at that time, and we couldn’t have hand-picked a better bunch of guys to fly with.

While I demurred at that time, Ed was spot on, but I did not arrive at that conclusion either quickly or without considerable soul searching. Ultimately, simple mathematics convinced me he was right. We were the luckiest f—king guys in the world. During the Vietnam War the Navy fielded 15 carrier strike groups with two deployed with the 6^th Fleet in the Mediterranean and three deployed with U.S. 7^th Fleet to the western Pacific. Each carrier air wing had between 80 and 100 pilots distributed between four to five squadrons, two of which were A-4C or A-4E squadrons each with 14 aircraft and 19 to 20 pilots. Simple math shows that out of the 7,000 or so naval aviators on active duty at any one time during the Vietnam War that only 285 to 300 were flying A-4C or A-4E aircraft with front line units. Put a different way, only 4% of the active duty billets available for pilots were in front line units flying A-4s that deploy on aircraft carriers. Inclusion in the 4% was and remains an elitist percentage. Even if the only metric by which to evaluate Ed’s pronouncement is the opportunity to fly one of the most iconic aircraft performing the mission for which it was designed and for which you were trained, the numbers show that Ed was correct. We were the luckiest f—king guys in the world.

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by RealA4EPilot
Format & grammar & spelling

[Calabrone]

RealA4EPilot I can do nothing but bow to You and your valor. It gave me great pleasure to see your honors and reading your writings I never had any doubt that you had been a US Navy pilot. Hi.

[Calabrone]

RealA4EPilot Perfectly Comprehending .

[Reccelow]

I'm struggling to get a working KA-3B AI tanker going, learning from scratch......and I do mean from the bottom like learning how to even install AutoDesk....

I started with the 2004 Alpahsim model (it's freeware now, the newer FSX/P3D is still payware...)

Learned how to convert to 3DS, and got it working in P3Dv5 as a working AI Tanker for the TacPack module with ModelconverterX.  No animations, that's way above me at this point...

Now to get it into DCS and hopefully use it simply like a modded shape for the S3B AI Tanker for A4 missions.....

 

 

 

[Calabrone]

ReccelowMy compliments you're good.

[Gianky]

Reccelow, that's amazing!

Please, someone with the necessary skills, help him get that mod working in DCS, we need an appropriate tanker for the A-4!

[rem27]

9 hours ago, Reccelow said:

I'm struggling to get a working KA-3B AI tanker going, learning from scratch......and I do mean from the bottom like learning how to even install AutoDesk....

I started with the 2004 Alpahsim model (it's freeware now, the newer FSX/P3D is still payware...)

Learned how to convert to 3DS, and got it working in P3Dv5 as a working AI Tanker for the TacPack module with ModelconverterX.  No animations, that's way above me at this point...

Now to get it into DCS and hopefully use it simply like a modded shape for the S3B AI Tanker for A4 missions.....

 

 

 

[RealA4EPilot]

USAF vs USAF – A VA-72 Sea Story

 

NOTE concerning AN/APR-23: 

The way the APR23 is described by links dredged up by a Google search as well as the references in the A-4E/F NATOPS manual do not align with what I remember. Considering it was almost 60 years ago when I flew with this gear, I may have the nomenclature wrong. What I remember was a radar receiver that fit where the in the nose where the radar was mounted and used the APG-53 CRT to display radar that it heard. Lobes were displayed on the APG-53 display with the length of the lobe indicating relative signal strength and the direction of emitting radar.

The Navy did not have the funding necessary for every scooter squadron to have the same capabilities. For example, the A-4 could carry sidewinder but with sidewinder equipped F-4 squadrons in the air wing The only time A-4s filled the fleet air defense role was when the weather was too rough for the phantoms, but not for the scooters. Since strapping AIM9s on A-4s was so infrequent only one A-4 squadron per air wing was modified for the sidewinder. Similarly, only one of the scooter squadrons was modified to carry the AN/APR-23. That’s an overly longwinded way of saying that other than AFCs that affected basic safety and airworthiness, just because an AFC was issued doesn’t mean that every A-4 was modified.

I pulled the story that follows out of the dusty corners of my memory. The story’s protagonist passed more than a decade ago so I cannot get his help in burnishing up some 57-year-old memories. As the details flowed from the corners of my mind to the tips of my typing fingers they flowed faster and faster, almost faster than I could type. Experience tells me I was remembering not creating. FWIW, VA-72 was my first squadron.

The VA-72 Blue Hawks were the AN/APR-23 squadron in Carrier Air Group SEVEN, and the Sidewinders of VA-86, we derisively called them the “Snakes,” carried the AIM9 when necessary. Therein lies a story of a standoff between an AN/APR-23 wielding U.S. Air Force captain and indirectly a 3-star Air Force general. Some additional background will help you understand what happened and why.

On the surface, the disagreement or conflict was over tactics or how the mission would be flown. During the Vietnam War, the nature in of command and control of Navy combat units and nature of command and control of Air Force combat units diverged rather strongly. The Navy provided the tools and intelligence necessary to plan and execute strikes against JCS designated targets. The guys flying the aircraft and the ship’s organic intelligence and weaponeering assets helped the strike planners create the mission plan.

The Air Force model was significantly more centralized with the route plan, run-in headings, altitudes, weapons delivery profiles, etc. stipulated in a detailed strike plan created by PACAF assets in Hawaii and sent to operational units in the Vietnam area. Little if any room for initiative was left to the units assigned to those units designated to carry out the strike. As the Vietnam War matured, local, on scene Air Force commanders began to carve out a bigger role in mission planning and execution. The abject failure of the remote planning model is central to the story of an APR-23 standoff introduced above.

The Air Force reacted to the increasing threat to Air Force and Navy pilots and aircraft by the Soviet supplied SA-2 surface to air missile system by planning and executing a strike on a missile site. Initially the mission was regarded as a resounding success. A follow-on photo reconnaissance mission showed that the Air Force strike was made on a dummy or decoy SAM site. The first successful destruction of a North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile site was led by the executive officer of my squadron the VA-72 Blue Hawks.

The Air Force wanted to regain face by conducting a successful attack on a SAM site, and they asked for Navy assistance with planning and executing that strike. VA-72 was tasked with providing that assistance because we could home on the SA-2's Fansong radar with the AN/APR23. The decision of who to send to guide an Air Force strike to a radiating SA-2 missile site was ironic and almost poetically comical, and went something like this:  “Hmm . . . who should we send? Hmm . . . It’s an Air Force Mission, why don’t we send our Air Force pilot?”

For years there has been an active and strong exchange program between the services. Selected Navy pilots spend a tour flying Air Force missions and aircraft, and selected Air Force pilots spend a tour flying Navy missions and aircraft. Joe spent about a day huddled with the ship and air wing doing pre-strike mission planning. When he climbed out of his Skyhawk at the staging point for the strike, he was ushered into a pre-strike briefing. It was a PACAF production that Joe said would have cost the lives of half the aircrews. He listened the brief and when asked to comment, told them not only that’s not how the mission was going to be run but also, as he unfurled his maps, why it wasn't going to be flown that way.

By the time he had briefed his profile he had bird colonels yelling at him that he was a pilot in the U.S. Air Force and would damn well follow the USAF mission plan. The Air Farce did not take kindly his proclamation that since he was attached to the United States Navy he answered to the U.S. Navy not the U.S. Air Force, and if they wanted the Navy’s help in the form of leading the strike group to an active SA-2 missile site, they would follow his strike plan. Otherwise, he would “get an overhead time from the ship and fly back to the Gulf of Tonkin where he would be safe from fools and idiots posing as knowledgeable U.S. Air Force strike planners,” a pronouncement that was not well received by the United States Air Force members at the brief.  

Joe finally ruled the day, but the mission never found a live SAM site within the strike group’s combat radius. How much impact Joe’s intransigence had on the USAF’s decision to move strike planning from the rear to where the war was being prosecuted was never determined. But the fact that no one was shot down following Joe’s strike plan after planers had predicted a 15 to 20 percent loss rate must have fermented some evolutional and maybe revolutionary thinking.

Edited February 28, 2022 by RealA4EPilot
missing word

[Calabrone]

RealA4EPilot what you write for me is really interesting and I really like the way you express events. Thanks for these historical reality pills of yours.

[Gianky]

So, @RealA4EPilot, if I understood right, this

https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv62-65/index.html

should be the cruise you were talking about, right?