How to perform an agressive overhead brake in the JF-17 and other questions

[cmbaviator]

 Hello,

 

Been flying the Jeff for Weeks and i think i can perform a standard overhead brake.

 

The question is i tried to follow the 1% thing regarding the banking G load on the initial turn before downwind, so if my speed is 320Kt, i try to maintain 3.2G and then slowly relax the stick as the speed drops. How ever, by doing that it makes me quite close to the airport ( Wing Tip over the runway in downwind). The sweet spot for me is to bank at around 2.5g ( first landing in the video)

 

Then i tried to perform a more agressive bank at 3G but i need to make a more agressive bank in base turn and finale turn and quite hard to not over shoot ( second lading). the third landing was a bit better. I guess the visual landing by overhead brake in Jeff is the same as the F16 but, i saw video where F16 pilot would brake at 5G and then make a severe bank and nose down attitude on base and finale turn, seems very hard to do.

 

Any advice would be appreciated 

 

 

[J20Stronk]

I find that coming overhead at 400kts and pulling 3Gs throughout without airbrakes will get you down to around 250 by the time you're upwind, 1nm-1.2nm away, at which point you prep for landing.

You should land with less than 1500lbs of fuel, so if you have more, you may need to adjust your G-load in the break (no less than 2.5G).

[Napillo]

Dude, just use approach mode, it sets you up on a course where you are 10nm from the airport, so you hit that glide slope at 3 degrees and you're gucci. I recommend hitting that FAF at less than 300kts and 3000ft radar altitude. It'll be a piece of cake to land every time. Get your AOA to around 9 by the time you get close to the runway, and watch your sink rate, it should be around -4 or so, then 50ft you flare to bring it to -2 and <175kts touchdown, idle the engine, and pull back to wing brake, or use your actual brakes and tap them until you get around 120kts before deploying the chute. Turn on NWS below 80,  cut the chute off, and taxi.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Napillo
added more detail

[cmbaviator]

7 hours ago, Napillo said:

Dude, just use approach mode, it sets you up on a course where you are 10nm from the airport, so you hit that glide slope at 3 degrees and you're gucci. I recommend hitting that FAF at less than 300kts and 3000ft radar altitude. It'll be a piece of cake to land every time. Get your AOA to around 9 by the time you get close to the runway, and watch your sink rate, it should be around -4 or so, then 50ft you flare to bring it to -2 and <175kts touchdown, idle the engine, and pull back to wing brake, or use your actual brakes and tap them until you get around 120kts before deploying the chute. Turn on NWS below 80,  cut the chute off, and taxi.

 

I do use FAF in PvP to get the correct inbound course for the overhead brake. I don't know, i was told that in VFR, you always do overheadbrake, you don't just come straight in.

 

[Foogle]

6 hours ago, cmbaviator said:

I do use FAF in PvP to get the correct inbound course for the overhead brake. I don't know, i was told that in VFR, you always do overheadbrake, you don't just come straight in.

 

Overhead breaks are almost always faster and safer, so you're not wrong in wanting to do them.

[Napillo]

14 hours ago, Foogle said:

Overhead breaks are almost always faster and safer

Nah, everyone is using Continuous Descent Overhead Approach... it's safer, quieter, faster, preserves fuel.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/continuous-descent

https://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/Continuous Descent Fact Sheet.pdf

There's many sources.

Even the new OPD is a "Continuous Descent".

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Napillo

[Dragon1-1]

Aren't those for radar-controlled/IFR approaches? For VFR, AFAIK the overhead break (or the overhead pattern, the equivalent for GA aircraft that can't quite manage a proper break) is still the way to go. Airliners don't generally do VFR. 

[Foogle]

11 hours ago, Napillo said:

Nah, everyone is using Continuous Descent Overhead Approach... it's safer, quieter, faster, preserves fuel.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/continuous-descent

https://cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/Continuous Descent Fact Sheet.pdf

There's many sources.

Even the new OPD is a "Continuous Descent".

 

 

At commercial airports with 60+ T/Os & landings per hour, and all the BS that comes with that, yes the continuous descent is the right choice. 

In a light to medium traffic airport, it makes little sense. 

Entering the pattern via overhead allows for the formation (we don't fight alone) to maintain cruising speeds the entire way to the airport, maintains flight cohesion right up to the break, and allows for visual contact with an airport that may be damaged without the knowledge of the flight. 

The USAF teaches the overhead for a reason. 

 

But to reply to your links, we don't fly commercial in DCS, maybe the C-130 will change that, but until then we should use fighter procedures, not airliner ones. 

 

Quick edit after fully reading the links: CDA is safer, faster, and more fuel efficient than non-CDA. The claims are only in relation to the earlier stepwise approach.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Foogle
Explaining the CDA claims

[Napillo]

4 hours ago, Foogle said:

USAF teaches the overhead for a reason

Actually, most of my sources are from the military, though I didn't link those.

 

[Fromthedeep]

On 9/8/2022 at 9:26 PM, Napillo said:

Actually, most of my sources are from the military, though I didn't link those.

 

You haven't linked any evidence that anyone in the fighter/TACAIR world uses this regularly. What you linked cannot be considered evidence for virtually anything at all.

[Dragon1-1]

I wouldn't be surprised if fighters did use CDA when either in congested airspace or flying IFR, since it is a good way of doing it. This isn't the usual way to operate tactical aircraft, though.