correct as-is Landing gear after update.

[Harley]

6 hours ago, Phantom711 said:

And? How would you handle the whole matter in a sim then? 
I‘ve probably slammed it down with 1000FPM and it was still intact. So there is definitely some tolerance included already.

Of course in real life a damaged landing gear might not look as crooked and funny as in DCS, but this is simply to portray that fact to the player. The point is, that, by the numbers, you have overstressed it. I don‘t know, but something like a hard landing might even automatically be recorded by the system.

I'm not saying that the representation is not realistic. I understand the intent. I also know that from the NATOPS manual that there are limitations. That is all very reasonable. My only argument is that the line between a successful trap and breaking the gear is very "digital". What I mean is that I think there is an exact instant where the force calculation (stress moment, arm, length) is a make or break result. Not much tolerance. We're still unable to "feel" the landing, and so there is no associated thought that "Oh, yeah, that was a hard landing" happens. It's likely very accurate for the calculation, but the missing parts are hard to assimilate into knowing exactly when too much is too much. We can't account for everything, and I haven't read the entire content of the NATOPS manual, either. There are very few real world naval aviators that fly DCS, and I'm sure that with the type of training one would get at the Naval Academy is all the difference. We're just simulating this experience, and some elements are difficult to reconcile without "real feel", and that's what is likely happening to us on the deck. I've improved a lot, and I'm paying much more attention to the E-bracket now. It's the learning curve that can be a frustrating experience, considering how easy it once was.

Edited January 28 by Harley

[Foka]

As I read people on this forum and watch YT video, there is a really huge group of pilots who doesn't check and doesn't care about landing weight. And then they are suprised that landing gear gets damaged even if they land within vertical speed limits.

Respect you landing weight limits!

[mongo52]

21 hours ago, Phantom711 said:

 I don‘t know, but something like a hard landing might even automatically be recorded by the system.

MMP 903 and 904. Actually had a hilarious incident one launch. Jet on previous cycle recovery had a 904. Launching on the next cycle different jet that hadn't flown in a week had an issue with the SDC on start up. Swapped with the broke jet. Came to the part of checking codes before giving the good to go for flight, and I was a little baffled for a couple seconds as to how this jet had a hard landing code.

Edited January 28 by mongo52
Doubled my post

[Phantom711]

@mongo52

Had to read that a couple of times to follow along but I got it now. 

Thanks for sharing such insights and also by doing so confirming my assumption, that hard landings are recorded by the system.

[Phantom711]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Harley:

We're just simulating this experience, and some elements are difficult to reconcile without "real feel"

Well...even real pilots share that feeling when they fly their million $ military simulators. So one could even argue, that they are at a disadvantage there, because they usually have the actual feel which they then lack when flying the simulator. A contrast, that most DCS players won´t have to cope with.

Point is, we (in DCS) simply have to be a bit more disciplined in flying the numbers properly. 

As I had already pointed out here, I fly in a virtual F/A-18 squadron and broken landing gears really are not an issue.

Check your landing weight.

Fly "on speed".

Fly the ball (IFLOLS).

Be wings level on touch down.

Following that, it s near impossible to break the landing gear.

[Harley]

2 hours ago, Phantom711 said:

Well...even real pilots share that feeling when they fly their million $ military simulators. So one could even argue, that they are at a disadvantage there, because they usually have the actual feel which they then lack when flying the simulator. A contrast, that most DCS players won´t have to cope with.

Point is, we (in DCS) simply have to be a bit more disciplined in flying the numbers properly. 

As I had already pointed out here, I fly in a virtual F/A-18 squadron and broken landing gears really are not an issue.

Check your landing weight.

Fly "on speed".

Fly the ball (IFLOLS).

Be wings level on touch down.

Following that, it s near impossible to break the landing gear.

I've figured it out. I said that up there. Years ago, I'm sure I was touching down at 7° glideslope with 3 full tanks just to get the approach right. I was an abuser of the technique, paying no attention to the E-bracket at all. It was like a "game" in that regard, because approaching by anything close to "on the numbers" would almost always result in a bolter. It was quite the shift in technique.

If we all had the opportunity to be taught the numbers as the cadets in the Academy are, then none of this would be an issue at all, and the feel would be irrelevant, as surely it is for real pilots in the sim. They know what 3° of glideslope feels like on their backs, and already will hold themselves to the learned technique taught to them by experience. Training is the difference.

We have a battery of training track files in DCS, and I've used them a few times, but most learning came from studying from the NATOPS book and watching videos. There's a lot to learn, and the fundamentals are important.

[Jackjack171]

12 hours ago, Foka said:

As I read people on this forum and watch YT video, there is a really huge group of pilots who doesn't check and doesn't care about landing weight. And then they are suprised that landing gear gets damaged even if they land within vertical speed limits.

Respect you landing weight limits!

From my observation: A lot of Velocity vector flying and not enough "fly the ball" action! 

[pokeraccio]

Hi, I came across an interesting exchange of infos about the F18 trap weight and "why" it was raised up to 34K form a start of 32.1K:

Quote

 

omissis...... the Navy increased the carrier landing weight of the F/A-18C/D thus alleviating the problem. The Navy, in responding to a fleet request during Operation Southern Watch, increased the Carrier Landing Gross Weight for the F/A-18C/D from 33,000 lbs. to 34,000 lbs. The GAO has failed to recognize that increasing the weight came with operational limitations, such as increased wind over deck requirements, restricted glide slopes and asymmetric store limits on the outboard pylon. Further increases are not possible without prohibitive restrictions that would not be acceptable to fleet commanders, nor consistent with the structural airframe service life.

The F/A-18C/D was designed to a Carrier Landing Design Gross Weight (CLDGW) of 32,120 lbs. which was later increased to 33,000 lbs. based on the results of the original Full Scale Development phase. During Southern Watch, as stated above, the CLDGW was increased to 34,000 lbs. with restrictions. These restrictions affect the way the Carrier Commanding Officer operates his ship, the Air Wing Commander and Planning Staffs plan missions and the way pilots fly their aircraft The decision to approve the request was made after an extensive evaluation of the risks associated with the heavier loads on the aircraft. It remains in effect today, with these limitations, at the discretion of the Carrier Group Commander as operational necessity dictates.

To explain the trade off a pilot or mission planning staff has to perform every operational day on a carrier the following itemized weight breakout is offered. It describes the F/A-18C/D weight picture trying to bring back (two) 500 lb. Laser Guided Bombs, a HARM Missile and two Sidewinders to the carrier. The fuel the pilot has an his first attempt to land, as shown below, is well below fleet operating poroc....... omissis