Carrier Ops...

[markturner1960]

So I just came across a video on YouTube of someone doing a carrier landing...it went surprisingly well. I was wondering ( Purist objections aside, which of course are valid) is there anything to really stop people using the current release model on the boat? I am talking DCS mechanics as well as module limitations. Thanks....

[Cab]

You can trap, apparently, but you won't be able to use the catapult to takeoff.

[Silver_Dragon]

The same situations about the "F-16C" can landing on a carrier... OMG... About launching... without a catapult you got to the sea.

[markturner1960]

I guess you can just use full burner and use the length of the deck to take off, as I sometimes do when wanting to bang in a load of quick practices in the F14. I presume you get graded landings in the same way as other jets when using something like Banklers trainer......I just thought it might serve to practice boat ops meantime while we wait for the other version. I am not going to lose sleep over the unreality of it. Thanks

[Silver_Dragon]

I don't understand this unhealthy habit of using and putting airplanes in situations in which they were never designed. In the case of the F-4E, especially when HB has already spoken that naval versions are within its plans... Let's remember where a certain post about "an F-16 on an aircraft carrier" ended.

[PhantomHans]

You can definitely trap just fine.

Elsewhere I argued that, although incorrect, because people were going to do it anyway, they should enable it to at least start hooked up to a catapult or otherwise be able to hook up to a catapult somehow, until such time as the real naval F-4 module was released.

 

Leave it as an unsupported and undocumented feature.  An "easter egg" of you will.

But some heads around here would probably explode at the unrealism of it and whip into violent anger about other people having fun.

[PhantomHans]

13 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I don't understand this unhealthy habit of using and putting airplanes in situations in which they were never designed. In the case of the F-4E, especially when HB has already spoken that naval versions are within its plans... Let's remember where a certain post about "an F-16 on an aircraft carrier" ended.

The great thing about simulators and simulations is thay they can be used to test out wild and inappropriate things, like F-16s on a carrier.

In the case of the F-4E, not only is it the only flyable (official) F-4 we have, but it comes from a family of carrier capable aircraft. 

The F-4E may not have been carrier capable, but the F-4A,B,G,J,K,N,S certainly were.

The 4E has similar slats to the 4S, though not exactly identical, broadly similar weapons, although a different radar.  If you strip it of gun ammo and paint it like a Navy jet apparently it's close enough for some for the time being to pretend a little bit for the sake of fun.

 

So I understand why they do it or want to do it......For now.

When Heatblur releases an F-4J, then I think an appropriate question to F-4E on carriers might just be "Why not buy that one?"

Edited May 29, 2024 by PhantomHans

[ricktoberfest]

3 hours ago, PhantomHans said:

The great thing about simulators and simulations is thay they can be used to test out wild and inappropriate things, like F-16s on a carrier.

In the case of the F-4E, not only is it the only flyable (official) F-4 we have, but it comes from a family of carrier capable aircraft. 

The F-4E may not have been carrier capable, but the F-4A,B,G,J,K,N,S certainly were.

The 4E has similar slats to the 4S, though not exactly identical, broadly similar weapons, although a different radar.  If you strip it of gun ammo and paint it like a Navy jet apparently it's close enough for some for the time being to pretend a little bit for the sake of fun.

 

So I understand why they do it or want to do it......For now.

When Heatblur releases an F-4J, then I think an appropriate question to F-4E on carriers might just be "Why not buy that one?"

 

The flaps and gear are different too. I’m not against playing around on the carrier but it might make it hard to adapt to the naval version when it comes if you’re used to trapping 50knots above the normal speed. 

[PhantomHans]

Just now, ricktoberfest said:

The flaps and gear are different too. I’m not against playing around on the carrier but it might make it hard to adapt to the naval version when it comes if you’re used to trapping 50knots above the normal speed. 

I'm guessing probably no different than going from SU-33 to F-14 to F/A-18 to F-4.

 

Unless you only buy and fly a single module I think you're going to have to get used to mixing it up a little. 

 

And remember that Navy Phantoms had changes in their day too.  If you're used to landing an F-4B,G,N or J on a carrier an F-4S might be different with the slats.

[ricktoberfest]

1 minute ago, PhantomHans said:

I'm guessing probably no different than going from SU-33 to F-14 to F/A-18 to F-4.

 

Unless you only buy and fly a single module I think you're going to have to get used to mixing it up a little. 

 

And remember that Navy Phantoms had changes in their day too.  If you're used to landing an F-4B,G,N or J on a carrier an F-4S might be different with the slats.

True

[Kalasnkova74]

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I don't understand this unhealthy habit of using and putting airplanes in situations in which they were never designed. 

Careful- It was Robert McNamaras decision to push the USAF to buy the Naval F-4B and operate it as the F-4C that led to the lineage which became the F-4E. If we are filtering DCS experiences through the lens of “what airplanes were designed for”, then operating the F-4E on land is the misuse. 

[Gunfreak]

Anything with a hook can land on a carrier in DCS. Even if the hook would just be ripped out of the aircraft 

[Zabuzard]

Anything with a hook can land on a carrier in DCS. Even if the hook would just be ripped out of the aircraft 

Its worth noting that, at least for the F-4E, the hook on the aircraft is the same sturdy hook used by the naval variants.
This hook was made for carrier operations.

It is primarily the gear and tires on our Phantom that will suffer a lot unless you make the landing on the boat as smooth as possible. But even then, it will accumulate internal wear.

It is possible to take off from the carrier again if you are light and can use the full length. You can not hook up to the catapult, nope.

[Gunfreak]

5 minutes ago, Zabuzard said:

Its worth noting that, at least for the F-4E, the hook on the aircraft is the same sturdy hook used by the naval variants.
This hook was made for carrier operations.

It is primarily the gear and tires on our Phantom that will suffer a lot unless you make the landing on the boat as smooth as possible. But even then, it will accumulate internal wear.

It is possible to take off from the carrier again if you are light and can use the full length. You can not hook up to the catapult, nope.

I actually asked on Facebook before the release of the F4 if it still had it's navy pedigree in relation to the undercarriage and hook.

Was told both had been changed with the C model. But I guess only the undercarriage had been changed.

[mytai01]

10 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The same situations about the "F-16C" can landing on a carrier... OMG... About launching... without a catapult you got to the sea.

Have you tried using the full length of the deck to takeoff?

[Kalasnkova74]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

I actually asked on Facebook before the release of the F4 if it still had it's navy pedigree in relation to the undercarriage and hook.

Was told both had been changed with the C model. But I guess only the undercarriage had been changed.

Early build F-4Cs were basically the same as US Navy F-4Bs, down to the landing gear and tires. Later F-4Cs featured wider tires and different main landing gear shocks - thus the upper bulge in USAF Phantom II wings - which made them more suited to land operations. The F-4D carried these traits over , even retaining electronic wing fold systems. The electronic wing fold was deleted on the -E model to save weight, although they can be manually folded if needed. 
 

Insofar as catapults go, no modern carrier in DCS can launch the F-4E….or their Naval cousins and predecessors, for that matter. Carriers back in the day used “bridals” , which were chains that hooked into frame points on the jet and then to the catapult.
 

Modern jets use a different system directly attaching the catapult to the forward landing gear. So for Heatblur (or anyone else) to include a Naval /USMC F-4, they’d also need an old school bridal launch option built into a DCS carrier. I suspect that logistical fact may play a small part in why HB built and released the land based variant first. No major changes to the base game are needed for an F-4E, but the same cannot be said about the naval Phantom IIs.

[Steel Jaw]

I had better not see more of that nonsense on servers...

Edited May 30, 2024 by Steel Jaw

[PhantomHans]

Can we overlook the bridals or would that make heads explode because people were having fun?

[ricktoberfest]

On 5/29/2024 at 7:45 PM, PhantomHans said:

Can we overlook the bridals or would that make heads explode because people were having fun?

We manage to overlook it for the A4 mod

[zaelu]

On 5/29/2024 at 2:54 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

I don't understand this unhealthy habit of using and putting airplanes in situations in which they were never designed. In the case of the F-4E, especially when HB has already spoken that naval versions are within its plans... Let's remember where a certain post about "an F-16 on an aircraft carrier" ended.

I like most the comments that start with "I don't understand why x" - they are so self explanatory.   
 

[malarcky]

On 5/29/2024 at 2:54 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

I don't understand this unhealthy habit of using and putting airplanes in situations in which they were never designed. In the case of the F-4E, especially when HB has already spoken that naval versions are within its plans... Let's remember where a certain post about "an F-16 on an aircraft carrier" ended.

have you heard about videogames and people having fun?