Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Good

About ESzczesniak

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

4,669 profile views
  1. How are the controllers connected? Connecting a lot of controllers through unpowered USB hubs has been the source of a number of problems. Most of which have some variation of controllers spiking, dropping out, etc. I definitely agree with fppilot that your system is very suspicious with the same issue across multiple units and brands.
  2. A short reply this time, but consider trying "Javier's Nimitz" for P3D. Yes, the issues you bring up definitely make sense and could be an issue. Javier's Nimitz is not very new, but still looks descent. It's freeware. And became somewhat of a gold standard. So most carrier add-ons have tested and work best with this carrier. vLSO definitely works well. And a second program to consider is AI Carriers (I think v2?). It will place an AI carrier at random places in front of you through a P3D menu, so you can have a carrier basically anywhere just by a menu click or two. Before DCS came out with the Hornet and Tomcat, I would use P3D for my carrier fix, but was using TacPack and the Superbug from VRS that replaced the AI Carriers function.
  3. To address a few of the additional things that have come up here... First for visibility of the ball, actual navy pilots have generally said you can usually make it out about 1.5 NM away. You should be clearly flying it by 0.7-0.8 NM. You wouldn’t be flying the ball at 1.5 NM in a case I pattern, but case 2 and 3 IMC patterns are straight in (with a lot of other fanfare). There can be some visibility issues in the sims. Some of this corresponds to hardware with resolution being a limiting factor, particularly in VR. Some of this is also P3D related. For some time, the Aerosoft Kitty Hawk was projecting the IFOLS lights behind the platform until 0.4 NM because of some way the sim handled lights (it’s since been fixed). If you’re really enjoying carrier ops, again I can’t recommend DCS World with either the F/A-18C or F-14B modules enough. DCS World itself is free, but either module is pay. They are PMDG levels of simulation. And on top of that, within the next 2-6 weeks, a Supercarrier module is expected with full radio comms, detailed launch, etc. and the visuals rival the previews of the new MFS. It is an amazing experience. **EDIT: One things that is so nice about DCS carrier ops, is they're truly built in to the sim. And are being worked on and upgraded. The P3D carrier ops are workarounds. It uses a basic functionality, but otherwise has a lot of "fidley" stuff to get them to work. Third party modules, plugins, etc. And they don't always work well. So a lot of the stuff you're referencing, just works seamlessly to start in DCS World.** In terms of your flight path marker, you ideally want to learn to fly well without the marker. It may not always be there. But if using it, the aim point is at the “crotch”...the angle between the end of the angled landing zone and the bow. This accounts for the ship motion. With that said, it is not your best friend. The data for the FPM lags, and it’s prediction algorithms are not always spot on. The ball and AOA indexer are your friends. The turbulent wind described comes from the island. The effect is called “the burble”. It does not actually change your airspeed at all (or negligibly), but the dirty air creates a down draft “in close”, causing an increased sink rate. Further out, it can actually have a slight up lift. The ships speed definitely reduces closure rate. Wind over the deck is almost always 28-35 kts. In windier conditions, the ship often slows down. There are two reasons for this. First, wind over the deck comes down BRC, whereas the landing, or “final bearing” is 9 degrees off of this. Navy pilots have a tough landing, but one thing is they rarely have is a crosswind. If there’s enough wind, they’ll try to do some trigonometry and sail at an angle to the wind to result in the wind over the deck being on final bearing. This creates an interesting numbers game. The glide slope set in the IFOLS is actually 4-4.25 degrees typically, steeper than civilian approaches. But because the ship moves away from the aircraft, the base of this triangle is extended (distance traveled by aircraft), while the height (aircraft altitude) stays the same. This makes the angle more shallow. I forget what all the math amounts to, but it comes out to somewhere right near that normal 3 degree. But this creates the second reason excessive wind over the deck is not desirable. The more wind over the deck, the slower the aircraft approaches the ship. SInce it's moving still, this extends the base leg of the triangle further and makes and even shallower effective approach angle. This diminishes the clearance over the ramp...and we all know ramp strikes are bad. With high wind over the deck, they actually increase the angle of the IFOLS to make sure there's a safe clearance above the ramp. The small touch down zone makes a small window to pass through as mentioned. To land safely, airspeed, descent rate, and lineup are all important. But to trap, i.e. catch a wire, what really matters is that the hook passes through a specific point. This is about an 18 inch box assuming you're on glideslope and an appropriate descent rate. What complicates this is that the hook hangs below the aircraft and the pilot sits at the nose, pointed up in an approach configuration. And aircraft are different. This hook-eye distance, or H/E, can very by several feet. And again, if you do the math, that can put the tailhook in the wrong position, when all looks perfect from the pilots perspective. This is so important, there's actually a setting in the IFOLS for H/E that is set to the aircraft type. And this is why AOA is all important in a carrier landing. The H/E distance is all calculated at a normal approach attitude. For an F/A-18C, that's about 5.1 degrees nose up (AOA 8.1 degrees, minus the 3 degree glideslope for flight path). So all the math to figure out how high the pilot sits above the hook, and thusly where to project the IFOLS, boils down to assuming this attitude. If you're AOA is off, so is you're H/E distance and your chance passing the hook through it's 18 inch box becomes almost zero. There's a lot of fun stuff to talk about when it comes to trapping on the boat! Once that is mastered, you can look at the marshal stack, "breaking the deck", spinning, etc to really make a full case I. Then there's case III (case II is a little bit of a niche and not as common). And if you really want to make things complicated, you can move on to rough seas/moving deck and the use of MVLOS and/or talk downs...and in particular why they're necessary over IFOLS. Short version is the IFOLS is gyro stabilized to the "earth's plane", so it doesn't move while the deck moves. But the gimbles it's mounted on has limits, and rough seas can overcome these limits.
  4. The vLSO may need to be setup with the SWS Nimitz. I think it’s programmed to recognize where the “landing area” area is, and pick wires from there. If the program thinks the “landing area” is somewhere on the ship other than where it is, it may always think you missed the wires. As for getting a good carrier landing, a lot of it is about flying a good pattern. I’d you fly a good pattern, it’ll set you up for success in the groove. DCS is the best carrier sim experience I’ve ever seen. The pattern by the numbers should loos something like: 1) Initial point 800’ on BRC 3 NM behind the ship, just off the starboard side. Speed typically 350-450 kts, but varies by type. 2) Check landing area clear as you pass the ship. 3) Break anywhere between the bow of the ship and 4 NM ahead. It’s a level break at 800’, aiming to be 1.1-1.3 NM abeam the ship (airframe depending for exact number). Slow down in the turn and dirty up. For some airframes, wait until wings level in case of a flap asymmetry. This you just have to practice until you get what works for you. For instance, in a legacy hornet I find a steady 2.2-2.3 g turn works well. Others like 1% of airspeed in G. 4) Once on downwind, descend to 600’, slow to landing speed, and trim to on speed AOA (yellow donut). It happens quick and you should be set up in level flight, on speed and AOA, abeam the LSO station. 5) Start a 25-30 degree bank angle turn (depends on airframe and abeam distance), on speed as you can see the “round down” of the ramp. You should start descending about 200 fpm to arrive “at the 90” at 450’. 6) At the 90, you get to start looking out the window. Adjust bank angle to roll out lined up. Start increasing descent to 3-400 fpm. 7) You should cross the wake at 370’, 20-30 degrees off final heading (8-10 degrees past BRC) 8 Roll out “in the groove” at 0.7 NM for a 15-18 second groove, about 250’. You’ll need a little power off, then on as you roll wings level. 9) In the groove, it’s all about being ahead of the plane. Scan is meatball, AOA, lineup, repeat. Move the ball with throttle. Pitch changes, if trimmed well, should be minimum...basically they’ll all come from the pitch-thrust couple. In general throttle changes to get you back on glide slope need to be partially reversed to maintain. So throttle movements often look like throttle down, half throttle back up or the opposite. If the throttle isn’t almost constantly moving, you’re not flying the ball enough. That’s a Case I pattern, the VFR carrier landing. If you can’t nail the numbers consistently up to the groove, you’ll never be able to catch up on the groove. It takes practice. Be critical of yourself. Then it’s a heck of a lot of fun!
  5. I don't think I'm finding anything in my searches, but wanted to ask and be sure. I have Misty Fjords Tongass Fjords X installed in P3D v4.5 (likely to be v5 soonish once some addon installers catch up). It's very nice despite its age, but the tedious install for P3D and fact that I don't use this for anything other than PASI (I fly the Dash 8 and 737 almost exlusively) has made we wish/wonder if there are other alternatives. Oh what I'd give for integration of Tongass Fjords X just being integrated in to some simple installer for P3D v5...and even better of Orbx Central or similar! So with that said, are there any other options for Sitka at this time?
  6. ESzczesniak

    LNAV for ILS

    Also, not all STARs take you to an ILS. There may be a radar vector portion, and not all approaches are ILS.
  7. Perhaps this is more the point I was going for. I don't know the accident reports and FDR data personally. On top of that, I'm only an armchair pilot. I think a very detail oriented one (PMDG or similar, QRH's available, real word ATC and weather, etc) but still an armchair pilot. However, I am, prior to a career change, an aerospace engineer (CFD and compressor design) and think I understand the systems well. As you said, flown manually, the phases of flight immediately after takeoff are full of trim changes. Even as an armchair pilot I know this. There's thrust reduction, acceleration height, multiple configuration changes. You trim to neutral. You continue to add or subtract trim until neutral control force. If they were trimming this way, then they should've had at least a five second window the MCAS wasn't sending them in to a nose dive. Then trim again because the aircraft is nosing down again. This should have resulted in a nearly continuous window of the MCAS being deactivated due to manual trim inputs. Beyond this, almost immediately after any failure I encounter in the simulator, the first action is to aviate...take manual control and fly the airplane stick and rudder. Then, sort out the failure. There are issues beyond reliance on autopilot systems and manual trim. But theoretically, this would have been a non-issue in world with solid manual flight skills..
  8. Stability is some issue with more powerful low hung engines, but it’s not inherently unstable. It increases the thrust-pitch couple whereby power changes cause the aircraft to pitch. Virtually all aircraft have this behavior to some degree. Retrimming is alway required after a power change. It’s the magnitude that changes. The major reason for the MCAS was to make the thrust-pitch response “feel” like he 737NG so they wouldn’t need an extensive certification phase as a “new airframe”. It instead was streamlined as a modification to an existing airframe. The 777 in fact uses a not entirely dissimilar concept for its C*U FBW law. Here, the FBW introduces expected pitch changes based on speed to make the aircraft feel as its flying like a conventional aircraft. The issue with the MAX and the MCAS is that, by default, it relies on a single AOA sensor. These have come a long way, but at their heart still rely in vane sensors prone to erratic readings. An option for a redundant second AOA sensor is available for a cost, but should have been default. Relying on a single sensor is never a smart idea. Pilot training is also an issue. Cursory review of the MCAS documentation clearly state what it does and the advisories that it’s active. In a runaway trim situation, the system is either interrupted by use of the yoke elevator trim, or fully disabled with the stab trim cutout switches. It boggles my mind that when a basic pilot mantra is “trim, trim, trim”, even for GA, that these pilots never touched the trim once when the aircraft was in “unstable” flight.
  9. I'd urge caution, as often needed in our modern era, against armchair quarter backing. It's easy to pick apart actions over the course of hours with either incomplete information, or more information than they had at the moment. When you're in the moment and have to make decision in seconds or minutes, it's hard to hash out every down stream effect. The effect of exposure to the fuel is over exaggerated. Gasoline can be a skin irritant, respiratory irritant, carcinogen, and so on, but the effects almost always require chronic exposure. The amount of exposure from a vapor trail released from a couple thousand feet up at over two hundred miles an hour will account to little more than a splash while pumping gas. It could cause harm, but this is a very small could. The first risk is real, but the time of exposure extremely small. The fuel will vaporize and blow away within in minutes. So could it happen? Yes. But it's unlikely in such a small time. How do you balance these against the safety of 350 people on board the aircraft? While flying the aircraft? It's hard to know even when everyone is safe on the ground. I doubt the pilots had any idea they were flying over a school. I'm sure they communicated and did what they thought was best to protect the passengers they were responsible for. 777 pilots are not exactly a low flight hour, poor trained group of people (I know there can be bad apples anywhere). While brakes may get stressed the most on RTO, landing above MLW does places more stress from the impact of touchdown, which is not insignificant. A snapped gear strut, blown tires, or structural overload may not be likely, but can be severe if they happen. With all of that said, I do wonder: 1) Why didn't they climb higher? Takeoff performance has contingencies for single engine climb and altitude can be traded for time or speed if things go south. With that said, MCT may limit the time you can climb and gain altitude. 2) It seems almost certain that they did land over weight and this was accepted, so what made them think the roughly 10k pounds of full was critical to shed? It would seem that's a fairly insignificant amount of weight when you're working with a likely TOW in the ballpark of 600k pounds. Not saying there weren't good reasons for these decisions, I just don't understand them right now.
  10. I think you’ll need some software such as FSUIPC or LINDA. LINDA specifically would be my though, as you can program “shift states”. In state one it can control engine 1, then you press a button to move to a second state and it can run the second engine.
  11. I’m hoping this one is updated, but have been left less than thrilled with their support. I have an old V2 version still on Ethernet. It worked, but lots of teething problems and had to sort them out heavily on my own. It’s largely been relegated to the hanger even before the NGXu. Leaves me hoping/wanting a good simpler solution that can be used as a simple game controller and setup in sim.
  12. It didn’t seem overly well advertised. I only found it because I got in a habit of checking once a week or so. Also not well advertised was they finally have a mount for the MCP/EFIS! Waiting for mine to ship from Brazil, but will be a world better than my Jerry rigged contraption. Otherwise my hardware is simple Saitek throttle and Honeycomb yoke, all set through FSUIPC and all is working fine. I have been eyeing either the CP flight or FDS CDU and a Saitek radio panel to round out a small home cockpit for the NG. Always though I’d make a full home pit, but VR seems to be changing that game for me.
  13. Virtual Avionics issued an update to their interface about a week ago. While I haven’t flown a flight yet, all seems well in my testing with the NGXu.
  14. I drilled holes in mine. No real issue. Wish they had made provision for this though.
  • Create New...