no traps above 33,000 lbs

well according to Lex Talionis, the hook will almost certainly mess up things onboard if youre higher than 33,000 lbs. Can we get that restriction, ED?

How would you implement this restriction?

You should restrict yourself from landing above that weight, if you wanna fly realistically.

I can implement it by self restraint. Also by preventing controls synchronisation 5 miles to the carrier by a trigger zone, preventing hook drop down if GW is implemented as a condition in mission editor once/ownship weight more/less/prevent controls sync, trigger failure of hook above 33,000 lbs, or even prevent gear down using failures above said weight.

Preventing controls? How is this a good idea?

I can implement it by self restraint. Also by preventing controls synchronisation 5 miles to the carrier by a trigger zone, preventing hook drop down if GW is implemented as a condition in mission editor once/ownship weight more/less/prevent controls sync, trigger failure of hook above 33,000 lbs, or even prevent gear down using failures above said weight.

Why we would get this if it ain't working as this in RL? Just do as RL pilot does, as Lex said and as stated in the NATOPS «A1-F18AC-NFM-000.pdf» Make sure you'Re at 33.000 LBS or leff of Fuel, just sim it. :) If you limit the hook down with those things, people simming the real Hornet Startup procedures will have fun doing their 4-down-check before taking off, since you can take off with 51.900 lbs on carrier and field, which is over the GW of 33,000 lbs needed to trap....

I can implement it by self restraint. Also by preventing controls synchronisation 5 miles to the carrier by a trigger zone, preventing hook drop down if GW is implemented as a condition in mission editor once/ownship weight more/less/prevent controls sync, trigger failure of hook above 33,000 lbs, or even prevent gear down using failures above said weight.

Well the sensible and realistic way to handle this would be a damage model that includes hook damage. All other things suggested, make zero sense though as they are artificial limitations.

What's wrong with dumping fuel prior to entering the pattern??

What's wrong with dumping fuel prior to entering the pattern??

dump everything

also, keep in mind as per NATOPS 33‘000 lbs is only the MLW unrestricted. The absolute limit (emergencies excluded of course) is 34‘000 lbs and that is what NATOPS calls restricted MLW for CV landings.

quote:

Arrestments above 33,000 pounds are subject to the following restrictions:

(1) Glideslope - 3.5° Maximum (2) Recovery head wind (RHW) -

(a) 40 knots minimum - Half flaps allowed

(b) Less than 40 knots - Full flaps only

(3) Lateral weight asymmetry - 14,500 foot-pound maximum (external pylon stores, AIM-9 wing tips,

and wing fuel)

(4) No MOVLAS recovery

Btw, max landing weight for (flared) field landings is 39‘000 lbs.

I think the AOA/hook issues abv 33000 lbs may be enough to keep guys from doing this much.

The hook isn't messing anything up onboard. Landing overweight can damage the aircraft. This occurs by over stressing the airframe, particularly in those areas where the landing gear is mounted to the aircraft. [...]

That's my understanding as well (and not even limited to the F/A-18, or carrier ops).

I don't see any reason why DCS should prevent pilots from landing overweight. On the contrary, if damage to the aircraft is properly modeled, it should give pilots something to chew on if they fall off the cat after an overweight landing. ;)

And speaking of triggers, being given a proper mouthful by the CAG after ruining a perfectly flight-worthy aircraft would be a much better consequence than dubiously preventing it in the first place. :D

also, keep in mind as per NATOPS 33‘000 lbs is only the MLW unrestricted. The absolute limit (emergencies excluded of course) is 34‘000 lbs and that is what NATOPS calls restricted MLW for CV landings.

 

quote:

Arrestments above 33,000 pounds are subject to the following restrictions:

(1) Glideslope - 3.5° Maximum (2) Recovery head wind (RHW) -

(a) 40 knots minimum - Half flaps allowed

(b) Less than 40 knots - Full flaps only

(3) Lateral weight asymmetry - 14,500 foot-pound maximum (external pylon stores, AIM-9 wing tips,

and wing fuel)

(4) No MOVLAS recovery

 

Btw, max landing weight for (flared) field landings is 39‘000 lbs.

Interesting, but this guy's main concern is Carrier and Hook, to flare with a hook would be non-sens.

How would you implement this restriction?

 

You should restrict yourself from landing above that weight, if you wanna fly realistically.

LOl what a silly reply ..

LOl what a silly reply ..

Why? This is how it works in the real world. The aircraft I fly for a living has a max landing weight significantly lower than MGTOW. There is nothing stopping me from landing overweight except for my desire not to harm myself, the aircraft, lose my license, or get fired. If there is an emergency (i.e. aircraft is on fire), the crew always has the option of exercising emergency authority and landing overweight. There is certainly nothing stopping you from doing it in the sim besides having to live with your own shame. ;) However, try some heavyweight landings (either on land or the boat) sometime. Then try some at 33K and below. I'll bet you'll find life is much easier if you comply with the aircraft operating restrictions.

Why? This is how it works in the real world. The aircraft I fly for a living has a max landing weight significantly lower than MGTOW. There is nothing stopping me from landing overweight except for my desire not to harm myself, the aircraft, lose my license, or get fired. If there is an emergency (i.e. aircraft is on fire), the crew always has the option of exercising emergency authority and landing overweight. There is certainly nothing stopping you from doing it in the sim besides having to live with your own shame. ;) However, try some heavyweight landings (either on land or the boat) sometime. Then try some at 33K and below. I'll bet you'll find life is much easier if you comply with the aircraft operating restrictions.

I hope limitations are implemented in somewhere, maybe damage the aircraft/gear. What you're seeing here are the call off duty and battlefield gamers complaining about said limitations. I'm not sure why some are even in a sim like DCS if they want something closer to flying a plane in Battlefield.

I hope limitations are implemented in somewhere, maybe damage the aircraft/gear. What you're seeing here are the call off duty and battlefield gamers complaining about said limitations. I'm not sure why some are even in a sim like DCS if they want something closer to flying a plane in Battlefield.

Until FC3 aircrafts are taken out of DCS you will always get those gamers on here, so they expect all aircraft to be as easy or like FC3 Birds.

Actually, they are going to add more FC3 aircraft.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Expand the customer/revenue base so they can keep up work on the more “hardcore” stuff for those of us that want it. Some who come into the sim via the FC3 route will become more interested and expand the full fidelity consumer base. The problem with hardcore sims has always been the limited audience. Attracting more people to the hobby is a good thing. Of course, many will approach things in a more casual manner than some of us might like. I think the online servers and various online groups will step up to the job of providing appropriate venues to suit the various approaches one could take to simming.

I just wish more limitations are implemented to even allow systems damage if attempting to trap above 33-34,000 lbs. why I care is because RL is more challenging. I love flying RL in DCS or by the book if you will. After watching Lexs vids, I now have both surface winds at 20 kts and steaming deck at 25 knots

It might be better to simulate damage to the aircraft in the case of overweight landings... Blown tire, blown strut, prevent a main gear from retracting or extending, hook failure or engine or structural failure are all things that could realistically be modeled on an aircraft that lands overweight.. The carrier could also potentially simulate a wire breakage and being out of service for the time it takes to swap the wire.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Catching the third wire at 400 knots...and didn't explode :doh:

400 knot carrier trap.trk

It might be better to simulate damage to the aircraft in the case of overweight landings... Blown tire, blown strut, prevent a main gear from retracting or extending, hook failure or engine or structural failure are all things that could realistically be modeled on an aircraft that lands overweight.. The carrier could also potentially simulate a wire breakage and being out of service for the time it takes to swap the wire.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I believe a snapped wire is much more serious event as it could cause the airplane to roll off the deck and also flight deck crew injuries but normally I’ve read that the arrester cable is expected to be changed out between landings if needed. So like 45 seconds.