Catapult failure

For years, I flew Jane's USNF 97 and Jane's Fighter's Anthology. One of the super-rare occurrences during carrier operations was a catapult failure, the infamous "cold cat shot". The deck shooter would yell "Cat failure! Eject!", and I'd be down one aircraft from inventory, as well as, of course, failing that particular mission. Nothing like watching one's bird dribble off the deck at not too many knots.

Like so from 0:52:

Would the possibility of incorporating failures of that sort into the Forrestal be considered? Another "good" failure would be arresting wire failure. These happen far more often than cold cats. Speaking of the wires, how about a hook skip bolter?

While I'm making requests, are there plans for visible deck crewmen, like the aforementioned Shooter? I'm not sure about Air Force ground crew, but Deck Crew are all over the place on a carrier. Different colour jerseys for different jobs.

And finally, of course, the LSO. Naturally to go along with the Fresnel lens. (Optical Landing System, apparently.)

Thanks for the consideration.

One of the updates on F-14 progress showed deck crew and that they were animating them. I don't know if they plan to continue development of that feature or it got dropped but it's already been thought of. As for ground crew in general, the reason given for not implementing was that it would cause significant performance issues, especially for multiplayer.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

"For years, I flew Jane's USNF 97 and Jane's Fighter's Anthology. One of the super-rare occurrences during carrier operations was a catapult failure, the infamous "cold cat shot". The deck shooter would yell "Cat failure! Eject!", and I'd be down one aircraft from inventory, as well as, of course, failing that particular mission. Nothing like watching one's bird dribble off the deck at not too many knots."

I remember that too. It was also one of the single missions, and if you didn't eject then you failed the mission, which was funny because you could still get the plane in the air.......but even if you did that you failed. The game was trying to groom you for a rando's. I always thought that was a very cool thing for such an early game. I played Jane's FA, jeez, musta been almost to 2000?

I could also see the rare occurrence of the arresting wire snapping on landing being implemented, ya know to keep everyone on their toes.:thumbup:

in reality all we'll get is every second thread being a "bug report"

in reality all we'll get is every second thread being a "bug report"

ME option, defaulted to off.

Sorted :)

ME option, defaulted to off.

 

Sorted :)

yep, but i would have to make it on by default on my game, because who wouldnt like to have the Oh Sh't moment when they realize they didnt get stopped, and they forgot to jam the throttles back to full, only to watch in terror as the plane falls into the ocean.

Random errors or no, I just worry about the life of my throttle, with all this ram-it-to-the-stops action.

Random errors or no, I just worry about the life of my throttle, with all this ram-it-to-the-stops action.

Are you by chance using an X55? I had the same issue with mine, 3 or 4 fast movements and the friction mechanism would loosen up considerably.

You don't have to "slam" the throttle, just move it at or above the rate at which the engine spools.

Are you by chance using an X55? I had the same issue with mine, 3 or 4 fast movements and the friction mechanism would loosen up considerably.

 

You don't have to "slam" the throttle, just move it at or above the rate at which the engine spools.

I use an X52. I have a spare throttle (from replacing the stick earlier) and actually have a new throttle with, and an old throttle without, the detent-mechanism*. It strikes me as an idea that I can move this detent up to the mil mark and mechanically slow the last few centimeters of movement. If it was warranted at all.

Engine spool is pretty darn quick in this high-RPM regime though, isn't it? I've heard the throttle will be sitting at 85-90% power for the final stretch. So maybe my worries are unjust -- sure the spool-up time might be short if I'm right, but there's a limit to how much I'll pound the throttle for just three-four centimeters.

*warranty etc, I'll not remove the detent for the throttle I don't use.

Getting back on topic -- I definitely want to see failures pop up on a semi-frequent basis, and not just the ones of my own design. In the Fishbed and Viggen you're sort of limited if your engine craps out, whereas a twin-engine aircraft should make R'ingTFM and practising emergencies much more rewarding.

 

Engine spool is pretty darn quick in this high-RPM regime though, isn't it? I've heard the throttle will be sitting at 85-90% power for the final stretch.

Where did you hear that? You're not flying a Mig21, the Turkey can actually spread her wings and glide pretty nicely. I doubt that your power would be up that high, unless you are landing with a full load of fuel and weapons, or are having a swing wing malfunction. (Wings set to full swept position).

Where did you hear that? You're not flying a Mig21, the Turkey can actually spread her wings and glide pretty nicely. I doubt that your power would be up that high, unless you are landing with a full load of fuel and weapons, or are having a swing wing malfunction. (Wings set to full swept position).

If i recall correctly, there is a method of landing with the air brakes popped out. It increases drag, but at the same time the increased raw power demand would give you more liberal throttle movement.

If i recall correctly, there is a method of landing with the air brakes popped out. It increases drag, but at the same time the increased raw power demand would give you more liberal throttle movement.

Interesting. Not the way I would personally do it, but what the hell do I know. Maybe it was required with the TF30 engines on the A.

I would be scared shitless (the way I am when landing the Mig21) landing that way, but then again maybe it's the way to go when landing on a Carrier. I can definitely see how it would probably work to one's advantage in doing small attitude and power corrections.

Where did you hear that? You're not flying a Mig21, the Turkey can actually spread her wings and glide pretty nicely. I doubt that your power would be up that high, unless you are landing with a full load of fuel and weapons, or are having a swing wing malfunction. (Wings set to full swept position).

I imagine the RPM will be somewhat "up there," on account of the massive flaps producing lots of drag and the fact that the 14 has a less than fantastic TWR in dry thrust.

Interesting. Not the way I would personally do it, but what the hell do I know. Maybe it was required with the TF30 engines on the A.

 

I would be scared shitless (the way I am when landing the Mig21) landing that way, but then again maybe it's the way to go when landing on a Carrier. I can definitely see how it would probably work to one's advantage in doing small attitude and power corrections.

The guy in the article said that it not just keeps the RPM higher (and thus spool times lower), but it actually provides for larger throttle inputs for less apparent change in behavior. This translates to much easier time for people with hams at the ends of their arms :lol:

Of course, carrier landing are performed at constant AoA, steeper glide slope and virtually all the landing hears touchdown at the same time (crush down is more correct term).

When i tried this with a mirage (in DCS) the entire landing gear structure collapsed and when i tried it with an Eagle, the left main landing gear bent slightly and the right one went almost perpendicular :megalol:.....but they still held.....

Then again, NAVY planes are built to withstand this kind of abuse, so...... we should fare better.

should have picked the viggen to try that with, since its designed for stol

Interesting. Not the way I would personally do it, but what the hell do I know. Maybe it was required with the TF30 engines on the A.

The standard approach configuration for the Tomcat (A/B/D) involves deployed airbrake and use of DLC (direct lift control - central portion of wing spoilers deployed to modulate lift without pitch or power adjustments).

This allowed for several benefits - the TF30 actually has a high residual thrust at low power settings, but long spool up times from low RPMs to mil power. The draggy config allowed the engine to stay at higher RPMs (I think it was ~85-90%) for better response; both for wave-offs/bolters and power adjustment during the approach. Also, the thrust changes with RPM is nonlinear. IIRC, thrust roughly doubles from 90% N1 to mil. So 90% RPM is roughly 50-60% of mil power. Stall resistance is also much better with RPMs above 80%.

With the F-14B/D, spool up times are much faster, but the approach still involves the airbrake since the ability to retract the brake (happens automatically at mil power or higher) with power additions really helps wave-off performance. It also better standardizes the approach config between the different models. The F-14's airbrake is also not hugely effective, less so than the Hornets I think. Also, the A-6 and EA-6B also perform all of their approaches with the airbrakes deployed. I'm not sure why the Hornet is the exception.

DLC is sort-of a cool feature. It allows for lift modulation without pitch, AOA, or power changes during the approach by adjusting the center wing spoilers with a thumb wheel on the control stick. Another tool for adjusting the ball in the groove.

-Nick

Where did you hear that? You're not flying a Mig21, the Turkey can actually spread her wings and glide pretty nicely. I doubt that your power would be up that high, unless you are landing with a full load of fuel and weapons, or are having a swing wing malfunction. (Wings set to full swept position).

Why, I think I heard it from Nick just now. :smilewink:

Thanks for the clear and concise explanation Blacklion, like I said I can see how it makes a lot of sense during landing when you need to hit an exact point in the middle of the ocean and when losing thrust on descent is already grounds for immediate ejection. :)

Landing this thing on a carrier will be loads of fun.

Catapult failure

I still play Fighters Anthology regularly, yet IIRC I've only encountered a random cat failure once. Would be a neat feature, but it might be a good idea to have it as an option so some people won't be annoyed at the fact that they have to ditch on takeoff should one occur.

I read in a book (Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Bye - Bye Baby) a Tomcat pilot recount a story about being given a wave off just as he was about to trap, while still airborne, only to find he had in fact caught a wire and it pulled his jet to a stop (still airborne), slamming it down onto the deck. If I remember correctly he said the jet was checked over after and found to be fine.

Grumman built a few airframes for the sole purpose of dropping them like that to see what would happen. It's one tough bird.

The F-86 landed the same way right, boards out and 80%-ish throttle?

Catapult failure?! are you guys nuts?! arent there enough ways to kill your self in DCS? especially in Naval Aviation? :-D :-D

*hmpf* but why not it is realistic.^^

I still play Fighters Anthology regularly, yet IIRC I've only encountered a random cat failure once. Would be a neat feature, but it might be a good idea to have it as an option so some people won't be annoyed at the fact that they have to ditch on takeoff should one occur.

I reread my old comment and realized it sounds as if I am asking for a flat, hidden, universal fault % chance. What I meant when I asked for it to be included was that it became a campaign or SP mission feature. :)

If you could put the barrier up at least, I'd be happy with that (radio, tower, other, barrier....)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk