[W.I.P]F/A-18C : no damage on the plane after some very hard deck landings !

Without any damage to the Plane (nor the Landing Gear), and without breaking the wire caught,

... it is still possible to land the F/A-18C on the Deck of the Stennis with those data at the "impact" :

IAS : 200 Kts (instead of 125~135 Kts, the delta is 54%)

Glide Slope : -7.5° (instead of -3°, the delta is 150%)

Descent Rate : -2000 ft/min (instead of -700 ft/min, the delta is 185%)

:cry:

The worse is that a very lot of DCS F/A-18C Pilots down here, have got the habit to do bad deck landings without damages ... It will hurt a lot when this bug will be adressed !? :huh:

The first two quantities shouldn't actually really matter. The last one does as this is your velocity in the vertical and needs to be absorbed by the landing gear. The first two quantities result in the third.

With that said, I'm no expert and didn't read some manuals that shall not be named here but are publicly available. However I'm pretty sure that the 700 ft/min number is not the structural limit of the landing gear but about the maximum descend rate when on glideslope (or so?, i don't remember correctly tbh). What really matters is the force that needs to be absorbed by the landing gear.

What does that mean? Well, the landing gear gets compressed during touchdown and the shock strut absorbs the momentum. This happens in a certain amount of time. During that time the aircraft is decelerated from its initial descend rate to zero, resulting in a certain deceleration (or negative acceleration as a physicist would call it). The actual force furthermore depends on the mass of the aircraft as F = m * a. Therefore a heavy aircraft can stand less vv [ft/min] than a light one. I don't know the actual limits but it doesn't necessarily mean that you break something.

The limit values given in flight manuals can also depend on other operational restrictions and are not necessarily guaranteed damage limits. For example exceeding those limits would make additional maintenance checks necessary in order to ensure safety and this should be avoided. In DCS nobody cares about that because the Jet costs 80$ and not multiple hundreds of thousands and nobody is called to the X/O's office for that and "it works".

As said, I'm no expert but to me it seems that it is either realistic or at best not to tell just from that.

Yeah, the very forgiving damage modeling of the Hornet's gear is annoying me as well for quite some time now, because of this very reason:

The worse is that a very lot of DCS F/A-18C Pilots down here have got the habit to do bad deck landings without damages ... It will hurt a lot when this bug will be adressed !? :huh:

The first two quantities shouldn't actually really matter. The last one does as this is your velocity in the vertical and needs to be absorbed by the landing gear. The first two quantities result in the third.

With that said, I'm no expert and didn't read some manuals that shall not be named here but are publicly available. However I'm pretty sure that the 700 ft/min number is not the structural limit of the landing gear but about the maximum descend rate when on glideslope (or so?, i don't remember correctly tbh). What really matters is the force that needs to be absorbed by the landing gear.

 

What does that mean? Well, the landing gear gets compressed during touchdown and the shock strut absorbs the momentum. This happens in a certain amount of time. During that time the aircraft is decelerated from its initial descend rate to zero, resulting in a certain deceleration (or negative acceleration as a physicist would call it). The actual force furthermore depends on the mass of the aircraft as F = m * a. Therefore a heavy aircraft can stand less vv [ft/min] than a light one. I don't know the actual limits but it doesn't necessarily mean that you break something.

 

The limit values given in flight manuals can also depend on other operational restrictions and are not necessarily guaranteed damage limits. For example exceeding those limits would make additional maintenance checks necessary in order to ensure safety and this should be avoided. In DCS nobody cares about that because the Jet costs 80$ and not multiple hundreds of thousands and nobody is called to the X/O's office for that and "it works".

 

As said, I'm no expert but to me it seems that it is either realistic or at best not to tell just from that.

OK I understand your arguments but I don't agree with all of them ... some flight datas (IAS, slope angle, ...) admitted by DCS (only for the moment we all hope) for F/A-18C Deck Landings on the Stennis,

without damage to the plane, are way too high !!

For instance, I have just succeed in landing my quite light DCS F/A-18C on the Stennis's Deck at the speed of 243 Kts (IAS) !?!?!

It's almost twice the correct speed ... that's completely insane !

... and I still catch this "Ultra-Solid" 3rd Wire which stops my plane and don't break itself, nor the hook, nor the plane !!

Come on, it's obvious ... you should agree !

Please, test it yourself ...

I can show the track file (and/or the tacview file) of that last try if needed ...?!

Like Bignewy said: it's WIP and will change in due time.

The first two quantities shouldn't actually really matter

Although you are right that the first two result in the third, take into account as well that tires have a maximum tire speed. So GS (instead of IAS) does somehow matter as well.

Why?

Silly question:

Why DO you even go outside of parameters?

With my over 200 hours in DCS Hornet, some 240 traps, not a single one was outside of limits.

What I mean by that, in real life, no pilot would try to put the Hornet on the ship using whatever it takes method, seeing wrong indications, right? Like if you see your vertical speed, AOA, glideslope or KIAS is not as by the book, you would go around, no?

Because this is a game where you can simply respawn if something goes too wrong.

Also, seems like you never felt the need to try out some things, be it for fun or to see how far this game simulates things correctly.

OK I understand your arguments but I don't agree with all of them ... some flight datas (IAS, slope angle, ...) admitted by DCS (only for the moment we all hope) for F/A-18C Deck Landings on the Stennis,

without damage to the plane, are way too high !!

 

 

 

For instance, I have just succeed in landing my quite light DCS F/A-18C on the Stennis's Deck at the speed of 243 Kts (IAS) !?!?!

 

It's almost twice the correct speed ... that's completely insane !

... and I still catch this "Ultra-Solid" 3rd Wire which stops my plane and don't break itself, nor the hook, nor the plane !!

 

Come on, it's obvious ... you should agree !

 

Please, test it yourself ...

I'm not saying that everything is correctly modelled, i only say that i believe that the data you have posted in the beginning don't necessarily lead to a breakdown (but certainly can under circumstances in RL) and summarized my understanding of the physics going on.

I agree that i already experienced some cases myself in which i felt, something can't be right. However it is hard to tell as i am not a McDonnel engineer.

What i wanted to point out is that the posted data is at best an indication but no evidence.

Regarding the tire speed: yes, i believe the wheels don't stand 250kts for very long. However the roll distance on a carrier is not very long, especially when you indeed catch a wire and decelerate quickly. Again, i'm not saying that everything is correctly modelled because i just can't know but it is again no law that anything WILL break but only CAN break.

Silly question:

Why DO you even go outside of parameters?

With my over 200 hours in DCS Hornet, some 240 traps, not a single one was outside of limits.

 

What I mean by that, in real life, no pilot would try to put the Hornet on the ship using whatever it takes method, seeing wrong indications, right? Like if you see your vertical speed, AOA, glideslope or KIAS is not as by the book, you would go around, no?

It's not exactly about me in fact.

Except for those tests, I am always IN or very near the required values for the basics flight parameters on the Groove, In Close and At the Ramps ... and doing that way I can count more than 600 traps with the DCS F/A-18C since the last 12 months.

No but ... on many MP servers, and like many of my team mates, a lot of DCS pilots don't care how they land their F/A-18C on the Stennis because without really monitoring their speed or slope angle, it works, they get a Trap with no damage ... !?!

Recovery on the CVN is then close to be an easy part of their flight !

But IRL, it is known that coming back to "Mother" (the CVN) for Recovery after a complicated & long real War Mission is definetely not a "piece of cake" and it requires particular skills & training ! Especially if the weather and sea conditions are hard and if you come back with a non used dissymetrical payload configuration, and so on ...

So to see so often all those guys "take advantage" of this so exagerated tolerance of the FA18C DCS module and/or the Stennis modelization, partly break the interest of naval ops in DCS and by the end make me sad since one year... :cry:

But I am glad to hear that this almost inexistant damage model will be considered as a bug and soon adressed !!! :thumbup:

Wait a minute, they'll be back on the F-18 soon.

Because this is a game where you can simply respawn if something goes too wrong.

 

Also, seems like you never felt the need to try out some things, be it for fun or to see how far this game simulates things correctly.

:thumbup:

Because this is a game where you can simply respawn if something goes too wrong.

 

Also, seems like you never felt the need to try out some things, be it for fun or to see how far this game simulates things correctly.

Well that is the "gamer" in the operator of DCS....

Silly question:

Why DO you even go outside of parameters?

With my over 200 hours in DCS Hornet, some 240 traps, not a single one was outside of limits.

 

What I mean by that, in real life, no pilot would try to put the Hornet on the ship using whatever it takes method, seeing wrong indications, right? Like if you see your vertical speed, AOA, glideslope or KIAS is not as by the book, you would go around, no?

And that is the "simmer" in the operator of DCS....

Some are in the habit of doing things by the book, some might go outside of that book and then try it anyway (for whatever desire or reason).

The best part - DCS can cater to both. The moderator already reported / confirmed this as a WIP. Continuing discussion typically gets these type of threads closed... Consider creating a topic that you would be better suited to have this "discussion" in, ya?

Cheers,

Don

Steep, fast landings are easier because you can see the wires and your future impact point way easier.

If people are treated to ramp strikes and bolters when they are learning the game, it is natural they would go higher and faster.

So they(we) do it because it is safer and wonder why the old guys are tempting the ramp so much. Until the DCS Hornet rules change, and there is a new best way to land.

Crushing the gear also makes the plane a low rider which is hella cool.

e. Flaring on carrier landing is a good idea too, as long as the hook phases through the deck until it hits a wire. Don't hate the player, hate the game.