Jump to content

Landing Gotchas


Recommended Posts

9000 foot runway, fuel load critical, AOA control, and 2.5 deg or better, Aerobrake

 

What em I missing?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

LUCKY:pilotfly::joystick:

Computer Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6-Core 3.4 GHz| GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 6Gb | RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3000 MHz | OS: Win 10 64 bit | HD: 500 Gb SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically is there anything else I’m missing to watch out for on landing and rollout in the F-16


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

LUCKY:pilotfly::joystick:

Computer Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6-Core 3.4 GHz| GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 6Gb | RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3000 MHz | OS: Win 10 64 bit | HD: 500 Gb SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a question. After flare and touch down with your rear wheels, should you open air brakes immediately during aerobraking or should you open air brakes after the touchdown of the front wheel? I remember seeing a red flag landing video of of a real jet extending the air brakes right after touchdown, but I forgot if that jet was an F-15 or F-16. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The higher the speed, the more effective the speedbrakes (applies to all aircraft).

If the boards aren't extended already on final, extend them as soon as you touch down.

 


Edited by bbrz
  • Like 1

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowering the landing gear helps a lot, I discovered....


Edited by Viking 1-1
Spelling
  • Like 4

Before you call everything a "bug": RTFM & try again! Thank you. :music_whistling:

 

I9-9900k, 32 GB RAM, Geforce RTX 2080 TI, 128 GB M2 SSD, 1 TB SSD, Track IR, Warthog Hotas

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could land safely with Aerobraking at Beirut’s 16 runway (10525 x 145)

Goal is landing safely at Ramat David without hitting something expensive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny story Spang is on a German Cliff

A Viper got too low and took out the approach lights The pilot was fine but not the approach lights


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

LUCKY:pilotfly::joystick:

Computer Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6-Core 3.4 GHz| GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 6Gb | RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3000 MHz | OS: Win 10 64 bit | HD: 500 Gb SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bbrz said:

The higher the speed, the more effective the speedbrakes (applies to all aircraft).

If the boards aren't extended already on final, extend them as soon as you touch down.

 

 

 

Agreed, and what I have heard is that speed brakes should be extended on final because engines have a long spool-up time. If you had to execute a go-around, it's better to have your engine half spooled up already and retract speed brakes than it is to have no speed brakes at all but engine closer to idle. You get power faster under the former conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ruddy122 said:

 

9000 foot runway, fuel load critical, AOA control, and 2.5 deg or better, Aerobrake

 

What em I missing?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Training:P

 

AOA 10 to 13

Speed around 160kts

Speed Brakes on

Don't slam on the runway it is not the F18 😜 Basically you want your velocity vector at around -1.5 degrees below the horizon line.

When you touch down, keep your nose up to air brake till around 110kts then nose down and apply brakes gently, max your air brakes now.

 

Happy landings!


Edited by Furiz
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SCPanda said:

I also have a question. After flare and touch down with your rear wheels, should you open air brakes immediately during aerobraking or should you open air brakes after the touchdown of the front wheel? I remember seeing a red flag landing video of of a real jet extending the air brakes right after touchdown, but I forgot if that jet was an F-15 or F-16. 

Do not extend the speed brakes beyond the 43° position until in the 3 point attitude.

 

Unprompted but a common lack of slowdown comes from insufficient aerobrake angle. Aerobrake is much, much more effective at 13 degrees than 9. After touchdown light up the green doughnut in the indexer. If landing distance is critical then do minimum run technique which does not have a protracted aerobrake phase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Xavven said:

 

Agreed, and what I have heard is that speed brakes should be extended on final because engines have a long spool-up time.

Spool up time isn't a factor anymore since many decades.  Idle to mil could take >10sec with first generation jets.

More recent engines like the Hornets 1970s F404, require less than 3.5sec.


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a requirement that all normal landings should be made with speed brakes opened to the 43° due to a floating tendency associated with ground effect.

 

Some minor notes:

Minimise roll input at touchdown as it retracts an aileron and causes decreased lift. The ARI (aileron-rudder-interconnect) is also cut-off at touchdown, meaning any roll input before touchdown will cause a rudder deflection, and that deflection will immediately decreased to 0 at touchdown, causing a transient yaw rate.

  • Thanks 2

EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LJQCN101 said:

Minimise roll input at touchdown as it retracts an aileron and causes decreased lift. 

Doesn't the opposite one deflect down and increase lift, so the total amount of lift doesn't significantly change? 

A loss of lift usually occurs with roll spoilers.


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bbrz said:

Doesn't the opposite one deflect down and increase lift, so the total amount of lift doesn't significantly change? 

A loss of lift usually occurs with roll spoilers.

 

 

The flaperons have a maximum command deflection of 20 degrees down and 23 degrees up.

At landing configurations, the opposite one is already at 20 degrees down position acting as TEF, so there's no room for it to further deflect down. 

EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-16 is more stable with the brakes already open (ground effect, as someone already described), also it is faster to close the brake than to spool up the engine. Due to these two reasons, F-16's land with the speedbrake open. You need them either way after touch down.
You should fully extend the speed brake once the front wheel touches down. Also, pulling the stick full aft after the front wheel touched down converts your elevators into a speedbrake.

 

Look at that video at 3:30 when the second F-16 lands. Speedbrakes are open before you touch down. When the nose wheel touches the ground, extend speed brakes fully, stick full aft.

The F-16's brakes won't extend fully when the gear is out unless you have weight on wheels because they would touch the ground first if you get your nose too high so you gotta manually extend them fully after the nose wheel is on the ground.


Edited by TobiasA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TobiasA said:

 

 

The F-16's brakes won't extend fully when the gear is out unless you have weight on wheels because they would touch the ground first if you get your nose too high so you gotta manually extend them fully after the nose wheel is on the ground.

 

 

That video also nicely illustrates that the horizontal stab is neutral in the landing-configuration, rather than LE down, as it is currently in game.

It might be linked to the FM-changes to come (hopefully).

 

 

You can override the 43° speedbrake-limit, by holding the switch aft. Once you release the switch, the boards go back to 43°.

 

For both issues (stab deflection and SB override), check out this Block 52:

 


Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TobiasA said:

also it is faster to close the brake than to spool up the engine.

As mentioned before, spool up for the go around case isn't the reason or a factor.

 

The reason is that the F100-PW-200 has a slightly better throttle response at higher RPM, hence with the boards speed control is a tad easier.

The -220 and the F110-GE-100 the difference is basically negligible.


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It works yesterday I landed on RWY 4 in Beirut (7445 x 145) not using the displaced threshold

10 or 11 AOA gives a little better flight control response on approach

I used to fly at 13 AOA but right now any reduction in throttle exceeds AOA and unstabilizes me

Like a former viper instructor once said you can extend the speedbrakes beyond 43

The catch is three point attitude and extend the speedbrakes not automatic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

LUCKY:pilotfly::joystick:

Computer Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6-Core 3.4 GHz| GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 6Gb | RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3000 MHz | OS: Win 10 64 bit | HD: 500 Gb SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that 13° is already the upper limit.  Flying the approach at 11° and slowing down to 13° for touchdown is perfectly fine.

 

I don't understand what the catch is with the three point attitude? 

Lowering the nose should be controlled with the wheel brakes while keeping the stick fully aft.

 

 

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do it but I don’t


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

LUCKY:pilotfly::joystick:

Computer Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6-Core 3.4 GHz| GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 6Gb | RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3000 MHz | OS: Win 10 64 bit | HD: 500 Gb SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...