F-102 and F-106 Cockpit

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

Hi,

 

I'm currently playing a NF4 F-106 campaign and I found it difficult to see the runway when I land. I'd rather say impossible...

I know that there is many F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart pilots who find those planes awesome (I'm amongst them).

 

But how do you manage the lack of visibility ahead?

[Guest rscsjsuso5]

don't know but for me unconventional way is to press the ins or del key on keyboard as i don't want to mess with cockpit datas. fly with cockpit then press either del or ins key probably tk made this feature available for some use of some sort for us .

 

enjoy your weekend

[Slartibartfast 153]

I sometimes land those wonderful beast with the Technical landing term SWAG method... Scientific Wild Ass Guess...

 

I generally land gently nose up wheels down... Seriously though the view out isn't great and I have spent a lot of practice on landing the jet F-102 in FSX as well as SF F-106 SF find a decent approach speed around 170 knots wheels down and just ease it in... but its best to keep up the practice until you are comfortable. But you should know your okay on landing if you can see the top third of the tower on approach... well it works for me sometimes other times as crazy as it sounds its a feel thing...

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Never really had a problem myself, perhaps try a curved aproach much as you would use with a carrier?

 

Craig

[FastCargo 412]

In reality, the F-102 and F-106 vis out the front when landing was simply not that great. For all intents and purposes, every landing was a no-flap landing...which means for delta wings, you have to have a fairly high AOA relatively speaking once in the flare.

 

Speaking as a person who's done more than their fair share of no-flap landings without being able to actually see in front of me...it can be done consistently.

 

FC

[mppd 16]

I once read a little blurb from a fighter pilot about flying computer simulations - he said that he tried to fly as much as possible without the cockpit details showing, as it seemed to simulate his concentrating outside of the cockpit more as he would be in the real airplane. I always felt no shame in hiding the cockpit momentarily in those moments when I needed a bit more visibility - you can't sneak a peak to the side or raise your seat a bit higher in front of the monitor like you might be able to in the real deal...or even stick your head out the window in some nose-high recip types.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mppd

[Fubar512 1,350]

Visibilty (or lack of same) is only 20-30% of the "experience"....the rest is tactile feel and depth perception, and there's no practical way to simulate that today.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

In AircraftObject.ini you can raise the LookAroundHeight value. This controls the change in view when you look around in the cockpit. This simulates pilot head movement or pilot lean which can shift your view inside the cockpit. Below, the F-106 is *exactly* on runway centerline, and I look left and this allows some view forward and I can see the white stripe on the runway directly in front of the plane. Its a challenge learning to fly like this, as it should be. I made the classical era junkpile above the radar by rotating the gunsight since I don't use it anyway in gunless early Darts.

 

LookAroundHeight=0.08 below. Details here, scroll down half way ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4410&start=168

 

 

[UnknownPilot 33]

Lexx, what cockpit is that? My F-106 cockpit has the 102 style sight above the big around radar screen, which enables me to actually see ahead of me, unlike what appears to be in that pit there.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

czech the link for details, I tweaked Kesselbrut's pit a bit.

 

If you like it, I'll look up the rotations and stuff I made.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Well.... well done for the mod effort. But I don't really understand why. Any interceptor, or for that matter anything capable of carrying a gun, needs a sight, and some means of seeing over the nose and dash.

 

I have seen some F-106 pits (real pics) that do have that sight tube and look like what we have in game. If the USAF missiles of the era had been as effective as their Navy counterparts (and they used the AIM-7, rather than the radar homing version of the AIM-4), then maybe I could see allowing a view to be obscured like that, but as it stands, it's just lunacy (that it happened I mean, not your particular pit mod).

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

Here's a screenshot of my latest landing.

It was a good landing and I watched the VOR to keep the runway alignement.

I guess it will become easier with more practise...

Thanks for the answers

_

[MiG Master 2]

Well.... well done for the mod effort. But I don't really understand why. Any interceptor, or for that matter anything capable of carrying a gun, needs a sight, and some means of seeing over the nose and dash.

 

I have seen some F-106 pits (real pics) that do have that sight tube and look like what we have in game. If the USAF missiles of the era had been as effective as their Navy counterparts (and they used the AIM-7, rather than the radar homing version of the AIM-4), then maybe I could see allowing a view to be obscured like that, but as it stands, it's just lunacy (that it happened I mean, not your particular pit mod).

 

Great visibility wasn't considered necessary for the F-102/-106's intended role, which was to be bomber interceptors. The pilot was more of a systems supervisor as the plane could be controlled from the ground by GCI (Gound Control Intercept). Most Soviet interceptors were the same way, until the MiG-29 and Su-27 were introduced. Likewise, the AIM-4 was adequate for taking down bombers. It should be remembered that the Sparrow was also initially meant to be a bomber-killing missile and had terrible accuracy against small, maneuvering targets like fighters in its early Vietnam incarnations. Plus, it might have been more work than it was worth to modify the F-106 to carry AIM-7s.

 

The F-106 did not have a gun initially, either. After Vietnam, some F-106As got a Vulcan cannon along with an optical gunsight and a new canopy with the overhead bracing removed, but it was still a bomber interceptor first and foremost. Finally, material strength and molding techniques may not have been good enough to make a braceless bubble canopy that could stand up to Mach 2+ speeds at the time the F-102/-106 were introduced.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Yes, thanks for trying to enlighten, however that is all pretty apparent from just a cursory glance at the history.

 

My comment was more...... "existential", if you will. A rhetorical comment/question posed to the designers, and the people who laid down the criteria for them to follow, who clearly missed the boat. Just another fighter that could have been so much more than it was, hampered by bureaucracy and tossed away without seeing it's potential.

 

Also, it was basically saying that what we have did exist, so I'm happy staying with it. :)

[macelena 1,070]

You ever heard of "ear-parking"? Well, ear-landing is the same, useful when poor visibility. Go instrumental, until you hear "Crank" or "Screeek". This means you made contact. Then you might get under control or pray so you have a zero-zero able seat