Carrier landings in SF2 Atlantic

[Boresight]

Previous post EDIT:

 

"Them" - the active carrier lights at night.

[CowboyTodd41]

Well, judging from the general opinions about the game creator "TK" on several sites, and with the all respect for his work, I'm going to take a chance:

 

Because he didn't bother to place them on the game.

 

If anyone knows best, please tell.

 

No you pretty well nailed it.

[+Fubar512]

[+MigBuster]

Placed with coordinates? What are you using to generate the lights? 

[+Fubar512]

Placed with coordinates? What are you using to generate the lights? 

 

I'm using the same method that I did to enable the navigation lights on the Handymax tanker.

[+MigBuster]

Will down load and have a look 

[Boresight]

By the way, I'll take this thread to post another doubt, wihtout having to open a new similar thread:

 

Does anyone has advice on the procedures to do a reasonable F-4 Phantom II landing on carriers?

 

It's because, although I've managed to do it, I find the lack of symbology aid (typical to the F-4) somewhat difficult to help landing this bird.

 

Thank you.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Boresight

[Z09SS]

Here's the sight picture you want to get the correct angles on the F-4.

 

 

 

Angle confirmed in a different landing, got the camera where the LSO platform is.  A line from the wingtip lights through the aux-inlet doors confirms the Phantom is on speed.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Z09SS

[Boresight]

Hello Z09SS,

 

Thank you for your time.

You've chosen to post night pictures, and on the 2nd. pic the flight deck's height isn't much noticeable.

( One only gets an approximate idea of it's height, through the parked helicopter. )

 

From the first pic and captions, I see your landing procedures are a bit based on the AoA lights.

I on the other hand, always try to keep visual track of the carrier, even if that means not being always on optimum AoA.

 

I always try to follow an imaginary glide slope (and not a straight, parallel course, directly do the flight deck), and try to maintain the carrier at the bottom of my ' HUD '.

 

However the lack of a " flight path marker " on the F-4 Phantom II, does difficult landing procedures.

 

What's your typical carrier landing speeds for an F-4, with low internal fuel and clean configuration?

Edited September 29, 2013 by Boresight

[CowboyTodd41]

What camera co-ordinates do you use for the LSO position?

[Z09SS]

What camera co-ordinates do you use for the LSO position?

 

I flew to almost landing.  Paused.  Went to the outside view of the plane then zoomed in and out and and moved it around until I had the angle I wanted.  Then took a screen shot.

 

I think my speeds on approach are in the 130-140 range.  I was mostly concerned with flying a "real" approach and trap.  I wanted to see if I could get the AoA indicators amber and get the plane on deck while still seeing it.  That's why I have the view in wide screen and looking up so the boat is just barely above the slip bubble in the gunsight.

 

This was after routinely coming in too low and too flat, but seeing the deck with the climb-descent gauge marking the bottom edge of my view.  That method works too!

[Boresight]

Hello Z09SS, (and anyone who wishes to answer),

 

Thank you for your reply, and I do believe your method works too.

 

However, how do you manage to see the carrier (even with the view in wide screen and looking up), with approach speeds in the 130 - 140 range?

 

It's because, I've tried with a REALLY light F-4J Phantom II (no external stores whatsoever, and almost no internal fuel), and still, much bellow 150 knots and the aircraft would start to sink bellow glide slope.

Again, just like on your landings - observing the carrier just barely above the slip bubble at the combining glass.

 

EDIT: by the way, is your flight model set to HARD at the options menu?

Edited October 1, 2013 by Boresight

[Z09SS]

Flight model is set to HARD.

 

I'll double check my speeds.  I wasn't really paying attention to them because the AoA indexer is supposed to have you on speed if you're on slope and lined up.

[Z09SS]

First.  I've been flying Air Force planes too long, I am R-U-S-T-Y!

 

Double checked the speed.  153 kias with the ambers lit.  I think I was remembering the lower speeds from the Tomcat or Intruder.

[Boresight]

Hello,

 

Ok, that makes more sense to me, as the Phantom's flying characteristics gave him a reputation of a "flying brick".

And the Phantom's SF 2 flight model does depict well that reputation.

 

Hence my curiosity on the Phantom's carrier landing speeds.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Boresight

[turkeydriver]

Hello,

 

Ok, that makes more sense to me, as the Phantom's flying characteristics gave him a reputation of a "flying brick".

And the Phantom's SF 2 flight model does depict well that reputation.

 

Hence my curiosity on the Phantom's carrier landing speeds.

The brick nickname comes from learning to ACM with the bird, its actually quite good around the boat and much easier to land than the F-14. The flaps (blown?), slats, and landing config make it very stable on the glidescope. I love the way the F-14 acts BTW, TK did a great job with the "dutch roll" of the nose at low speed, and the inability to quickly get power back on if you backed down too much.

[Boresight]

The brick nickname comes from learning to ACM with the bird, its actually quite good around the boat and much easier to land than the F-14. The flaps (blown?), slats, and landing config make it very stable on the glidescope. I love the way the F-14 acts BTW, TK did a great job with the "dutch roll" of the nose at low speed, and the inability to quickly get power back on if you backed down too much.

 

Hello turkeydriver,

 

Actually, as I mentioned some posts back, it makes me very confused how the early F-4 versions (with just a gunsight reticle on its combining glass) might be much easier to land than the F-14.

 

I know, it's been said back there, that Phantom's "felt like flying on rails when approaching the carrier" or something like that, and I believe it.

I also feel the Phantom seems more stable, less prone to oscillating and changes of flight path, than the Tomcat.

 

However, in terms of the pilot's guiding the aircraft to the carrier, don't you feel that the lack of a flight path marker (velocity vector, whatever) is a major handicap?