OK, OK, OK - I'll change the wind direction! Cross-wind indeed - 5 kts!!
I'll also see if I can persuade DCS to align all the runways on the map to the same direction, so that we don't have cross-wind on the airfields. Then if we can just stop those nasty red fighter from being mean to us etc, etc etc......
Tuesday 16th June 2020
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
Wing Commander Alan Johnson - RAFAir UK
- john (scooby)
- Posts: 1910
- Joined: 31 May 2018, 15:40
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
cough zero wind would solve it coughFlyco wrote: ↑19 Jun 2020, 18:53 OK, OK, OK - I'll change the wind direction! Cross-wind indeed - 5 kts!!
I'll also see if I can persuade DCS to align all the runways on the map to the same direction, so that we don't have cross-wind on the airfields. Then if we can just stop those nasty red fighter from being mean to us etc, etc etc......
Sqn Ldr (Scooby) Burton RAF Air UK
XI(F) Sqn 2ic
XI(F) Sqn 2ic
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
The book says you need 25 kts along the deck, but some of the wimps complain that the boat "shakes" above 20 kts and all the aeroplanes fall off it!
Finally, the Tarawa deck is aligned with its keel. Which do you want into wind the Tarawa, or the big ships? I'll accept a democratic vote.
Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean that you're not all out to get me.
Finally, the Tarawa deck is aligned with its keel. Which do you want into wind the Tarawa, or the big ships? I'll accept a democratic vote.
Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean that you're not all out to get me.
Wing Commander Alan Johnson - RAFAir UK
- Neil Willis
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2940
- Joined: 27 May 2014, 14:44
- Location: West Midlands
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
If it's possible, I'd suggest we have a little wind, (say 10 knots) preferably straight down the F-16s runway so those guys can fly effectively with their wheels on terra-firma, and aim the carriers into wind and give them a speed of 15 knots for the carrier to provide 25 knots over the deck, and whatever headwind component is needed by the Harriers dialled in to their headway to keep them happy and vibration free?
Seems to me that would be the best compromise until the F-16 lateral grip issues are sorted, and the Harriers get used to the breath taking speed of over 10 knots+ on the briney!
Seems to me that would be the best compromise until the F-16 lateral grip issues are sorted, and the Harriers get used to the breath taking speed of over 10 knots+ on the briney!
Group Captain Neil Willis - RAF Air UK
- john (scooby)
- Posts: 1910
- Joined: 31 May 2018, 15:40
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
Set the carrier to 500 knots and see what happens
Sqn Ldr (Scooby) Burton RAF Air UK
XI(F) Sqn 2ic
XI(F) Sqn 2ic
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
OK, for the approaching Northern Clout, the wind is set to align with the F-16 runway (Sukhumi - 116 T), and the carrier force are steaming on that heading.
The above is true the rest is pure fantasy - no - really - it is.
This, of necessity, means that the landing strip on "Abe" and "George", are going to be around 9 degrees less than the wind direction. I spoke to the captains, and they explained that the laws of geometry cannot change this, unless they put into port and have their decks rotated around 9 degrees clockwise - they also pointed out that the catapults are also not aligned with the ships' fore-and-aft axis.
Finally, I should point out that unless the carriers come to a stop for recoveries, the approach path will also align with neither the ships course, nor the landing strip - bloody geometry again I'm afraid.
I understand that the Harrier guys are cock-a-hoop, but asked whether their targets could be aligned with the carrier, so that they would not have to turn at all during their take-off - IP - target. They are still discussing whether they can make it round the world to land back on, or whether they should hover until the carrier catches up and passes them so that they can land in the same straight line.
The above is true the rest is pure fantasy - no - really - it is.
This, of necessity, means that the landing strip on "Abe" and "George", are going to be around 9 degrees less than the wind direction. I spoke to the captains, and they explained that the laws of geometry cannot change this, unless they put into port and have their decks rotated around 9 degrees clockwise - they also pointed out that the catapults are also not aligned with the ships' fore-and-aft axis.
Finally, I should point out that unless the carriers come to a stop for recoveries, the approach path will also align with neither the ships course, nor the landing strip - bloody geometry again I'm afraid.
I understand that the Harrier guys are cock-a-hoop, but asked whether their targets could be aligned with the carrier, so that they would not have to turn at all during their take-off - IP - target. They are still discussing whether they can make it round the world to land back on, or whether they should hover until the carrier catches up and passes them so that they can land in the same straight line.
Wing Commander Alan Johnson - RAFAir UK
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
I can easily resolve the problem, remove the pesky F-16 from the missions, the drama of a simple suggestion and the inquisition that follows is not worth the effort.
We talk about all inclusive missions yet nothing I read here and in other threads indicates this is remotely possible or even wanted. We talk of one thing yet support another.
We talk about all inclusive missions yet nothing I read here and in other threads indicates this is remotely possible or even wanted. We talk of one thing yet support another.
Flight Lieutenant Steve "maggsy" Maggs - RAFAir UK
Re: Tuesday 16th June 2020
As for the harriers
We all used to landing on the carriers with extreme cross winds , not a problem there .
We all used to landing on the carriers with extreme cross winds , not a problem there .