Looking for gouge? Ask your Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation here (Part 1)

[HeyJoe]

....who cares about airspeed?)

They're all related so you have to care about all of the parameters. You do care about airspeed and so does LSO controlling your approach. The Approach Indexor is going to be red in your cockpit and on your nosegear if you get fast. In the Tomcat, power was indeed used for glideslope corrections (as well as later version of DLC) while stick was used for airspeed corrections. Rate of descent is also important in scan as well as AoA, lineup and watching the ball (glideslope).

 

[whitesoxnation]

They're all related so you have to care about all of the parameters. You do care about airspeed and so does LSO controlling your approach. The Approach Indexor is going to be red in your cockpit and on your nosegear if you get fast. In the Tomcat, power was indeed used for glideslope corrections (as well as later version of DLC) while stick was used for airspeed corrections. Rate of descent is also important in scan as well as AoA, lineup and watching the ball (glideslope).

Thanks. I was just figuring that if your at proper pitch, glideslope, and rate of descent then its implied that your airspeed will be where it should be.

 

[PropAddict]

AOA approaches

....who cares about airspeed?)

Expanding Heyjoe's answer:

L=0.5*rho*(V^2)*S*(CL)

CL=f(AoA); more explicitly, CL~2*Pi*AoA + k

Once we're on final, we won't monkey with the flaps, slats, etc. so S (planform area of the lifting surface, read: wing) is fixed, as is the lift curve slope (approx 2*Pi for a thin airfoil in the linear portion of the curve). We're not changing altitude all THAT much, so air density (rho) is constant.

So, in order to keep a nice, constant rate of descent, L=W, meaning that can be assumed constant too. We are assuming it's not a Hornet whose time rate of change in weight is astronomical, owing to fuel consumption.

So what parameters can we monkey with to keep or alter descent rate? CL and V, with velocity being the only one we can directly measure in the cockpit. CL being controlled solely by AoA, for which we have a handy indexer on the panel.


BUT, and I only mention b/c your post sounded like you were thinking this way, AoA is not Pitch. You can be tricked into thinking they are largely the same or similar, but you would be wrong and likely kill yourself (see "Stick and Rudder" by Langewiesche, basically the whole friggen book is about this concept). B/c of this, you might forget that AoA is determined by the vector resolution of the relative wind, caused both by your forward airspeed and your vertical airspeed. So, if you just hold pitch and descent rate, and neglect airspeed, it could wander on you, which will throw AoA off.

Also, pitot static instruments are less laggy and usually better calibrated (larger scale) than your AoA indexer, so you'll be able to see the movements sooner and correct. So bottom line, airspeed is key to a good AoA approach. Leave it in your scan.

 

[BACONATOR]

Engineering Words

Please stop. There's a reason I'm now training to be a Navy Pilot with an engineering degree. If you can't figure it out, it's because I DON'T WANT TO BE AN ENGINEER!

 

[whitesoxnation]

So, if you just hold pitch and descent rate, and neglect airspeed, it could wander on you, which will throw AoA off.

I don't see how if you are at constant pitch and a constant rate of descent your airspeed could wander without a change in pitch/rate of descent though...

L=0.5*rho*(V^2)*S*(CL) ..... if your at a constant rate of descent and pitch, wont lift stay the same? Density and wing area are constant... and CL will too because CL=f(AoA) which is going to be pitch/rate of descent... which are both constant (in what I'm saying)

So airspeed would stay constant?

 

[e6bflyer]

Formulas and shit

Alright, this USED to be the STUPID questions about Naval Aviation thread. If you want to be Mr. Wizard, take it to your own thread. A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed for the OP's question.

MOVE ALONG!!

 

[HeyJoe]

Yea thats actually the video that got me wondering what it was, pretty funny. How come Tomcat guys rag on Hornets so much, other than the fact that they're not Tomcats?

It's like the Arab saying about the tribe...you rag on each other in the Ready Room, but bond together against sister squadron (when there was such a thing in Tomcats), but bond together against other Tailhook communities, but bond together as Tailhookers against non Tailhook community, but rally together against Marines, but come together as Naval Aviation against the Air Force.

The origin of backlash against Hornets came from decisive meeting in Pentagon when funds for LANTIRN to keep community going as a viable member of Air Wing was being discussed. Out of the mouth of a Hornet guy came "Any dollar spent on a Tomcat is better spent on a Hornet!". At the time, funding for Tomcat LANTIRN was a drop in the bucket compared to massive bill for Hornet Common Configuration and many programs were becoming IV bottles to help fund that effort. So began the backlash....

 

[DanMa1156]

Another thing I noticed on Carrier, when they were doing those pitching deck recoveries, they had some tankers go up because of all the bolters. However, one of the tankers (the last one to land) was the CO of VFA-41 as he relieved one of his more junior pilots right before flight. Question is, regular "F" model Superhornets can be configured to the tanker role? Wasn't this role for the "G" model Growlers or what? I wasn't even aware that the "F" models could be configured that way.

 

[PropAddict]

Tanker

Both the E and F model Super Bugs can be configured "5 Wet" for tanking hops. Not sure, but with all the fixed external stores, I'm betting the G won't be able to do tanking.

 

[Flash]

Another thing I noticed on Carrier, when they were doing those pitching deck recoveries, they had some tankers go up because of all the bolters. However, one of the tankers (the last one to land) was the CO of VFA-41 as he relieved one of his more junior pilots right before flight. Question is, regular "F" model Superhornets can be configured to the tanker role? Wasn't this role for the "G" model Growlers or what? I wasn't even aware that the "F" models could be configured that way.

The F's can and do tank, here is the proof:

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141828

As for the Growler, I would be fairly certain that it would have the capability to do the tanking mission. It is not intended as the primary or even secondary role of the aircraft, she is an Electronic Attack platform. The question would be if they would be used in such a role. There are going to be fewer of them, 6 in a squadron, vs the normal two squadrons worth of E/F's in an CVW, 20-24 total. There was a similar situation with the ES-3's. From talking the ES-3 guys, they were rarely used for the tanking mission, since there were usually only two on board and they had other missions. But they were used occasionally in the tanking role, I saw CVW-5 do it.

So, I would guess that it would be up to the individual CAG's. I think more often than not they would be thought to be too 'unique' to be used in that way.

 

[Flash]

Both the E and F model Super Bugs can be configured "5 Wet" for tanking hops. Not sure, but with all the fixed external stores, I'm betting the G won't be able to do tanking.

The only fixed external stores that I am aware of are the wingtip pods, the jamming pods can be, and are often, removed.

 

[PropAddict]

AoA Approaches

So airspeed would stay constant?

If we set a nose attitude, pwr setting, rate of descent, trim it all out perfectly (esp the long period phugoid mode), and have absolutely no wind or air currents, then yeah, seems to me airspeed would be constant. However, never gonna happen in the plane. "Gust Loading" is a big culprit (winds and air currents pushing you around), as are the inputs from us stick monkeys, trying to get on centerline and stay there. Every bump on the ailerons knocks CL and CD out of whack. And that phugoid mode will monkey with your rate of descent, so we constantly make the adjustments. The easiest/earliest way to see the trending is usually the airspeed. Just flying the red green chevrons is a pretty reactionary way to do it, where you're basically always behind.
My earlier post was a bit oversimplified to answer your question; my bad.

 

[nittany03]

The only fixed external stores that I am aware of are the wingtip pods, the jamming pods can be, and are often, removed.

Can't speak to the G, but if one had an engine failure in the Prowler, one would be very very grateful for that step in the boldface:

External Stores - EMERGENCY JETTISON

That's pods, tanks, HARM, everything off the jet. It's necessary to get climbing away in some climes (read high and hot). And mandatory in any case unless good headwork dictates otherwise.

 

[Brett327]

The F's can and do tank, here is the proof:

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141828

As for the Growler, I would be fairly certain that it would have the capability to do the tanking mission. It is not intended as the primary or even secondary role of the aircraft, she is an Electronic Attack platform. The question would be if they would be used in such a role. There are going to be fewer of them, 6 in a squadron, vs the normal two squadrons worth of E/F's in an CVW, 20-24 total. There was a similar situation with the ES-3's. From talking the ES-3 guys, they were rarely used for the tanking mission, since there were usually only two on board and they had other missions. But they were used occasionally in the tanking role, I saw CVW-5 do it.

So, I would guess that it would be up to the individual CAG's. I think more often than not they would be thought to be too 'unique' to be used in that way.

Like Flash said, the aircraft is physically plumbed for it, but I can't imagine a situation where the G would do tanking. In fact, I doubt if the buddy store is even certified for the G. As an aside, I toured the Boeing E/F/G production line in St Louis on friday - pretty amazing stuff. We saw the first production G take off, park the nose up ~60 degrees and disappear into the ether. It's due to be delivered to 129 in Whidbey in a couple weeks.

Brett

 

[HeyJoe]

Another thing I noticed on Carrier, when they were doing those pitching deck recoveries, they had some tankers go up because of all the bolters. However, one of the tankers (the last one to land) was the CO of VFA-41 as he relieved one of his more junior pilots right before flight. Question is, regular "F" model Superhornets can be configured to the tanker role? Wasn't this role for the "G" model Growlers or what? I wasn't even aware that the "F" models could be configured that way.

You need to get out more...during first deployment for VFA-14/VFA-41 in their Super Hornets during OEF (late March), two VFA-14 F/A-18Es (configured as tankers) and two F/A-18Fs flew ahead of USS Nimitz (2700+ nm flight) to USS Abraham Lincoln where they flew tanker and FAC (A) missions. When USS Nimitz arrived on station in April the Hornets returned to USS Nimitz. Sinc ethen, E and F model Super Hornets have had the capability and G hasn't even deployed yet.

VFA-32 Super Hornets (2 configured as tankers)