"Any dollar spent on a Tomcat is better spent on a Hornet!"
Still better than the CNAP who told the HC-3 (46 FRS) CO that he would trade our entire community for another F/A-18.
Further proof that the truth hurts.
"Any dollar spent on a Tomcat is better spent on a Hornet!"
He must have meant ATARS on the F/A-18D...
.....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.
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.
I really hate to rain on your ..." L=0.5*rho*(V^2)*S*(CL) .... CL=f(AoA); more explicitly, CL~2*Pi*AoA + k " .... parade, but:
Do you have time for a question?? How many carrier landings did you say you have ... ???
Since you don't have the foggiest idea how to fly/land aboard USS BOAT using AOA or anything else ... your suggestions make one wonder what all those fools who thought that you could do it w/ "meatball, line-up, angle-of-attack" were thinking all those years, anyway ....
Here -- I have a suggestion for you that will help you in your quest for Navy Wings:
Why don't you STFU and quit trying to "instruct" things you don't have a clue about ... Mr. 1390 ??? You know the ol' drill; eyes & ears OPEN, mouth SHUT re: how to fly in the Navy ??
Or better yet -- when/if you ever get to CQ -- make certain that when you "brief" your CQ class and the LSO's on the proper way to fly the ball in the pattern and at the BOAT -- you tell 'em that the AOA is superfluous and to watch the A/S so you won't be making any "reactionary" corrections on the ball.
You'll really impress one & all --- it will be very jolly.
Good grief. Sometimes ... I really, really weep for the future of Naval Aviation ...
A4s: Since it appears he's a "Prop Addict" and P-3 bound....he will never "know" the joy you describe....
Why is it that ATC's on the carrier are enlisted, but NFO's in E2s do something similar as officers? What do they do that is so different? Does a hand-off happen between the Carrier ATCs and the E2 NFOs? At what point? I hear the new class of carrier isn't going to have a super structure and depend on E-2s totally for ATCing.
sorry for the drunk ramble incoherent post, but the boys are in town and I'm getting married on Friday!
Why is it that ATC's on the carrier are enlisted, but NFO's in E2s do something similar as officers? What do they do that is so different? Does a hand-off happen between the Carrier ATCs and the E2 NFOs? At what point? I hear the new class of carrier isn't going to have a super structure and depend on E-2s totally for ATCing.
....We do have a limited capability for ATC-type functions, i.e., the HCA or Hummer-Controlled Approach, but that's for when CATCC is broken or the Boat's in EMCON....
\The E-2 is never airborne during all flight ops and if you're suggesting that the presence or absence of a superstructure (island, if that's what you mean) is going to somehow eliminate the CVN's ability to employ some kind of air surveillance radar, well, that's also just silly. Where did you hear such nonsense?
Brett
Brett
Uncle Fester said:Whoever gave you that bit of wisdom about the Ford class has been reading too many shitty war novels. Note big boxy thing on the starboard side below.
Ahhhh ... there's your first mistake. Listening to engineers ....... Some new guy engineer type that I went to high school with years ago was telling me this stuff (and more) .....