They are actually working on some version of a PLM. Think of more of a PLM light called Improved Landing Mode. The idea will be to use the rudder system for the AR variant with some old fashioned PFM. The jury is still out though.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
No more CQs?
- Thread starter phrogdriver
- Start date
They are actually working on some version of a PLM. Think of more of a PLM light called Improved Landing Mode. The idea will be to use the rudder system for the AR variant with some old fashioned PFM. The jury is still out though.
Maybe not that system precisely, and I might be completely wrong on this, but I could've sworn that I've seen contractors advertising fully automatic approaches and landings for the 60 and I think there are some version of Army helos that actually do have that system. 60s are not fly by wire. I would think if a helicopter could have it where there are far many more flight control variations, a non-fly-by-wire aircraft could too.
Maybe I'm missing your point entirely.
Many airline aircraft are not fly-by-wire and have autoland systems. It would seem to me that it could be done without fly-by-wire if the Navy wanted to spend the time and money to develop a system for the E-2. Might mean new autopilots and flight computers.
It can be done for mechanical flight controls, it's just more expensive and harder. 60 automatic approach is an example of what can be done with mechanical controls and I'm sure you could do something higher fidelity with an AFCS. Of course USN 60s are already set up with inner loop type inputs. Not sure what the E-2 has. With an infinite budget it could certainly happen on an E-2; but there probably isn't the same incentive that there is for hornets (life cycle management is my guess).
Yikes.
FWIW, an automatic approach (ACLS Mode 1) =/= PLM. Completely different animal. Among other things, PLM is continually varying the amount of lift the wings produce by moving LEF/TEF. This would be hard to pull off with a non-living wing.
Go watch the video again of a jet landing with PLM and pay attention to the movements of the flight control surfaces and try to listen to the lack of sound changes with the engine because the power levels are relatively unchanged
Interesting to hear. I'd heard not too long ago that they were remaining PA CAS for the foreseeable future. IMHO this is a good choice.
Very true. But I think a guy that has vertigo, is dog tired, or has shitty weather at the boat, simply wants SOMETHING to help him make it to midrat sliders. An old fashioned Mode 1 may not be magic, but it works pretty darn well and has saved lots of assses over the years. Can a Hummer even latch up a Mode 1 today? Couldn't in my day. I was flying a night in NORPAC when we took two other Hoovers and two Intruders to Adak. The E-2's options were land or bail out in February arctic waters. Finally flew a manual pass into zero zero at the biggest deck in the BG. I bet he wished he had Mode 1. E-2 pilots always had a rep for a steady hand behind the boat. They are being set up for unique bragging rights in TACAIR.
Official word came two weeks ago from Airboss. Cone PLM is live (thankfully so).
E-2 cannot hook up to Mode 1. Mode 2 through ACLS or Bullseye. And on several of the RAG birds, a Mode 3. We are a little low on parts and money to fix it.
Last edited:
God forbid you fly the jet. Granted we’re all probably better off in your case you boujiee bastard
There's a lot of "ifs" and "mays" in that article . . . those closer to the problem can talk to its feasibility, but it sounds like something that's still pre-decisional other than the RUMINT about Big Navy's decision to axe touch-and-go CQ.
It also seems to handwave away a lot of the burden that'd end up on VAW-120 and the E-2 squadrons, but again, I'll let folks who've actually flown an E-2 comment on that.
I will put on my old man hat and say that if the Goosehawk is now the toughest thing to bring aboard in the Fleet, you fuckers have it easy.
It sounds fairly certain that they are not going to have “carrier capable” as a KPP in the new trainer. I’d heard that probably a year ago, separate from this article. From that premise, the rest follows pretty easily.
There's a lot of "ifs" and "mays" in that article . . . those closer to the problem can talk to its feasibility, but it sounds like something that's still pre-decisional other than the RUMINT about Big Navy's decision to axe touch-and-go CQ.
It also seems to handwave away a lot of the burden that'd end up on VAW-120 and the E-2 squadrons, but again, I'll let folks who've actually flown an E-2 comment on that.
I will put on my old man hat and say that if the Goosehawk is now the toughest thing to bring aboard in the Fleet, you fuckers have it easy.
Yes, this burden being passed to the E-2 RAG is not going to be fun. There have been multiple recent examples (Class A, hook-slaps, etc.) highlighting that an E-2 or C-2 is not a friendly aircraft to muscle aboard the boat. There is only so much defensive posturing/positioning a CAPC in the right seat can do.
This issue coupled with the introduction of Night Form and AR to CAT-1 syllabus is going to mark the next few years as uncharted territory to work through.