Great video. The pause with the powerpoint to describe what you're doing is great. And active pausing to describe what we are seeing in the hud is useful. More!!!
after many many tries of the "traditional" way (the tutorial one), i've just tried this method and achieved a better and smoother landing than before :)
This is just wrong in so many ways. Initial speed is too high, landing configuration is set on downwind, you talk about fixed speeds on the final, in the Hornet it is all about being on speed AoA. Speed depends on your weight. Max touchdown vertical speed should not exceed 750 f/m and no need to flare like you did. Why ´´teach´´something that is completely off the books..
I totally agree with lars. I understand that it's your "...own technique of the overhead break". But, I'm not really sure what aircraft you're teaching.... No pilot will want to pull a 6g overhead break just to land. That's a lot of force on on a pilots body. The most efficient way to land in a Hornet is on speed AOA with full flaps way back in the downwind leg. Not at the last minute in final. There are so many things wrong with your technique. It's easier to use a TACAN with a Course line and not a just a waypoint. Don't put out a video to teach something that's totally inaccurate. Do some research first. You'll avoid embarrassing yourself.
@@eltonaa Not really sure what the point of your comment is. But I appreciate that you took the time to watch and criticize the video - that is after all what makes this community so great. I just wish to clarify a few points: 1) this is simply a technique that I use and it is obviously non-standard - you don't need to do it at 6g and 600 kts - as stated, I am simply demonstrating a rule of thumb in combination with a technique, you can easily do it at 400kts and 4g break instead. 2) you mentioned the "most efficient way" - I disagree that going full config is the most efficient in the downwind - you are going to be dragging yourself around the pattern like this. Although, I do agree it is extremely safe and effective as everything happens much slower and gives the pilot more time to correct to the ideal profile. I think you may be confusing the most efficient way vs. the standard way to land. I do agree though that the Hornet is designed to fly on speed AoA approaches - but my argument (as stated in the video) is that if you have 10,000 ft of runway why pound it in the ground? 3) using a TACAN with a course line will only work for this technique if it is co-located with the runway threshold - hence why a custom point is preferred (as it gives you accurate data to touchdown), as the TACAN is usually canted or not located directly on the touchdown point. 4) The technique that I am mirroring here is similar to technique that is done IRL and although it is non--standard - it is not totally out to lunch like you and Lars claim. I will leave the link to the article and video at the end of this comment so you can do some research and avoid embarrassing yourself. theaviationist.com/2020/04/24/hud-footage-of-an-f-a-18-hornet-performing-600-knots-7-4g-carrier-break-for-trap-landing/
so many things off, flying over the runway instead of next to it, speed should be 350 and alt 800, turn to 1g of speed until parallel to run way while coming down to 600 ft, flaps down and wheels down on downwind leg when at 250 speed, then trim pitch up a bit and roll power as needed to stay at 600 ft with the E bracket centered. Finally when turning base its a steady 30 degree bank while losing some more altitude to be around 450ft by the time your 90 degrees into the turn. The Hornet literally flies itself if you put it on the E bracket instead of yanking the stick to force the velocity vector where you wanted. when you did that on final you plane was rocking up and down. Your fighting the plane. You could've easily brought the velocity vector with throttle down while being on the E bracket.
Hey Jdogs, thanks for watching the video. I agree there are for sure some things that could be cleaner - especially with what you mentioned about the e-bracket - you are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I do mention that at 12:50 that this is my own personal technique and is not the preferred method. what you described in the first paragraph (minus the bit about flying next to the runway instead of over it - not sure where that comes from, only time i have ever seen this done is when your leading a formation and you position so the wingman flies over the runway instead of lead) is literally a textbook overhead break. That is exactly how it would be flown in a training environment down to the numbers. Instead, I demonstrate here that it is very possible to be far from the ideal and still make the OHB technique work by applying a few rules of thumb and visualizations. Firstly by coming in at top speed - it forces me to configure and turn at the same time as to not get stretched from the airfield (and this is a direct result of 1) coming in too fast and 2) not pulling enough G in the break), but configuring on speed imo is more important than configuring based off of a geographic location (i.e.: downwnd). For example, one reason you may want a higher speed while at initial is if you need to avoid enemies near the AF - thus minimizing the timing they would have to engage you effectively. This is further echoed by staying tight to the airfield and accepting a configuring in the base turn, as to avoid flying off to timbuktu and back near the enemy while waiting for the speed to bleed. Food for thought. I appreciate your comment and look forward to some discussion! Cheers.
Great video. The pause with the powerpoint to describe what you're doing is great. And active pausing to describe what we are seeing in the hud is useful. More!!!
after many many tries of the "traditional" way (the tutorial one), i've just tried this method and achieved a better and smoother landing than before :)
glad you found it helpful!
This is just wrong in so many ways. Initial speed is too high, landing configuration is set on downwind, you talk about fixed speeds on the final, in the Hornet it is all about being on speed AoA. Speed depends on your weight. Max touchdown vertical speed should not exceed 750 f/m and no need to flare like you did. Why ´´teach´´something that is completely off the books..
you are absolutely correct and i agree with everything you said. this is just a technique that i found effective as mentioned 12:50 to 13:18
I totally agree with lars. I understand that it's your "...own technique of the overhead break". But, I'm not really sure what aircraft you're teaching.... No pilot will want to pull a 6g overhead break just to land. That's a lot of force on on a pilots body. The most efficient way to land in a Hornet is on speed AOA with full flaps way back in the downwind leg. Not at the last minute in final. There are so many things wrong with your technique. It's easier to use a TACAN with a Course line and not a just a waypoint. Don't put out a video to teach something that's totally inaccurate. Do some research first. You'll avoid embarrassing yourself.
@@eltonaa Not really sure what the point of your comment is. But I appreciate that you took the time to watch and criticize the video - that is after all what makes this community so great. I just wish to clarify a few points:
1) this is simply a technique that I use and it is obviously non-standard - you don't need to do it at 6g and 600 kts - as stated, I am simply demonstrating a rule of thumb in combination with a technique, you can easily do it at 400kts and 4g break instead.
2) you mentioned the "most efficient way" - I disagree that going full config is the most efficient in the downwind - you are going to be dragging yourself around the pattern like this. Although, I do agree it is extremely safe and effective as everything happens much slower and gives the pilot more time to correct to the ideal profile. I think you may be confusing the most efficient way vs. the standard way to land. I do agree though that the Hornet is designed to fly on speed AoA approaches - but my argument (as stated in the video) is that if you have 10,000 ft of runway why pound it in the ground?
3) using a TACAN with a course line will only work for this technique if it is co-located with the runway threshold - hence why a custom point is preferred (as it gives you accurate data to touchdown), as the TACAN is usually canted or not located directly on the touchdown point.
4) The technique that I am mirroring here is similar to technique that is done IRL and although it is non--standard - it is not totally out to lunch like you and Lars claim. I will leave the link to the article and video at the end of this comment so you can do some research and avoid embarrassing yourself.
theaviationist.com/2020/04/24/hud-footage-of-an-f-a-18-hornet-performing-600-knots-7-4g-carrier-break-for-trap-landing/
so many things off, flying over the runway instead of next to it, speed should be 350 and alt 800, turn to 1g of speed until parallel to run way while coming down to 600 ft, flaps down and wheels down on downwind leg when at 250 speed, then trim pitch up a bit and roll power as needed to stay at 600 ft with the E bracket centered. Finally when turning base its a steady 30 degree bank while losing some more altitude to be around 450ft by the time your 90 degrees into the turn.
The Hornet literally flies itself if you put it on the E bracket instead of yanking the stick to force the velocity vector where you wanted. when you did that on final you plane was rocking up and down. Your fighting the plane. You could've easily brought the velocity vector with throttle down while being on the E bracket.
Hey Jdogs, thanks for watching the video. I agree there are for sure some things that could be cleaner - especially with what you mentioned about the e-bracket - you are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I do mention that at 12:50 that this is my own personal technique and is not the preferred method.
what you described in the first paragraph (minus the bit about flying next to the runway instead of over it - not sure where that comes from, only time i have ever seen this done is when your leading a formation and you position so the wingman flies over the runway instead of lead) is literally a textbook overhead break. That is exactly how it would be flown in a training environment down to the numbers. Instead, I demonstrate here that it is very possible to be far from the ideal and still make the OHB technique work by applying a few rules of thumb and visualizations.
Firstly by coming in at top speed - it forces me to configure and turn at the same time as to not get stretched from the airfield (and this is a direct result of 1) coming in too fast and 2) not pulling enough G in the break), but configuring on speed imo is more important than configuring based off of a geographic location (i.e.: downwnd). For example, one reason you may want a higher speed while at initial is if you need to avoid enemies near the AF - thus minimizing the timing they would have to engage you effectively. This is further echoed by staying tight to the airfield and accepting a configuring in the base turn, as to avoid flying off to timbuktu and back near the enemy while waiting for the speed to bleed. Food for thought. I appreciate your comment and look forward to some discussion! Cheers.
Ha ha, there it is!