Hey @Schindibee if I have evidence for underwing fuel tanks for the F4J should I make a suggestion for them to be added or should I just do a bug report?
I think there have already been reports about this. External fuel tanks are not finished yet I think, for many vehicles. Also the F-5’s for example use only one type, the more commonly seen type (especially for F-5E) are not (yetè) modelled.
hmmm ok
What is your landing technique?
If you are worried about vulnerability:
- Approach runway at a safe altitude for abortion.
- When ~1 km away, dive down to 500 meters and fly over the centerline or slightly askew. I prefer flying askew (parallel) because in SB I can look out and watch the runway. In SB, note compass heading.
- When crossing runway treshold, power to idle (0%), airbrakes if you have them.
- Keep plane level at 500 meters and coast until 600 km/h if in a 3rd gen jet or better. If propeller plane or koreanwar/earlier, coast until half-way down the runway.
- Hard left/right turn as appropriate to environment, keep sink/climb under 3 m/s or whatever units your display uses.
- When parallel with runway again, drop gear/flaps/apply power as appropriate, retract airbrake as appropriate. You ideally want to sit ~300-400 km/h if in a jet depending on wing style, flaps and so forth. You may begin descending from 500 meter altitude
- When either tailplane (straightwing) or wingtip (swept or delta) crosses runway treshold, begin to turn onto runway while maintaining at least 300 km/h.
- When aligned with runway (you’ll be about ~300-500 meters out if not less if you did everything right), manage power and pitch to bleed speed to just above stall speed (~+20-+30 km/h safety margin) and once ~50 meters RALT, reduce sink speed to less than 5 m/s in navy plane, 3 m/s if army plane. If you notice stall onset, pitch nose down rather than apply power.
This landing approach has never failed me using F3H, F2H, F8E or Kfir c10.
This landing approach gives you the ability to abort landing and begin evasive maneuvers until the final turn at step 7.
Main reason you can get navy plane landings at almost twice the sink speed without gear failure is that you don’t flare on touchdown to ensure you trap your hook exactly where you want. Flaring risks floating which risks overshooting, which you counter by using afterburner.
For carrier landings in jets, Growler Jams has some good explanations:
Time to reduce that deceleration for realism: That Korean crash has prove for us that belly landing is worse than using gears. Tin vs runway is worse tha Rubber vs runway!
my worrying isnt landing its rearming takes way to long i get strafed or missiled on runway sometimes by f104s for example who can just run through airfield aa
and shortning landing times allows for quicker re arms
It could be a thing to have the hook only come down if you’re severely damaged or have any “black damage”
well most brakes in this game are unrealistic F16 can stop way faster if it full sends its breaks but because IRL air force pilots dont use breaks as hard as it wears them out quicker which so gaijin model breaks to be weak but you get new plane every game so it shouldnt matter
1 Like
i did a little reasearch so i was off 300 is high but some planes can land faster if neccesary F15 can land at 200 mph with its tail hook
Could just add a 10 second “penalty” for using it or something
Sure. So naval planes or at least those with hook can stop quicker.
Otherwise test flight is the only place you get to use them.
but IRL wouldnt enemy aircraft that close to the airbase be enough of an “emergency” to warrant using arrestor gear like that?
I dont think that is an intended use case. An example that comes to mind from a book i’ve recently read was a German Tornado IDS which needed to use the arrestor wires because of a hydrolic failure. Though they had to be very careful and actually break the rules of the airfield they were landing at because if they hadnt, they would have landed with a tail wind that would have resulted in massive damage to the aircraft due to being well above the max speed tolerances. Forcing them to land in the other direction which was what was against the rules.
No. And catching a cable will make any recovery operation longer than just landing normally.
Absolutely not.
a) if you have enemy aircraft close to your airbase, that airbase is probably lost, and it would be wiser and healthier to divert to another, still safe airbase (if possible).
b) Turnaround time is easily 45-60 minutes in a combat aircraft, saving 5 seconds with a arrested landing will save you nothing. The Gripen may be very fast in that, but also will ned at least 10 minutes to be ready to fly again. And for the A-10 it takes already about half an hour to just reload the Avenger’s 30 mm ammo.
c) And finally as has been stated a cable arrested landing will actually make that runway inoperable for a much longer time (aircraft needs to be secured, cable wound back up,…).
Thinking that arrested landing on an airfield is a good idea makes really only sense in game mechanics where fuel and weapons appear magically after a extremely unrealistic time on your aircraft, and for the sake of keeping at least a minimal level of authenticity and immersion, should not be the case. If you really are in a situation where your brakes don’t work (…which isn’t even modelled in WT…) or need to come in fast (IRL e.g. because of an engine failure, as you then need any energy reseve you might still have and come in faster than normal), you can just as well belly land and let yourself be repaired, as you need repair anyway.
2 Likes