MAVs Hit or Miss?
-
Havent checked it for BMS but as I understand it this is not the case IRL.
…having been involved with the shooting a few real ones, I can assure you that it is. Unless MAVG behaves much differently from MAVF. AFAIK G/F/E variants all fly the same, though.
-
Ive not been involved in the shooting of any mavericks, so no comparisons of how it flies from personal experience on my part sadly!
I had assumed the missile lofted itself automatically. A rather old HAF -34 mentions that the max bank angle for employment is based on the missiles loft, as it is fixed in bank angle - if you roll 180 degrees inverted, and fire the missile, it will fire, but it will also ‘loft’ itself down towards the ground. Similarly rolling into 60 degrees of bank before firing will cause it to loft on more of a horizontal angle rather than the desired vertical angle.
From that, I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that its lofting was mechanically based, rather than computerised. Otherwise, you would think it would be able to correct the loft for other bank angles than 0. Although, I suppose I can think of any number of reasons why it might not be able to.
-
The laser Mavericks I hear don’t G-bias possibly due to lack of ranging input. The others should but close range it’s nearly direct. There was an autopilot trajectory option around the G model introduction for the purposes of keeping it low(er) under clouds. Depending on the launch parameters (speed, range, dive angle, slant angle) and exact model and how the autopilot is programmed the G-bias could be subtle to non-existent. Low, slow, level, and far should produce the most noticeable loft.
The autopilot loft is a “G-bias” system which explains why mostly upright is required.
-
I once “tried” to hit a power station upon missing a moving tank with a MAVF shot in another lifetime…fortunately the missile couldn’t make it that far…'cause it was live…so I got to become somewhat “educated” on the subject of G-bias post-op. “G-bias” is a bit misleading in what it actually involves.
As I recall it’s actually purely a question of geometry to target at launch. If I had to guess (and I do…) I’d think that position of the GPI in the keyhole - depression below horizon - at launch has something to do with it. I only recall from that particular shot that that was our problem - we were too low to the deck - and that a higher altitude at our shot range might (would…) have made all the difference in that the weapon would not have lofted. Over the years since I’ve always kept this in mind as a safety item.
-
Makes sense. The control loop could try to drive the missile nose so the tracked LOS vector was some controlled amount below nose as a function of horizon distance (on horizon = pull up, nose high = freeze the offset, nose low = point directish) and LOS rate. As the tracking rate increased that could be a signal the missile is close and to give the intentional offset a rest.
Or even simpler just have the pointing cross depression at launch be maintained which would produce a semi-ballistic arc starting at value and driven to zero as range decreased (say using LOS rate as a closure meter). So a dive FPM on target would be no pointing cross depression and a straight shot. A level 25 degree depressed shot would curve over similar to a bomb arc. This simpler idea doesn’t account for the low boresight delivery arching though.
I could see how it would be more “angle bias” than “normal acceleration bias” but given that name because of the effective result.
I read a story about a pure vertical moonshot break lock that caused some level of concern on the range.
-
So the maverick wont shoot itself up a little ways to get a top/down aspect of the target, or is that only at lower altitudes? I think that’s what I read in the tactical referenced section. All I know is that when I rippled those two I mentioned in my earlier post, I could see the first one burning towards its target off my nose, the other one just seemed to burn straight into the ground.
Adam
Jet Lag -
I think (nothing to back this up) that it has to do with your AoA when you fire. If your absorbed in the MFD and you let the nose of the jet drop, you could be pointing downward and causing the missile to pull up just after launch. If this is the case, the targeting cross will be in the topmost section of the keyhole. Really, for the best PK (for me anyway) is when the targeting cross is level with or just below the pointing cross while still in the keyhole.
-
Not so much your AOA, but your dive/climb angle - that, and where the missile is on the tree have the most effect on the seeker look angle wrt the intended target. The lofting doesn’t have anything to do with “getting a top down look”, it has more to do with optimization of range for the weapon.
BTW…rippling IR MAVs is about totally unrealistic. BMS may let you do it, but…
-
The aircraft capability is not unrealistic. BMS is also tactic agnostic in that regard.
-
Makes sense. The control loop could try to drive the missile nose so the tracked LOS vector was some controlled amount below nose as a function of horizon distance (on horizon = pull up, nose high = freeze the offset, nose low = point directish) and LOS rate. As the tracking rate increased that could be a signal the missile is close and to give the intentional offset a rest.
Or even simpler just have the pointing cross depression at launch be maintained which would produce a semi-ballistic arc starting at value and driven to zero as range decreased (say using LOS rate as a closure meter). So a dive FPM on target would be no pointing cross depression and a straight shot. A level 25 degree depressed shot would curve over similar to a bomb arc. This simpler idea doesn’t account for the low boresight delivery arching though.
I could see how it would be more “angle bias” than “normal acceleration bias” but given that name because of the effective result.
I read a story about a pure vertical moonshot break lock that caused some level of concern on the range.
As I mentioned the lofting has more to do with optimizing the fly-out based on the shot geometry - think about arcing a basketball based on where you are on the court…same principle, pretty much.
…that may even have been my moon-shot…we did do it at night…was it off a Harrier?
-
The aircraft capability is not unrealistic. BMS is also tactic agnostic in that regard.
I’m talking about the weapon, not the aircraft. Lots of aircraft will let you do lots of things you’re not really supposed to do…so people just don’t do them.
-
Not so much your AOA, but your dive/climb angle
Thanks for fixing my mistake!
This is in fact what I meant, rather than what I wrote. I would imagine in a real jet you have some sense of equilibrium that keeps your dive angle in check while heads down, but sometimes I nudge the stick forward and don’t realize it until I see the targeting cross moving into the higher portion of the keyhole. :roll:
I haven’t tried hand-off yet, and not sure if it will help me much anyway. Weapon as sensor seems to be fine for me, and probably less workload. I do, however switch to the TGP when I’m egressing to asses the target.
-
This is in fact what I meant, rather than what I wrote. I would imagine in a real jet you have some sense of equilibrium that keeps your dive angle in check while heads down, but sometimes I nudge the stick forward and don’t realize it until I see the targeting cross moving into the higher portion of the keyhole. :roll:
You might be surprised on that one. Fastest fighter ejection to happen was an F-15 that ended up in a vertical dive during night BVR practice due to a HUD failure. Guy was flying along, supposedly straight and level… aircraft felt sensitive though, and there was a whistling noise on the canopy… checked the backup ADI - pointed straight down, crossing 10,000 feet. Check HUD - not responding to roll inputs - check ADI - responds to wing inputs. Crap. Ejected faster than the speed of sound… and due to the ejection decision coming crossing 10,000 feet, the chute only opened about a thousand feet off the water.
Issues with equilibrium are a significant portion of civil and (I assume) military human factors training. The short version is that the human body was not designed to fly, and its internal sensors are poorly equipped for it because of that.
-
Thanks for fixing my mistake!
This is in fact what I meant, rather than what I wrote. I would imagine in a real jet you have some sense of equilibrium that keeps your dive angle in check while heads down, but sometimes I nudge the stick forward and don’t realize it until I see the targeting cross moving into the higher portion of the keyhole. :roll:
I haven’t tried hand-off yet, and not sure if it will help me much anyway. Weapon as sensor seems to be fine for me, and probably less workload. I do, however switch to the TGP when I’m egressing to asses the target.
Yeah…it all depends on your visual field, in our case. The greater you can fill your periphery the more sense of motion you get. Weapon as sensor is the way it’s mostly done, given that you need to be closer for the shot anyway. Check all of the IRMAV shot videos you can find on U-toob, they are very instructive as far as using the real thing goes - first thing you’ll note is that nobody ever fires more than one…hint-hint. The TGP will get you into the area but the weapon has to finish the job and I should think that doing a radar dez and slaving to that then taking a MAVG lock might be a better way to go for longer range funneling in, frankly.
-
You might be surprised on that one. Fastest fighter ejection to happen was an F-15 that ended up in a vertical dive during night BVR practice due to a HUD failure. Guy was flying along, supposedly straight and level… aircraft felt sensitive though, and there was a whistling noise on the canopy… checked the backup ADI - pointed straight down, crossing 10,000 feet. Check HUD - not responding to roll inputs - check ADI - responds to wing inputs. Crap. Ejected faster than the speed of sound… and due to the ejection decision coming crossing 10,000 feet, the chute only opened about a thousand feet off the water.
Issues with equilibrium are a significant portion of civil and (I assume) military human factors training. The short version is that the human body was not designed to fly, and its internal sensors are poorly equipped for it because of that.
That’s a crazy story Blu, hope the dude survived, but given the circumstances I somehow doubt he did. I got my private pilots license a few years ago and did some instrument training after that, and I your 100% right, humans are not equipped to fly. Its frightening how fast you can end up in a bad situation with no outside visual reference and listening to your body instead of reading your instruments. :neutral:
-
You make a fair point Blue, but I would say that in your example that it was also the pilots sense that something was amiss that saved his life (if he survived a +mach ejection). But I do get your point. I guess it’s more of a thing that occurs when visual cues are absent. When I’m using the Mavs as the sensor, the picture is smaller and I have to lean in closer to the MFD cutting down on my FOV. Of course, when I’m leaning closer to the MFD is when I sometimes put in a little forward stick without even noticing it. I just figured there was a more “seat of the pants” feel to actually flying an airplane, than a desk.
-
Oh, it gets crazier - not only did the guy survive, he even flew fighters again afterwards, despite grievous injuries you would think would stop you flying ever again.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/insaddle/insaddle.htm - theres an account of it here.
Its one of the big things they drill at the club - DO NOT get into IMC. If you get into IMC as a VFR rated pilot… trust your instruments above all else, and PRAY.
Theres a video I appreciate on the topic, entitled ‘178 seconds to live’ -
I understand the figure comes from a study where they got a number of VFR pilots and had them fly in a full motion simulator under IMC. The average survival time was 178 seconds - although it was much lower if you exclude a few outliers. One guy survived for over an hour, and another for nearly an hour.
In BMS, with our infalliable HUD, it becomes rather easy to scoff at things like instrument cross checks, and human factors like ‘the leans’. Probably the closest thing to worry about in BMS is the situation described above, where you are heads down doing TGP or WPN page operations, not paying attention to the nose of the aircraft. I suppose that is one excellent reason for the attitude awareness indicator in the FCR.
You make a fair point Blue, but I would say that in your example that it was also the pilots sense that something was amiss that saved his life (if he survived a +mach ejection). But I do get your point. I guess it’s more of a thing that occurs when visual cues are absent. When I’m using the Mavs as the sensor, the picture is smaller and I have to lean in closer to the MFD cutting down on my FOV. Of course, when I’m leaning closer to the MFD is when I sometimes put in a little forward stick without even noticing it. I just figured there was a more “seat of the pants” feel to actually flying an airplane, than a desk.
The sense of it being amiss was reportedly due to the few times he had been transonic in the trainer aircraft (I think it was the T-38?) he had flown, he had felt that ultra sensitivity of the controls, and that whistling sound on the canopy. Something to consider is that that sensitivity cue would not be present if he had been flying an F-16, with its FLCS inputs being designed to remain the same across the majority of the flight regime. Make no mistake, I am certainly not advocating assuming your instruments are always correct! Failures can happen, which is part of the purpose of your cross check - do your instruments all agree with each other? So you do need to assess the information you have available. What I am saying, and I am backed up by a lot of sources on this, is that a lot of the sensations your body generates in flight are useless for gauging what the aircraft is doing, and that you cannot fly the aircraft on feel. You have to have instruments - and if one fails, you have to be able to identify that failure, and exclude it from the check, while interpreting the other instruments to make up for that.
I would not want to rely on being able to ‘feel’ a descent while being heads down. If you are heads down, glance left or right to the center pedestal to check your flight instruments every so often. 10 to 15 seconds works for me. Mostly. My second to last flight, I recall ending up in a serious descent due to being padlocked on the TGP. Its easy to happen in the sim, but I dont think in that specific case, that you have any extra physical cues to warn you in the real jet, either.
-
You do have to practice…and scan, scan, scan…
…I was having a session in a trainer once and one of my “friends” leaned over and told the operator - “I’ll give ya $5 if you can make him puke”. And as usual, from desk flying the first thing I did airborne was to try and use the Trim hat to change views…forgetting I was in a full cockpit trainer (muscle memory is also a b…)…so I was fairly out of trim when the operator slammed me into a cloud deck shortly after takeoff. Because I was blind and out of trim I did a left had roll in the goo…or two…before I got almost upright in the semi-clear and centered my trim, but was still leaning left. At which point the operator threw me into another could deck and I rolled over again…this time I actually scanned the HUD and realized that I needed to roll right to get to level fastest…but knew that if I rolled right that was going to puke…so I did another left hand 360-ish to upright and hit the burners and climbed out before he could slam me again. Once I could see the world again I was fine.
-
I really have to make my POV a trim hat. Its rather useful to have obviously…
-
I fly the OS X version of FAF on my iMac and use a utility called ControllerMate to program controllers like my Warthog stick, Saitek pedals, and a modified Cougar throttle. Using ControllerMate I have set up an interface where commanding double CMS->down in .5 sec changes my Trim hat between Trim and POV functions…very, very handy at the desk with a single monitor.
I’ve also done several other things - proportional toe brakes by rigging key repeat rate to pedal throw, command ejection by holding CMS-down + pinky, and centering trim by double tapping the Weapon Step/NWS switch.
I really, REALLY, REALLY, wish there was a version of ControllerMate for the PC…it would make a lot of the interfacing work for my Viperpit build a lot easier.