When working on the RFN gauge integration into the next vLSO version I've noticed certain inconsistencies in OLS-wires placement on different carriers, namely on the Acceleration and Javier's CVN68.OLS hereinafter means the Acceleration embedded FLOLS.
Well, I googled a blueprint of the Nimitz and then compared it against the two models:
First thing that you will notice is that the Acceleration model is smaller and loosely reminds the real ship, while Javier's carrier almost perfectly matches the blueprint, which seems to prove that his model is the most accurate. However, the most significant difference (not visible at first glance) is that Javier's OLS and crossdeck pendants are shifted to the stern. Also, you can notice different spacing between wires - the green crossdeck lines above show Acceleration wires and the OLS datum line, the yellow lines show Javier's ones.
This zoomed view displays these differences in more details:
Then I placed an airplane on the deck of these carriers in a position 'on glideslope' to see where it should touch the deck.
|'On gideslope' ball as seen from the cockpit|
|The Acceleration - right on wire #4|
|Javier's - well past wire #4|
Is there a carrier with correct wires-OLS positions, one might ask? Yes, there is. The Team SDB CVN65 in configuration with the default FLOLS. The 'on-glideslope' position on this carrier matches wire #3:
Another comparison screenshot proves that. The green line corresponds to wire #3 of the Big-E.
So, what's the point? What all this means for us? Well, it means that even flying on the ball you shouldn't hope to catch wire #3 on existing Nimitz models. Otherwise you should intentionally fly low at the ramp...
As a workaround you can use the RFN gauge, but in this case you shouldn't take the OLS into account and fly RFN needles exclusively.
====== EDIT ======
The Aerosoft CV63 Kitty Hawk utilizes a RFN gauge (with its inherent precision). You can see that when flying on the ball you should land right in front of wire #3: