Bluedog

No problem Cap'n - all a bit of fun as far as I'm concerned. I doubt if anyone was aggrieved, except maybe the guys that believe in Skydemons.:smilewink:

Interesting but sounds a bit "anecdotal". Any firm details available? My apologies for straying off the topic but statement like that is just aching to be challenged. (Those only interested in P51 tail-wheels look away now) With respect, I'm skeptical on several counts: Firstly, (and from the description as Swedish and jet trainer, I'm assuming it's the Saab 105) the aircraft would have been designed/developed with fairly benign handling qualities in mind. It would have been rigorously tested by the company test pilots. Now, these self-same test pilots would have completed an experimental test pilot course; and one of the prime considerations drilled into these pilots would be to assess and test aircraft with the intended role in mind; and the lowest common denominator of aviator likely to fly the particular aircraft also in mind. In this case it would have been assessed as a training aircraft and the LCD would be a marginal pilot. So, the test pilot, even though his flying skills might be above the average he would have "looked" at the aircraft from a flying instructor's and a student pilot's viewpoint. This doesn't mean it would be foolproof - something might slip through but anything nasty and out of the ordinary would most likely have been picked up. Likewise, before introduction into service, I'd assume the aircraft would also have been assessed by similarly trained and similarly focused service test pilots before handing it over to the end user. The same rules would have applied. The training school instructors would also have gained considerable experience on the aircraft before putting it in the hands of student pilots. Of course the student pilots would have been under strict supervision by the instructors and worked through specific sequences; so presumably if there was a serious problem with the aircraft in student pilots' hands it would have most likely shown up when Cadet Prune mishandled the aircraft during dual training. And think of what the particular airforce would have done if it lost several aircraft all at once and all flown by student pilots. So a course of 10 students loses 5 aircraft (and their lives) within in a few months. Maybe it was a course of 20, or 30; who knows. Think of the hue and cry. In any event the aircraft would have been grounded well before those several aircraft bit the dust. Certainly the Swedish airforce would have done so; but perhaps it was the Elbonian airforce. Or perhaps it was due to SkyDemons: see here: Just to make sure, I did a Google search on the topic. Nothing found.

An inadvertent contradiction in terms, perhaps?:smartass:

Well, I've done a whole swag of reading trying to understand the issue (yes, I've read and re-read the posted reports etc) but I cannot find any specific reference to how movement of the CG (ie change in static margin) will affect roll rate. Not that we can assume that my failure to find a reference proves the theory wrong - I'm prepared to accept that. It's just that if it is the cause for a dramatic reduction in roll rate (I'm working on vague mention of 40 deg/sec at "cruising" airspeed), then surely it would be applicable to similar "stretching" situations and be a well known and well documented characteristic. The best I could find are a couple of references stating that CG movement has little or no effect on lateral stability but has an effect on directional stability in the usual sense. The weight of evidence.......? The other factor is that comparing Anton to Dora may be akin to comparing apples with oranges. Now I admit I know practically nothing about either aircraft; I have no firm data on such things as CG ranges, mass distribution, fuselage/wing/horiz & vert stab/control surface sizes/areas, power & propeller characteristics/ and whatever else would be needed to make a worthy assessment of whether the two aircraft are or are not comparable (and even if I did have that info, the exercise would be well beyond my capabilities). But let's assume they are comparable: The anti-rolling moment slowing the roll rate of the Dora must come from somewhere. The dominant factor is roll damping but I'm guessing the contributions will come from the usual culprits which might include prop wash: engine torque, yawing motions, mass distribution within each aircraft, and control system characteristics (and the all encompassing "etc"). I'm also guessing that if the static margin has an effect would only be a minor contributor, not the main cause. But then again I might be wrong. I'm happy to be shown otherwise - I'm that kind of guy. A second opinion would be nice; is there a real aerodynamicist in the house? What might be interesting is to compare roll rate under clinical conditions for a representative aircraft (doesn't have to be FW190) at a significant forward CG and then at a significant aft CG to find out if there is a dramatic change in rate of roll due to movement of the CG.

Moderator says desist - so I have!

Still can't see it. I think you're reading too much into the graphs, but thanks anyway. Point taken, Sobek, I'll back out. Regret asking the question in the first place.

Sure, and thank you for the explanation and I can see how that applies to longitudinal stability. However, I still don't see how it applies to roll rate. Surely the aircraft will roll around its roll axis and will therefore be largely (or even totally) unaffected by fore or aft movement of the CG. To my way of thinking the roll rate will be dependent on the degree of aileron deflection and span location of the aileron. Or am I missing something?

I'm no aerodynamicist, so I don't understand why forward movement of the CG should have an effect on the roll rate. Could you explain, please.

So..........I want to purchase A-10C and fly in DCS World. As I see it I can either download from the DCS website or on Steam. Is there any difference? Which do I go for?