Fox One

The flight manual says aerodynamic braking is not recommended. It doesn't say aerodynamic braking is not possible, even pulling the stick fully aft. The first video link in this thread clearly shows IRL aerodynamic braking can be done nicely. However in DCS when landing with full flaps aerodynamic braking is not possible, even if you quickly pull the stick fully aft. Just not possible, even if you land with close to zero fuel and remove gun ammo. Obviously, in DCS F/A-18 there is still some stuff that is not accurate in the flight model. However in the sim aerodynamic braking is possible if you land with HALF flaps. So the error in the flight model might be flaps related. With full flaps some data in the flight model is probably incorrect.

I'm sure most people here remember exactly the same discussion taking place when DCS Fw 190 D-9 appeared. One of the developers posted a factory drawing of the windshield saying they used that for the model, and model is 100% accurate and everybody is wrong to criticize the now famous "cockpit bar". What I find amazing is that developers really don't seem to understand that the forward-downward visibility angle through the gunsight reflector is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. This angle is already pretty small for most WWII fighter aircraft. And the developers appear to think reducing the angle by 50% is really no big deal!!! I have the Fw 190 D-9 module but I don't have (yet) the A-8. In the day it was released I was curious how the cockpit looks like and I searched youtube for videos. When I saw the "cockpit bar" blocking half of gunsight's reflector glass area below the central cross I was really shaking my head in disbelief! They did it again! And it appears that is actually worse than in D-9. During the internal testing of the module nobody was bothered by this? Nobody noticed that you can't hope to shoot down anything except an aircraft in linear flight? Of course the real aircraft was designed so that the ENTIRE gunsight reflector glass is unobstructed. It's common sense. I see there is even video proof of this, posted somewhere else on the forum. I hear that simulating refraction in the simulator is not an option because it would hurt performance. The developer's solution? They decided there is no solution! The solution was really obvious but nobody bothered. When designing the cockpit model they should have DEVIATED from factory drawings of the real aircraft. Make the cockpit bar lower/thinner, or move the instrument panel sun shield together with the gunsight higher, or a combination of both. I don't know exactly how it should have been done, I am no 3D modeller and I don't know in detail the geometry of the problem. But definitely the geometry could have been modified in a graceful way so it appears like a close replica of the real one and the gunsight is unobstructed.

I haven't flown the Spitfire for more than a year. Tried it today and honestly I am shocked this problem is still not solved. This is not something of little importance. Really nobody is bothered by this? Developers included?

MiG-29 engine RD-33

Yes, I have also tested Su-27, Su-33 and F-15. Ground effect is not simulated.

Yes, I tested it using the method described here https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2901404&postcount=2 If I remember correctely, I maintained 280 Km/h during the test with minimum fuel remaining. I switched on the flight information bar in the cockpit to be able to maintain the speed precisely.

That is most likely because, unfortunately none of the FC3 aircraft has ground effect implemented (demonstrable fact). If ground effect was implemented, in MiG-29 for a given AOA at touchdown the speed would easily be like 15 Km/h lower.

As has already been said here, the MiG-29 flaps is a "floating" type - the extension angle depends on airloads. Nothing really new - MiG-21 and -23 have floating flaps too. The diagram for MiG-29 flaps below shows that above 460 Km/h flaps will start to gradually retract. Below 460 Km/h its deflection angle is maximum, 25 deg. They also show typical lowering and retraction speeds for the flaps, suggesting that during normal, routine operation of the aircraft at takeoff and landing the flaps usually doesn't have the "chance" to float.

Right cockpit panel with dimensions:

Yes. MiG-29 has only up and full down (25 deg) trailing edge flaps positions and this is clearly described in RL manuals. The reason in cockpit there is a flaps control panel with 3 buttons - this is an old control panel type that is also used on MiG-21 and -23. On most MiG-29 built they simply didn't bother to change it. http://hunavia.freeweb.hu/TYPE/MiG-29%20base/MiG29UBCOCKPITIDNo27/photos/photo4.html In this picture is front cockpit of MiG-29UB two-seater. This is most likely a later-built aircraft and the flaps control panel was changed with two buttons, but the flaps system of MiG-29 and MiG-29UB is of course identical and always was with only up or down positions.

In the attached track, I take off with 100% fuel in full AB. At the beginning of the takeoff run I pull the stick completely. Watch the aircraft from outside at 1/4 speed. The nose gear lifts off the runway at 75 Km/h. The aircraft has so much desire to rotate even at such ridiculously slow speed, I actually have to push the stick to stop the nose up motion. By the time the speed reaches 130 Km/h, I'm already at the required 10 deg standard takeoff pitch attitude, with the stick pushed completely! I'm not saying the real flight manual says to pull the stick completely on takeoff. It doesn't. But the behavior I described above is laughable. There is no supersonic aircraft of any era that can be rotated on takeoff at 75 Km/h. Not even close. I know when the axial air intakes open at 200 Km/h there is a nose down moment and an additional stick pull is necessary to maintain the pitch, this is described in the real flight manual. In simulator the additional stick pull is moderate and I see no problem here. But in the attached track I tried to maintain precisely 10 deg pitch during takeoff run and immediately after getting airborne. The feel of the aircraft in pitch is incredibly wobbly. As if it has almost no angular inertia. Several very fast control inputs are necessary but precise pitch control is close to impossible IMO. And no, it's not a matter that I don't use enough curvature on pitch axis. I use much much more curvature than I usually do on fast jets, but it's still kinda in vain. 29TO.trk

When we will be able to aerobrake like that? Right now after touchdown with minimum descent rate, even if stick is pulled fully aft as fast as possible, the nose gear still goes down quickly. Something is really off in the flight model.

The test (track attached): With 30% fuel and no external stores, I fly horizontally at 240kts. The required engines rpm is 74%. Then I lower landing gear and increase the rpm to 94% to keep the speed constant at 240kts. So in order to compensate for landing gear drag the engines rpm must be increased by a shocking 20%. For 2 engines in this class, an increase in rpm of 20% means an increase in thrust for both engines of SEVERAL TONS. You need something like a Concorde landing gear to have a drag of several tons. MiG-21 in reality typically extends landing gear and fly the circuit at 500Km/h. If the F-18 with gear down needs 94% rpm to fly horizontally at 450Km/h, the MiG-21 should need afterburner to fly horizontally at 500Km/h with gear down. The good thing is that for F-18 in simulator at typical approach speeds landing gear drag seems resonably low. Out of curiosity I performed tests with Su-33 and F-15, I extended landing gear in horizontal flight at 500Km/h and increased rpm to keep the speed constant. For both aircraft the required rpm increase was about 5%. gear drag.trk

@Vatikus Can you please provide a link for that document? Thanks

The last MiG radar that used conical scan for locking was MiG-21's RP-21. RP-22 from MiG-21bis is monopulse. MiG-23M, MF radars naturally are also monopulse. Even R-23R missile seeker is monopulse. MiG-23M, MF radars - monopulse, inverse cassegrain antenna MiG-23ML, MLD, P radars - monopulse, twist cassegrain antenna

From Su-27 flight manual:

I just checked the flight manuals I have (MiG-21, -23, -29) and for all they say the pilot before landing flare should look left and down to visually estimate the height. The MiG-21 and -29 also have landing lights pointing slightly to the left (demonstrable fact). On MiG-31 landing lights are also pointing to the left, see picture. The purpose of this is not for the pilot to admire the landscape left of the aircraft during landing approach when he is at 100m altitude. The purpose is to aid the pilot in visually judging height immediately before and during landing flare. And it's not like the left side is bright from the lights and in front of the aircraft you have a big and fat darkness. The lights are pointed to the left just a few degrees, IRL they are illuminating left AND forward. So MiG has built for decades aircraft with landing lights pointing slightly to the left but, BREAKING NEWS, Sideslip finds it a very strange design choice.

On real aircraft, the radar altimeter value is displayed on HUD with 10m increment. The 1m increment is a gameplay compromise. So IRL you don't have the luxury of knowing radar altitude down to the last meter. When you land, after you see 10m on HUD, the next value displayed will be 0. Sure, you could try to look at cockpit instrument for a more accurate reading when below 10m, but I very much doubt IRL anybody is looking low on the instrument panel during landing flare at night.

Instantaneous performance of the Su-27, I never said it is not accurate as I have never tested it. Now that people have tested it, it's great that is really close to the chart. What I have tried to explain in this thread (and I'm still trying unsuccesfully :D) is that the pitch control is too slow. Like, waaaaaaay too slow, not a little slow. The fact that when Su-27 is at 24deg AOA the turn rate is accurate is great. What I am saying is that when the stick is pulled quickly, it takes too long until aircraft reaches max AOA (or max G, depending on conditions). This post shows visually very well what I mean: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3253965&postcount=1 The difference in response in LJQCN101's videos between the two aircraft is absurdly large. Contrary to what some believe, the difference is not because of the canard on Su-33. Look how fast and animated the stabilizer on Su-33 is, on Su-27 it barely moves. Su-33 has a much much faster pitch response, despite the aircraft is heavier.

Actually there is no problem. Silly me I was using a "free flight" mission I made a long time ago and I am continuously modifying it. As soon as I started flying Su-33 in a new mission, I discovered the angles were saved and all is good :)

AFAIK for US armed forces refueling in a turn is not some rare & extraordinary event. In Su-33, I noticed when pressing Lctrl+R in cockpit both the refueling bar switch and FCS refuel mode switch are animated. I don't see any reason why the pilot in real aircraft couldn't leave the FCS refuel mode switch off if he desires so. Refueling in a turn in Su-33 is difficult because you are pretty much fighting the autopilot, at least that was my impression when I tried.

Thanks