Maverick Su-35S

Hi, As I've been playing with the K4, I've started testing the gyro effects driven by the spinning propeller on the BF-109K4 and found out that when it's completely stopped or stuck, the gyro effect becomes tremendous, where in fact it should be null. Now as most of the prop plane pilots might know, when you have a yaw or pitch rate and especially when you reverse it you should notice that a commanded pitching effect will unavoidably induce a yawing effect and vice-versa. This effect, combined with the P-factor effect (which is purely aerodynamic) will tend to counter each-other (i'm not going through these details..., who has the knowledge or likes to understand it, can tell) when pulling-pushing the stick or snapping the rudder, but the gyro effect is mostly dominant above the P-factor in all cases. So, in reality, if there would be no P-factor, then the gyro effect would have an increased amount, but only when the propeller spins...! There should be no gyro effect at all (cause there's nothing to create it) and even more no word of P-factor effect (this one tends to become infinitely low when the prop's pitch is low and should be non-noticeable even with the prop in high pitch). With the prop fully stopped, the whole plane starts swirling in pitch and yaw just the way both the P-51 and FW-190 do as well when the prop doesn't spin. Please verify this cause this has nothing to do with reality. Here's a track regarding all that I'm saying: [ATTACH]120616[/ATTACH]

As long as you unlock the tail wheel and use diff braking, just a little bit of power is needed to turn as you desire, with stick in any position. And yes, the airflow from the propeller can be felt quite well if you apply power at the right moment while the tail wheel is unlocked. For example, the plane is rolling slowly at about 10-15km/h and with the tail wheel unlocked you press right brake pedal and induce a yaw (towards the right it would be better, because when you apply throttle it will naturally tend to yaw left, thus making it harder to see it otherwise)..., now as the yaw rate increases (because the CG of the plane is behind the main gear's touching point on the ground) you should apply full opposite rudder and power, with NO brakes, and you'll see how it responds to your input. The 109 is pretty heavy compared to other smaller prop planes that react almost instantly in yaw due to prop effects on their deflected rudder and this also matters even more for a tail wheel plane as compared to a free castoring with 3 main gear plane, so the differences can be quite big. The only problem that disturbs me and makes me pull my hear off is the grass that has infinite grip and smashes your face into the ground in no time if there is a tiny amount of beta/sideslip when the wheels touch the grass or when having a remnant yaw rate.

Hi Kane, Thanks for the reply! As I mentioned, the engine/propeller spins very slowly after pressing and holding the starter although the flywheel is spinning at it's peak RPM just before pressing the starter and this should have nothing common with having fuel or not, because with or without fuel the prop should be spinning at the same rate every time I restart the engine, but for some reason the prop starts to spin very slow after a given number of restarts. Otherwise, in some occasions it doesn't even spin at all when pressing the starter button while you can still hear the flywheel spinning, just as if something mechanical would be broken and the flywheel no longer connects to the engine and although this happens much rarely, it does happen. Here's the track with the slow spinning prop/engine: BF-109 engine restart.trk

Hi, I've been trying to fly the BF-109 lately and as I've selected one that starts at the rampstart with the engine running (so the engine wasn't too hot and stood at idle for more than 2 minutes minimum, as the manual requests) I started "playing with the engine" a bit there by shutting it down then restarting it up then shutting it down again from the magnetos or from the fuel pumps by putting them to off or normally from the shuttoff yellow lever, and then at one time I suddenly found myself unable to restart it anymore!O.o The behavior is that after asking the crew to run the inertial starter and they manage to spin the flywheel to the highest RPM, I press the starter switch which normally acts as a clutch actuator which engages the engine to the high RPM spinning flywheel, the engine is barely moving just like if it would be seized or it would have a very high friction in it, or else to say, the flywheel can't seem to have enough angular momentum to start spinning the engine anymore. So this would happen if you'd stop then restart the engine a couple of times and eventually you'll find yourself unable to spin it up anymore because it acts like it has no more lubricant or something like that...! If this is a realistic feature and not a bug, I'd like someone to explain me why would this happen! Many thanks!:thumbup:

Hello everyone, I'm "Maverick", I joined your server by chance 2 days ago and I played as red in the MIG-21. I have to say that I really like this kind of scenario which only allows you to play once per mission..., if you're dead, you stay dead until it all finishes! It doesn't seem to have very difficult tasks but indeed it requires a lot more patience, awareness and focus in order to accomplish your goal before the enemy does it first. I'd like to thank you all for allowing me to stay (even after the server went locked) and I hope everyone else had a good time at least as much as I had! Should I select an aircraft that I'd remain with during every mission from now on or does the selection occur just prior to each mission? Starting from the most important I'd prefer the MIG-21, SU-25T, KA-50, A-10C, and lastly the Huey on either side, if I need to choose an aircraft before the event. Again, it's been a great time with an interesting event/mission type which shows our orientation towards realistic missions! I like that...!;) Have a great day out there, Cheers!

Hi "Fishbreath"! Sorry I didn't RTFM first, so now I feel a bit of shame! It only seemed too obvious that something is wrong when I've made the high difference comparison, but I take your word now and understand that maybe they were such sensitive indeed and blow up that easily. It's a bit of a challenge to be a 21 driver when you don't watch the true airspeed (because if you have a good tailwind, you can blow them up looking only at the indicated airspeed) while rolling on the tarmac. Thanks bud!

Here are some examples for what I said and after you'll see them you should understand how it works. Look at this HARV F-18C: The inputs for putting it into spin are just what you said that the manual is opposed to what I told, so therefore the manual would put you into a spin or make it much harder or impossible to recover from if you should use ailerons in the opposite direction of the spin or yaw, so when you want to enter a spin you rise the alpha (AoA) to critical or beyond and apply cross-controls (in this case he put full left rudder and full right stick). At 0:30 seconds you can see the ailerons being deflected so that the stick is towards the spin and slightly pulled and although the aircraft (typically for the F-18C's aerodynamic configuration) rolled and entered a negative spin, the yaw rate had already been reduced by then. If anyone wonders why would cross controls (for positive AoA only) put you into a spin is because the ailerons increase the yaw in the direction given by the rudder and vice-versa for negative AoA where the ailerons would increase the yaw if they are in the same direction as the rudder. The cross-controls (stick opposite to rudder) can get you much quicker into a spin (at low airspeed only) as well as out from it, rather than the case when they are coupled to the same side which would get you slightly later into a spin (only for low airspeed) and would be much harder to get out. As I said, the ailerons control the yaw rate and yaw acceleration/deceleration when the AoA is far beyond the stall point, so they become more like a rudder effect at those alpha (AoA) and coupled with the elevator input they can help you increase the yaw rate of the spin or decrease it as you wish. Anyone can test it and see! The way he gets it out is exactly as I've already told you: full opposite rudder and stick towards the spin, with the elevator full up or slightly up, but NEVER down before the yaw rate is low enough or you'll start dancing in pitch! Another example is this F-15: See? Same inputs to get into stall! This should tell all the logic behind. Although the F-15 didn't want to apply stick towards the spin is because the purpose of the test was to see if they can make the aircraft recover only from rudder inputs with stick neutral. The F-15 is a statically stable aircraft and it comes out much easier without stick inputs as compared to the F-18 which is statically relaxed and slightly unstable. Here's another example: Although it's harder to see the inputs (but not impossible), this F-18 did the same to get in and out of the spin. Test it on the MIG-21, you'll see the same results. The MIG-21's aerodynamics and flight dynamics are the best simulated in DCS, even better than for the F-15C (tested by myself). The reason why it starts becoming almost unstable (tends to recover harder from high high positive AoA or high negative AoA) is because the leading edge root vortex that is known for all high sweep wings and delta wings, and even more for wings with LERX (like the F-16, F-18, SU-27, MIG-29), tends to move the center of lift/pressure (or CP as it's known) very much forward making the plane very less stable than it was at lower AoA. So this is not a bug as someone said, and it's tremendously realistically replicated here. If you guys don't know why it behaves like it does, simply ask and don't throw the bug issue before you are certain. Have a good day guys! Learning is an everyday routine! Cheers to everyone!

Would you like to contradict me? Just try your own way with ANY aircraft (F-15, P-51, A-10, Su-27, MIG-21, F-86, etc.) and try my way without what "the manual says" and see the difference. It's easy to test! Manuals are not always linked to reality and there had been many cases when the manual actually killed the pilot and they later found why it was wrong! I'm a pilot and aerospace engineer and there are very few in this world to understand flight dynamics and aerodynamics so well. Even if I sound arrogant, I know what I'm saying when it comes to talk about this! Don't get me wrong, and just test it! Have a good day man! Cheers!:thumbup:

Thx man! If it works to have a rocket pod and bomb alternatively on the pylon pairs it could do the trick. I really like to use one bomb for each target and not waste them all! Cheers!

Good that the shock absorbers and suspension springs are probably going to be reworked by the MIG-21's devs, but what about the damn annoying tire blowouts on the MIG-21 as you want to takeoff and you reached almost 400km/h and although you have your nose gear up which would produce some lift on the wings and thus reduce the downforce on the tires, the main gear tires blow up like firecrackers. I was able to roll with more than 450km/h with a heavily loaded Su-25T (full fuel also), with all wheels in contact with the ground (nose gear as well) and with no flaps (so the wings produce very little lift) and the weight of the plane was high on the tires and still they didn't blow out, while the light MIG-21 with higher tire radius (that means a lower tire RPM and centrifugal G-force) and reduced weight on tires as the wings produce at least 0.8 of the weight as lift force and blow up. I don't know why this hasn't been fixed or why didn't anyone complain of this (I couldn't find any topic about it), because this shouldn't normally happen. Here are some real facts why the MIG-21's tires shouldn't blow up EVEN if the whole weight of the plane remains on tires (no wing lift at all) if for any other aircraft this doesn't happen, so even more it shouldn't happen to the 21: 1. The main gear tires on the MIG-21 are quite high in radius as compared to those on Su-25, or A-10, or even F-15 (which also rolls at very high speeds with no blowouts that easily). Some might know that the tangential speed (the speed of the ground relative to the tire's geometric center) on a circle is the product between the tire radius and angular velocity (which can be translated to RPM), thus the higher the tire radius for the same given tangential speed (ground contact speed in our example) the lower the angular speed (RPM) and due to the fact that the centrifugal acceleration (can be translated to G-force) is equal to the square of the tangential speed divided by the tire radius, makes it simple to understand that also the G-forces will be lower because of a higher tire radius. 2. There is a known case of the HIGHEST touchdown speed ever done in the history of aviation and that was when an F-104 Starfighter pilot found himself in a problematic situation where he was forced to land the aircraft without flaps at a speed of more than 245knots (450+km/h) and so he did and notice that the tires weren't spinning at the moment of contact which created a heavy wear and heated them up, the tire radius is much lower on the 104 (so the tire RPM and G forces are greater) and not forget the contact momentum (mass x speed (vertical speed)) that the tires had to endure at contact and still didn't blow. Please guys, revise the tire blowout limits, because already this 100% rigid suspension is causing problems at landing and takeoff making the plane bounce in roll angles when the main gear is in contact with the ground and the landing gear itself is very sensitive and you must land very gently (vertical speed as low as possible) not to have the left or right main gear bent and needing repairs. Thank you, have a good day!

Hi! What would you understand by the meaning of stall? Low airspeed? That's completely wrong. You can stall any type of aircraft (airplane or helicopter) as long as your wing or blade angle of attack (you must understand exactly what that is) exceeds a critical limit at ANY speed. You can stall an aircraft's wing even at Mach 2 if your angle of attack is beyond critical, regardless of the fact that you'd have a lot of G's in that case. It's hardly understandable what you say is wrong about continuous loops with the MIG-21 as compared to other aircraft. Any aircraft can do continuous loops with a higher or lower altitude decay after each loop (depending on T/W, T/D and glide ratios) if the angle of attack is not exceeded (which is the ONLY thing that can be related to a stall). So there's nothing out of the ordinary even for an A-10A or C to do continuous loops even if it looses altitude after each loop pass, but as long as you don't pull beyond critical alpha ("told" by the stall warning sound for the A-10 in particular), you have no stall. Please put into a better detail what you mean about continuous loops and stalls and you believe to be wrong. Cheers!

Not a bug..., it's the real plane!

Stalls and Spins are overall the same for any aicraft with only slight differences! Hi, For whoever has trouble getting out of any kind of flatspin on any type of aircraft here's what you guys should know and please read all before replying: You ALWAYS enter a flatspin after one or both wings are stalled (a stall is only dependent on ANGLE OF ATTACK and NOT airspeed (as 99% of people try to thing) so if you don't understand this first, there's nothing to be discussed) and you HAVE or GAIN some beta angle (side-slip) which is the only further ingredient that can induces a spin, whether the beta angle comes from a rudder input or differential drag on the wings or inertia coupling (transferring alpha (AoA) into beta (side-slip) when a wing is rapidly stalled (usually at speeds higher than 600+km/h) and the plane rolls about 90 deg. in an instant so the initial angle of attack is converted into beta which can induce a spin. These are among the main reasons why stall-spins will occur. Now, if for any reason you didn't have time or simply didn't want to reduce the angle of attack (pushing the stick or reducing the pull) after a wing stalled first (the MIG-21 is unique for sharply rolling you towards the stalled wing), be sure that there is a beta angle going to be created that will eventually induce a spin..., so there's plenty of time to react before reaching a high enough yaw rate to get stuck in a spin. If the spin does occur, DON'T waste any further seconds and rapidly apply the correct inputs (the sooner the better)..., simply push full rudder towards the opposite direction of spin (this one's pretty logical), apply full roll control TOWARDS the direction of the spin AND NOT OPPOSITE and PULL the stick fully..., YEAH, PULL the stick completely. These inputs are the best to firstly reduce the yaw rate and ONLY after it became low enough (you should get used to this by practicing) you should push the stick forward ONLY to reduce the AoA and then start to counter the roll with ailerons then start a pull up. The reason why you should use aileron or roll inputs towards the side of the spin and not opposite (as you normally do with rudder) is because this way the AoA on each wing will be higher and will produce the drag needed to brake the yaw rates. Let's imagine: If the plane spins to the right at about 70..90 deg. AoA and if you apply right side aileron, the right aileron will deflect upwards and the left one downwards and as the left wing will meet an airflow component from the nose of the aircraft, the lowered aileron will increase the lift (but very slightly) and create some extra drag. The same thing will happen to the right wing, because although the aileron is raised the wing is moving backwards like and so it meets an airflow component coming from behind, then the raised aileron will increase the AoA and so the lift (slightly) and drag for the right wing as well. Pulling the stick and NOT pushing it (as most would try to think) is first of all helping the horizontal tail (elevator) reach a lower AoA than stall (which will increase lift on the elevator) and secondly will reduce the airflow shadowing/perturbation on the rudder at high positive AoA and also helps reduce the yaw rate, because if you push the stick and it tends to lower your nose at first, it will only tend to do so in the first split second after which it will develop into an uncontrollable pitch rock oscillation which is harder to get out from because this also increases the yaw rate through a combination between the aerodynamics and flight mechanics forces that act on any aircraft, so you should most of the time AVOID pushing the stick in a spin, unless you're in a simple wing stall or the yaw rate is low enough for you to do it. I know I might sound a bit difficult in the way that I explain but sometimes the best solution is to get into details a little bit, and most of the time this helps. As a short conclusion, for ANY aircraft (and everyone should test this) that is found in a positive flat spin (positive AoA), the rudder should be deflected in the opposite direction of the spin (although it usually has a lower ability to reduce the yaw rate at high angles of attack than the ailerons do have), the ailerons should be deflected towards the side of the spin (stick towards spin) and the stick held full backwards. These inputs should be held until the yaw rate is low enough for you to push the stick and reduce AoA and ONLY THEN you can apply opposite roll input to counter the remnant roll rates and of course bring the rudder to null. Usually the plane should have a yaw rate of lower than 40..50 deg./s (that's 2 seconds for rotating a quarter circle) before you should attempt a nose down input, otherwise you might find yourself rocking in pitch as I already said. IF you find yourself in a negative flat-spin (upside down flatspin) you should follow the same logic, which is to deflect the ailerons so that they increase AoA and drag on both wings, so in this case the stick should be held opposite to the yaw direction (as opposed to positive flat spins), rudder should be held opposite to the yawing direction as usual, but the stick should be pushed in order to achieve the same logic as for positive AoA spins until the yaw rate decreases to a safe enough value before pulling to a positive AoA recovering from the dive. Wish you guys all the best!

Speaking of the IR tone only, it seems that very often after you lock a target and break lock from it, the tone remains forever... and that shouldn't be right. Although the target had been lost, the tone continues to ring in your years and you can't shut it down (unless you reduce the tone volume to 0) and also you can't know whether you lock a target again or not, unless you only see the pipper lock on a target again. Needs tested!

Hello everyone, Just a short question! Can't you drop individual (one by one) bombs with Mig-21? Just in pairs or all? Now I'm pretty good at destroying any type of ground unit with individual iron (free-fall) bombs and I don't want to waste any of them if there's no need to. Even the MI-8MTV2 can drop a single bomb if needed so. With the A-10C I'm able to hit 12 tanks (all spread out) with 12 MK-82 bombs, so that's one bomb for each tank, so it's not impossible. Now I'm not having a 100% accuracy when I put the pipper (CCIP) on a target and release the bomb, but most of the time it's not so hard to get good accuracy from a little practice then be able to get one shot one kill with a single iron bomb, so I don't know why doesn't the MIG-21 allow to shoot each bomb in single mode. If the real MIG-21 only drops both 1-2 or 3-4 or all pylons at once, that's a waste of bombs if you missed the target anyway:smilewink:...! Cheers!

Sorry! I've found out the problem! Nvidia also made an update lately and I couldn't figure it out that it just modified some default settings for monitor aspect ratio and ruined my day. I can now play again with any combination of resolution and aspect ratio. My bad. You can delete the thread! Good day!

Since the last update (1.2.14.35980), I can no longer get full screen mode (also tried turning it off and back on) and the image doesn't fit to the monitor anymore leaving a gap around the edges (about a cm wide for vertical edges and half for horizontal) for any combination of monitor resolution and aspect ratios available at the options, except for 1366x768 with 1.77778 aspect ratio. I'm running on a 15.6" laptop and the highest resolution is 1366x768, yet at this resolution I can't play well due to the much lower fps that I receive (average is less than 15). When playing at 1280x720 that I was able to select before, the average was above 25. I've also tried playing a bit with the resolutions and aspect ratios within the "options.lua" file in: "C:\Users\...\Saved Games\DCS\Config" and still couldn't make it go in full screen anymore or just have the image fit the display again. Thank you! -My laptop specs: ASUS K53SV, I5 2430M (3Ghz), GT540M (2GB VRAM), 8GB RAM

What would you mean by that? Because the more realistic the simulation, the way off the "game" call would become. Cause in the end that's what DCS is all about for many of us here, to reflect the reality as close as possible, and if it's more than 90-95% accurate according to RL, then the word "game" has nothing to do with something like that, even though you don't actually feel the G forces on any axis, if this might be the reason why you called it game. Yes..., many of us fear that we will be forced in some amount to select a specific type of aircraft if we don't want to loose in combat because of the possible "unbalancing" of the challenge (because there are people who play the sim or game, just to have better score and hate loosing) if one aircraft has a more advanced combat capability simulated than another. Well..., I tell you something: You could be better to defeat the more advanced tech if you know how! If you were in a real life war and your enemy has much more advanced and capable weapons against you, what would you say? So, you could think from this point of view until both sides (US and RUS fighters) have the latest tech being simulated. There's a great difference between a game and a simulator, and this is suppose to be a simulator, not a role playing game.:thumbup:

Good reference example there! It tells how things happen into detail. Yes, the longitudinal static stability between the F-16 and Su-27 is different and vary for the pitching moment coef. (Cm) in relation with AoA and airspeed (with airspeed because the elevator's CL vary different from the wings + fuselage CL resulting in a different global Cm). As a fact, the F-16 has a much less static stability margin than the Su-27 even in supersonic (where all aircraft get a drastic increase in pitch stability) and for this reason it's very hard for an F-16 to perform a cobra for example without the risk of remaining trimmed in a deepstall position, from where the 27 can recover much quicker even without forward stick. A possible reason for the Su-27, why it tends to trim itself at around -25..-30 AoA if you accidentally pass the -20 threshold, is because the elevators (being positioned below the wings in a vertical reference) would be greatly shadowed by the wings or receive a huge amount of buffet and so their lift is reduced or they are even stalled (the elevators stall at negative wing's AoA occurs mostly when their leading edge is down or stick is pulled).

That's more like it...! Someone who uses the same language. I don't want for "mvgas" or anyone else to misunderstand, but when talking about stability behavior and/or stall alike we need to find out how these factors vary with AoA, not G limits or airspeeds cause they are hard to cope with as I've explained. Thank you "mvgas" for the manual info anyway and I apologize if I have gone wrong with what I've said! So at +50 AoA and with full forward stick an F-16 would still pitch up and at -50 AoA and full aft stick it would still pitch down as the white boxes suggest. Good job and thank you "LJQCN101!

From seeing a couple of videos the pilot actually keeps the CAS (ASC) OFF through the cobra (it's pretty hard to reach for the switch and put it in ON position as you have more than 2G's left when the plane flies at 90 deg. AoA or beyond) and keep the stick full aft as the plane will drop it's AoA back to lower values without the need to push the stick. So after exiting the cobra with stick held back and putting it to neutral you shall turn the stability control back on (by the way the do it in reality) before the nose starts dropping (cause normally it's trimmed pretty much down when the ASC is still OFF). Here's a proof: (such a great song for the 27) (this is a RAM-K but behaves the same as any other 27)

Ok man, I've got your point and sorry for interrupting the discussion between you and "combatace", but I really wanted to intervene to not let you guys understand wrong the conditions where a stall or loss of pitch (longitudinal stability) control should actually occur and at what points to look and at what points not to look as they are less relevant, and furthermore because the manual in many situations doesn't tell the whole truth as it is or tells it wrong (and this thing happened before for many aircraft). 5 mins ago I've tested what the SK manual says and I had very different results, furthermore, as I've told you and as it is logical, the weight counted and it counted a lot, so you can't have the same airspeed for the same G. I was able to hold -1G (straight upside-down) at 260km/h IAS (with 86% fuel cause there's a bug that doesn't let it have 100%) and at 220km/h IAS (with 20% fuel left) at low alt and at about -20 deg AoA where I had the aircraft at 0 margin of static longitudinal stability left, from where on the plane began to pitch down (nose gone up) by itself. This was important, not going beyond -20 deg. AoA, and not the airspeed and G limits!

I think you are right, because it probably was a design flaw of the real Su-27's FBW when it was programmed to filter the pilot's inputs or to counter the angle of attack variation speed in relation with it's value at any given time (already knowing the static pitch inertia of the plane) in order to prevent overshooting the critical values, and this is already seen for positive alpha as we can see, when the FBW system can't decelerate the AoA's variation (increase) in time so that it stops at or near the critical positive value when you pull all the stick rapidly. So the same thing is very plausible to happen for negative AoAs as well. The problem now isn't if the FBW can't estimate how quick should it counter the AoA rate in order to not let it overshoot for a second, but the fact that it doesn't even filter the forward stick movement enough and simply lets the aircraft pass slowly beyond negative AoA into a negative stall. I was now speaking about a normal flight not tailslide and I don't know if this happens on the real Flanker (and I doubt that it would be let to happen) or the FBW in our sim must be tweaked a bit to behave closer to the real one. No man..., don't look at G loads and airspeed anymore when you want to investigate stall or unstable aircraft behavior cause these will foul you now and then or make you loose the sense. Only look at the AoA if you can. I know that the negative AoA isn't indicated on the Su-27's indicator, but you can try to fly upside down and hold -1 G at higher airspeed, let's say at 400km/h IAS, and then gradually reduce your speed while trying to maintain a vertical speed (VASI indicator) as close to 0 as possible (straight flight) and when the plane will start loosing pitch stability or start to stall as you gradually push the stick to maintain -1G, the pitch attitude indicator will give you the corresponding negative AoA. This was a method i've used on the MIG-21 to find out what it's real stall AoA is in fact and not the one indicated. Try it. Now, sorry if I bother you guys with this and please don't take it wrong and I don't want to be off-topic either, but you guys should really try to forget about whatever you read from whichever source or from whoever told that an aircraft stalls only at an X airspeed and/or an Y G load (the G load increases with the speed's square so they are linked anyway), because even if indeed these 2 ingredients together will create an aerodynamic stall at some points, those points are all actually the stall angles of attack which are important, and that's why it becomes a bit confusing and sometimes faulty to judge the idea of stall when talking just about airspeed or G-load or a fixed combination between the 2, because they both vary (with aircraft weight/fuel load) in a manner that you cannot mentally predict, but the angle of attack is only 1 at which the wing/aircraft stalls. So, in order to find the actual AoA of an aircraft with no indication, simply fly straight at 1G or -1G and watch the pitch attitude when things become of interest. Cheers!

The stick position was neutral with pitch CAS ON (it it were OFF the nose would've ended even higher upside down after exit), as I was trying to replicate the real life tailslide (same as in the video you linked), which had a different outcome not because our plane (The F-15C) had overshoot the nosedown position that the real plane had and went almost horizontal upside down but the fact that the correct roll effect didn't occur. Maybe or hopefully it will react as it should after the F-15 is out of beta. Here it was at 7:27:

Yeap..., I forgot to talk about air density as well. Depending on how high you are and how much weight you have you'll definitely find different results for the limit nose up attitude angle from where you can start the tailslide without any stability loss at the exit. Normally when lower and with less weight you should be able to start from a higher attitude limit. And one more thing is that all the stick should be held pulled when starting the slide and it has better effect, because when i've said that it would be better to start pulling when near horizontal it was in general, but the Flanker's elevators deflect a lot and start providing a downlift on the tail at higher angles of attack. From 70 deg you should still be able to do it right without overshooting the -90 deg attitude or rather going beyond -20 AoA at the exit.