Maverick Su-35S

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.

Hi "mvsgas", You are right about the manual and about the roll technique that can be used to avoid or even get out of a negative stall, but let's try to talk in angle of attack for stall (be it negative or positive) rather than G loads at given airspeed, because it is always the same for a given airspeed and doesn't care about G load (which vary with weight because it represents the lift to weight ratio), but the AoA does indeed vary with airspeed, yet we can consider it the same for low incompressible airspeeds. So if you know the exact negative AoA from which the stability starts to decline (the nose starts pitching down by itself when your elevator is at neutral) it is more useful than using G load and airspeed from which you have to derive the AoA. Thanks!

Hi "Yo-Yo"! So, if it is true what you are saying (and I don't argue about it), the Flanker's behavior at high negative AoAs is very close to that of the real plane and there goes our answer with all this as well: "No tailslide attempt beyond 70-75 deg of nose-up attitude and pull the stick all the way back when you've reached about 0-10 deg. pitch attitude as the nose drops..., cause if you pull the stick too early (when still at high nose-up angles), it's aerodynamic forces due to negative airspeed (which are inverted of course) will build up an even higher pitch down rate. Thanks!

Hi "combatace"! Did I say that you won't get into an inverted stall if you push the stick after exiting cobra, or even more, after a tailslide? I've only replied to tell you about the airfoil's shape when flaps and slats are lowered (things which very few might be aware of) and why the aircraft should be more unstable with them lowered when in a negative stall. That's correct, the aerodynamics and flight dynamics in general are most probably simulated using a dedicated software to estimate the aerodynamic forces and moments such as a CFD and a dedicated software for simulating rigid body laws of motion or maybe a software that does both, as they might not have access to wind tunnel or in flight testing data to gather the aero and flight stability data. The question might be (for some) how well does the software do in all areas, and my personal belief is that it does it with a more than 90% accuracy overall (after the aircraft is out of beta) from what I can see, and the other 10 we might not even be aware of. The most important thing is KNOWING what isn't right and to BE ABLE to modify or tweak those values if you can, otherwise you'll have great limitations in simulating something right..., so I bet that ED knows what has to be done in order to make the aircraft fly/behave pretty close to the real one.

Here's a short overview of mine and a congratulate to ED for what they've achieved so far with the new SU-27 PFM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhELnTmeNnA So I'm personally passionate and usually have only one major thing to care about when talking flight sims in general...: Flight model, flight model, and again, flight model...! Thanks!

How did you manage to get a spin with the Flanker? And if yes, what yaw rate could you get (10-15 deg./s), if you please? Thanks! P.S.: One thing that is worth mentioned from an aerodynamic point of view: If you lower flaps in an upside down position, the instability (that holding your negative AoA trimmed somewhere) should further increase because of the airfoil's shape against the airflow which affects it's native pitching moment (lowered slats and flaps will always increase the pitch down moment), while for a right side up position it should indeed increase stability and help you pitch down more, so it isn't normal if the flaps get you out easier from high negative AoA unless it is indeed combined with a general motion of the plane that would make it point it's nose downwards.

It is correct! The same thing happens for the F-16C as well if the pilot generates enough pitch momentum or pitch rate that the input filtering system (such as FBW) doesn't have time to counter (depending on how it is designed through it's programming code), letting the plane go above or below the limited maximum positive and negative AoA for a second or two and then corrects it. For short, this is due to the pitch inertia that the aircraft has in combination with the gained pitch rate and with the reaction time or limitation of the FBW to not let it go past the limit. This is not a problem in the flight model.

From which pitch up attitude angle do you start your slide? If you start the slide from any higher than 75 deg. then you'll enter a negative stall whatever you'd try. This same behavior happened on the F-15's PFM before being updated a bit and after the small update on it's PFM, the F-15 doesn't go inverted after the nose drops from 90 deg high attitude if the stick is simply held full aft, because the real angle of attack that the elevators received was probably revised or the static stability of the aircraft was reworked, idk, but probably we will expect the same to happen for the Flanker and won't behave like this anymore...! Here's a tailslide: It doesn't drop the nose below 90 deg. down. Try it and see if you can get the same. As for the trim (equilibrium) that the aircraft receives at around 25-30 negative AoA (tested) where a full aft stick (elevator up) will cause more bad than good and you could only get out of it by simply pushing the stick (elevator down) to let some airflow reattach the elevators surface, which will actually lift your tail a bit and then release the stick to neutral when the nose stops dropping until it goes up again and just create a pitch oscillation by using stick full forward and released positions until you force it to get out. Normally, the vortex generators (the LERXs) have the highest intensity at positive AoAs and have a degraded effect at negative AoA (giving the shape of the LERX which is optimized for positive lift), therefore the CP (center of pressure) travels to the front (reducing the static stability in pitch, up to neutral and then to unstable) as the AoA increases much more for positive lift (or AoA) than for negative, thus the aircraft should be more stable and easier to recover from high negative alpha than positive. What I've said doesn't contradict the manual when it refers to the inverted stall situation as it is mentioned to be a problem, but only tells what to do to get it out as quickly as possible. P.S.: I've tried some other things like: rudder and rolls combined with elevator inputs which will give you a split second of AoA higher than -25 from where you can recover, but the forward and then neutral stick inputs method gets the plane out much faster, although I remind you that this is not a genuine behavior for the 27.