Steinsch

2% RPM difference between airbrake in and out seems small to me, but my only reference is the game. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. For now. :) The Japanese don't seem to decelerate with the extended airbrake (mostly same slope and AoA until flare point), so would that mean they are doing this to avoid floating only? Japan being an island, would strong winds be a factor in shaping this SOP? And yeah, the ground effect... never understood why people would talk about it because I just don't feel the cushion is there for planes (although for the choppers, it is definitely present).

Found these videos of Japanese approaching with the airbrake fully extended. I understand that some planes land with airbrakes partially extended because if they need to go around, they can just retract them quickly and already have relatively high engine RPM. Is it the reason the Japanese F-15s do that, and if yes, why don't the USAF Eagles do the same?

To me, the crew chief is the senior enlisted guy in charge of the maintenance of an aircraft in the Air Force. It is also referred as the plane captain in the Navy. Once the aircraft is on the ground and parked, it's "theirs".

Here are some tests comparing: - Aerodynamic braking at 15° - Aerodynamic braking at 13° - Aerodynamic braking (using the stabilizators as airbrakes, progressively then fully aft under 100 kts) - No aerodynamic braking The point was to: 1. Demonstrate that aerodynamic braking works in DCS. It definitely does (for some reason, some people still doubt that). 2. Determine differences, if any, between 15°, 13° and 12° aerodynamic braking. In my tests, it took 0.47 NM to bring the plane from touchdown speed to 70 kts, after which wheel brake was applied. 13° took 12% longer, 12° +25% (not shown on the video). Landing with the stick pulled back as much as possible without making the nose go up required 47% more distance. And no aerodynamic braking whatsoever took +62% more than a 15° AB to bring the plane to 70 kts. So full aft stick definitely has some positive effects as draconus mentioned (I'm just wondering know if this is mainly the result of the extra drag or the weight on wheels). I agree with bbrz, the fastest way to stop the F-15 is wheel down as soon as possible and apply wheel brakes right away. It works in-game, and when landing heavy it's often the only choice. But it is my understanding that the crew chief would kick your ass IRL for overheating the brakes. Anyway, the test I did was to demonstrate the effects of aerodynamics on landing in various scenarios, from touchdown to 70 kts. It was by no means to demonstrate which method resulted in the shortest landing roll.

I still think it depends on circumstances. If the pilot feels they're a bit fast just before touchdown, the airbrake might help. Or it might just boil down to pilot preference once all parameters are under control (good flare execution, controlled and low rate of descent, wings level a few meters above the runway.) Here are some videos showing the extending of the airbrake before touchdown: (F-15E) The USAF manual says 12 to 15°. In my experience in-game, 15° is noticably more effective than 12°. More risky, probably, if the pilot cannot control their attitude well. Worth it and satisfying when you can pull it off quite consistently. That's very F-18-like! :) In normal conditions (higher speed heavy landing may be another story), I prefer to put weight on wheels after nosewheel is down, as I haven't noticed any difference while testing full aft stick. Maybe it's because the F-15 is way heavier than the F-18 and W-o-W is going to be more effective? I don't know.

Thanks, Delta. No VR for me, just a head track. My approaches are not always that smooth, but yes, this is what I try to achieve every time. :)

@ Ironman: super smooth touchdown! @ All: After watching all these recently shared videos of Migs landing, I have the feeling that Russians often approach the runway on a more shallow glide slope than their Western counterparts. Is it a wrong perception/optical illusion or have you noticed the same?

I don't know if it's the manual procedure. However, many videos of F-15s landing show the airbrake being extended slightly before touchdown. I've even seen Japanese F-15s approaching with the airbrake extended, way before touchdown. I don't think extending the airbrake before touchdown is compulsary. But accelerating your sink rate after your flare almost stopped your descent and you're 1 or 2 m above the runway is not necessarily bad in my view. The extra drag helps to have more weight on wheels as soon as you touch down and make your aerodynamic braking less floaty. I imagine a gust of wind may make you leave the ground for a couple of seconds if residual lift is still high.

I'm resurrecting the thread with some more recent videos to help new Eagle drivers to land. It's been said many times, for regular, no or little crosswind landings: - Glide slope: 2.5 to 3° - Flight Path Marker: positioned on the first skid marks on the runway - Angle of attack (AOA): 21 units (11°). - Flare: 20 feet above ground level, to 22-23 units of AOA, wings level - Airbrake: extended as needed a few seconds before touchdown, or upon touchdown - Aerodynamic braking after touchdown: 13 to 15° pitch up. - Wheel braking: after nosewheel down and under 100 knots Straight-in landing demo: Overhead break and landing tutorial: (Really) Heavy Landing (and in that case approach parameters are different: more shallow glide slope, 22 or 23 AoA, touchdown early on the runway) Skip to 0:36 for the F-15. Hope it helps!

Yes. And that also works in-game to reduce the bounce, or the feeling of bounce (sometimes it's just the schock absorbers proping you up a little bit but without making the main gear leave the runway.)

Makes sense. Hadn't thought of that.

I've got a question though. Has anyone managed to touchdown gracefully at 240 KMH in-game?

The "controversy" here stems from the fact that the pain level, definition of ridiculuousness and perception of what a PFM should be vary from player to player. Some players finds the way the plane responds to controls and physics is unacceptable, while others are very comfortable flying the plane in its current state. Plus the others in the middle. Things can always be improved. The PFM of the F-15, Mirage and others also took time to refine. But in the meantime, I'm going to enjoy that Fulcrum as it is! :)

I agree 100%. Curves are very personal, and may even evolve with time. The devs are not going to second guess end users.

Thanks for sharing. But what exactly is your point with this video?

17,000 hours in the cockpit is a lot of experience. That's impressive! What types have you flown if you don't mind my asking?

Hopefully A-6 Jester would look better than the copilot in the Huey...

Upon touchdown, the nose wheel doesn't seem high, which makes me think a tail strike was not even close to happen. I still feel it was a late flare, and the fact that the plane didn't stay on the ground after coming down from its bounce makes me think there was too much residual speed. Hence, "he came in too fast". I have almost zero hour in the mig-15 module and have not watched any other videos of mig-15s landing IRL, but the above explains my view. :)

The way I see it is that he flared slightly too late, hit hard, bounced once, and the high residual speed made him leave the ground again. He came too fast.

Roger that. Thanks!

Is there a way to toggle the barometric altitude and the radar calculated AGL altitude on the HUD?

And I think you're absolutely right. It's safer in every way. Better visibility of the runway, controls certainly more responsive and more reserve lift in case you need to wave off. I was almost at max MIL and had almost zero reserve thrust left to reduce my rate of descent if that came to be necessary (unless AB was used but that would guarantee a go around). I was lucky to be pretty much on the glide from the outset and in a safe environment. :)

Yes. I feel the round out has to be abrupt and late because we can't hold a high AoA during approach to slow down without having an unacceptable sink rate. I tried again today after seeing your video.

Yes, that's the only one besides the Fishbed, as far as I know.