bbrz

No offset/roll with the A (no hardware connected)

This doesn't make much sense since VFE is the same for flaps half and full. Hence, especially if you are in a hurry, you are faster with flaps full, since you can reduce the speed later due to the higher drag ;) @Jaybird, there are a few emergencies where you do land the F/A-18 with half flaps on the carrier and on a runway.

Good and valid point. I guess that almost 40 years of RW flying and countless proficiency checks prevent me from simply enjoying flying in DCS without constantly calculating something :lol:

On many aircraft the landing gear can take more stress than the rest of the structure. It's not uncommon that e.g. the wing attachment fails while the gear struts stay intact. Just look at the Su-7 skid/mud tests.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yaNylQ5a9o

1. That's the problem with emergencies. They tend to surprise pilots with something that's new to them ;) 2. Thanx for the info :)

Since I doubt that there are any videos or pireps about MiG-29 nose gear first touchdowns, how do you expect anyone to find out if this is correct? Again, it doesn't look like a bug to me.

The question was, why you can't dump fuel in an emergency, not how to rectify the problem. Let's assume that extending the gear with the alt gear extension works, but you are now experiencing severe airframe vibrations at low speed. Still going to dump fuel with burner and boards?

Of course it should and it does bounce. I don't see the problem? Even a heavy 777 can easily bounce a few times, even when touching down with the main gear first.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoK_dbLDfA0

Unsafe and three green? How?

With e.g. an unsafe gear indication during retraction, I don't know if burner and boards are a good idea ;)

Since the weight limit is 48000lbs for taxi, takeoff, inflight and landing, there's no need to reduce the weight before a re-landing. Landing roll at 48000lbs is less than 7000ft at ISA conditions and SL and matches exactly the brake energy limit for a short field landing.

1. How do you know? Have you ever seen a MiG-29 landing nose gear first? 2. This must be one of the weirdest complaints ever. What's next? The vertical tail doesn't break off when I land inverted? 3. Have you even watched the video I've linked? I don't know what kind of weird things you've tried to do. I even pushed the nose gear down after touchdown instead of letting it settle on its own and the MiG didn't bounce. Btw, there's no 'rear' gear on any aircraft. It's main gear.

There's a typo in the updated diagram and the above text. Cord instead of chord. Makes it difficult to google ;)

Don't understand what bad viz (which is common to most tail draggers) has to do with ground handling? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_T8SxnqV8U Especially with its wide track landing gear, ground handling should be rather good. Btw, great that the annoying CB problem has been fixed :)

Where did you get the info from that 1/2 flaps is correct? Note: Centerline between the knees only works in single or tandem seat aircraft ;)

The problem is that if the AP would correctly disengage, the hardware switch position would be out of sync with the VC cockpit switch. Not good either.

@Ramsay, That diagram is perfect for understanding the AoA/speed relationship during the approach. Great work :) @tom 19d I don't what makes you think that the angles in these two triangles is different. In both triangles it is obvious that all three angles are identical. I'm curious what atmospheric things would cause the approach speed to change? 'Fly the green donut and don't sweat IAS' is a bad advice because you should always crosscheck AoA and IAS. Since you should always know the actual weight of your F-5 you should know the correct approach speed. If the AoA vane gets stuck, sticky, bent etc. and you get a on-speed indication at e.g. 180kts at a noticable flatter attitude than usual, you should immediately realize that the AoA indication is incorrect.

You can get easily stuck in a deep stall without spinning.

Again, you don't 'trim' for straight and level flight in the F-16. Don't know about the Warthog but on my PC (T16000M) and on the laptop (no joystick) I don't see any change in pitch and/or roll at constant speed. Here's a short trk (laptop) f16_stable.trk

I don't use multiplayer. Just tried 50kts wind and maximum turbulence and the maximum yaw deviations were 1-2deg. But they are a bit strange since I didn't encounter real oscillations. The nose yawed 1-2deg and then stayed on the new heading for a few seconds instead of immediately swinging back to the original heading.

For testing I've installed DCS additionally on my laptop. No roll or pitch tendency. Just to confirm, we are talking about constant speed. If you increase or decrease speed, the nose will rise/drop a bit which needs to be corrected with tiny stick input, but definitely no trim input. Tried the AP in a 50kts wind with maximum turbulence and it held the altitude very nicely within +20ft.

Question for those who complain about over-sensitive pitch trim. Are you experiencing this on final approach case or when trying to trim during 'normal' flight? If it's normal flight, why are you using pitch trim?

I don't think this is classified since the -1 says 167°/sec. This should be available at way lower speeds than corner speed.

Or a too low altitude?

Pitch trim is fine IMO and you only need it for the necessary adjustement on final approach. The FLCS is stabilizing the F-16 at 10deg AoA without trim input. Hence if you want to fly between 11 and 13deg you need to trim a bit nose up and trim sensitivity is ok in this case.