bbrz

No need to cut the throttle. Getting an aircraft moving again with a fully deflected nosewheel requires quite a bit of additional thrust.

I don't have this problem either. The guy in your video is taxiing at less than 5kts and if you apply full deflection at or below this speed, the DCS F/A-18 turns exactly the same way. You previously mentioned that the problem occurs even at VERY low speed. The question is, what is VERY low for you? The F/A-18 is a pretty big aircraft and less than 5kts does look extremely slow from the cockpit.

Not only transport category aircraft. This applies to e.g. the F-15C as well. The stall speed table specifically says for the power off stall speed: all altitudes

Sorry, missed that. I hate reading forum posts on tiny mobile phone screens.

I assume that =4c=Nikola is talking about the small increase in stall speed due to the lower achievable AoA at (very) high altitudes, basically due to the lower Re-number and higher Mach number. Since nose radius, vortex generators etc. do have an effect as well, I'll ask =4c=Nikola again, how much does the stall speed increase with altitude? Or more suitable in this OT discussion; Does the stall speed noticeable increase with altitude?

Since neither e.g. a C-152, F-15 or 747 manual features such notes, the question to =4c=Nicola is, if stall speed increases with altitude, how much does it increase at e.g. 10000ft? 1%? 10%? 50%? Another point concerning these 'fixed' stall speeds is, that they are usually only valid at the most forward CG, which means that with the CG moving aft, stall speed decreases.

No problem, but your negative lift theory is still wrong. The A-10 in your example/explanation uses NACA 6716 and 6713 airfoils. The 6716 has a CL of 0.7 at 0deg AoA and even at -6deg AoA CL is still positive (0.15).

1. Did you even read what I wrote? For the third time, that's exactly what I wrote already twice. 2. ? If this would have been the case he would never have been able to become a FO at an airline at all. Btw, I'm not aware of a required different skill set between a Captain and an FO.

Of course you can think or believe whatever you want. I should have said that one shouldn't generalize. My statement about good and bad pilots was just an example that there's a wide range about pilot abilities. It appears that you don't have much insight about the skill set and knowledge of different pilot groups and their tasks. E.g. In my company there's a graduate from the USAF test pilot school who's a really bad copilot and he even failed his captain upgrading. Last but not least, more than one airplane has crashed due to the test pilots gross incompetence.

Way too much incomprehensible nonsene. Glad that you stopped here. I'm out as well.

1. Very weird theories and you are disregarding the most important item, trim. The higher the speed, the bigger the nose up moment (with correct takeoff trim). Since a wing creates a downwash, when or how does the air move upwards instead? 2. Pitch affects AoA? How? And how does drag affect engine performance (thrust)? Not able to follow these 'theories'.

It looks like you are mixing up GS and IAS. As Yurgon wrote. IAS is the same, regardless of density altitude, headwind etc. At higher (density) altitude the take off run is longer due to the lower engine performance and due to the higher GS, but IAS will still be the same. If you e.g. check the A-10 performance tables you will see that the take off speed (IAS) depends only on weight. I don't know why the nosewheel should be 'glued' to the runway when extending the ground roll. It'S usually the opposite. The higher the speed, the more the aircraft tends to unstick on its own. If you rotate early, the wing doesn't stall. Why should it? Stall depends only on AoA. If you rotate e.g. to 10deg at 80kts or 180kts, it doesn't make any difference concerning stall. You should re-read stick and rudder ;)

Don't know what a 'regular' pilot is and what pilots you have talked to, but your statement is definitely not true and you can not simply generalize all pilots. I've met surprisingly bad airline pilots and surprisingly professional GA pilots during my career. As I have stated before, especially military pilots are usually a very reliable source of precise information.

The important question is, did these 'old-school pro pilots' have previous desktop PC experience?

There seems to be some misconception about RW professional pilot abilities, even among flightsim developers. I remember laughing out loud when I read a post in the Heatblur forum by one of the devs. They were surprised that a real F-14 pilot was able to fly and land their F-14 noticable more precisely on his first try than any of their devs after hundreds of hours. I thought, why is that surprising? What do you expect?

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say. I did mention already that a RW pilot is usually perfectly able to translate the 'feel' from the real aircraft to the simulated one. Your above example only confirms why muscle memory isn't of much use. In the aircraft I really don't care how the controls 'physically' handle, the only thing I care for is the reaction to my control input, which greatly differs with CG, weight and distribution of the external loads.

I don't know what muscle memory (this term didn't even exist until a few years ago, at least in aviation) has to do with this. If I e.g. apply full aileron I know how and how fast the aircraft reacts. Muscle memory etc. is no factor in this case. Another point is CG. Especially larger airplanes have a very different pitch 'feel' with forward and aft CG. So muscle memory doesn't help/apply IRL either in many cases.

That's one of the typical armchair pilot comments which used to make me puke. FYI it's things like e.g. roll acceleration and roll inertia which aren't described in any manual, and if an ex or active A-10 pilot says the A-10 'feels' strange/different etc. it does mean a lot, at least to other RW pilots. Do you really think that a pilot can't translate the 'feel' from his real aircraft to the simulated one?

Besides my real flying, I'm designing flight models for slightsims as well and pireps are a great additional source for development. I was always surprised how incredible accurate recollections from military pilots are, even after many decades. :thumbup: Concerning zhukov032186s comment that original performance evaluation document will trump anybody's feelings, I doubt that there would be a really big difference between charts and pireps. Furthermore the performance of a plane which has been in use for many years can differ quite a bit from a new one. E.g. in airliners you usually have to enter a fuel flow factor value into the FMC. On older airplanes it's not unusual that fuel flow is 5% higher than on the new one. Having an old engine on the left side and a new engine on the right side will result in different EGT values etc. etc. That said, when I was much younger, comments like the one about unreliable pireps, made me leave the forums for quite some time, but once you get older, you get used to it.;)

Haven't tested lately, but this usually happens already after a normal traffic pattern when touching down with significant nose up attitude . As soon as you lower the nose, the AH will be off by at least 2deg.

Great info, thanx :thumbup: :)

Even on the stone age F-4 one couldn't damage the flaps by leaving them extended (blow back function). I'd be surprised if such damage could occur in a much more modern airplane design. In any case, an interesting item.

And getting the basics right would be great too which means, being able to fly IFR with an artificial horizon that's still indicating the correct pitch attitude after e.g. a touch & go. A F-5 that has the identical performance in a head and in a tailwind. Despite all these shortcomings it's still the airplane I'm flying almost exclusively in DCS and I'm enjoying it a lot.:) Since this is pure manual flying, I even doubt that the FWB F-16 will change this.

The DCS F-16 has the GE engine and AFAIR only the PW engine has this (surprisingly loud) sound.

I don't think so. That's a controlled flap relief system and such systems are usually designed to prevent flap damage by retracting them automatically at defined airspeeds. edit: as the -1 says: The TEF’s are controlled as a function of the LG handle position, the ALT FLAPS switch, airspeed and mach number.