bbrz

Since the flaps retract automatically, how can there be any damage, since a 'classic' flap overspeed doesn't occur?

Too many TLA's? Any other in aviation than thrust lever angle? LOL

If you watch the videos you will see that the rudder is centered all the time. No auto anything enabled.

Nice first post....

These changes happen with the Yak and the TF-51 as well, but they are very mild. The question is, can you fly the 190D at full power, close to the stall and keep the direction by just keeping the wings level with the ailerons but without any rudder input? That's possible with the Yak and the TF-51. I'm not flying the TF-51 either, but testing requires only a few minutes.

The last time I used the rudder trim option in the menu, it still didn't have any noticable effect on airplane.

And since the strut doesn't compress by 10ft it's obvious that the ralt is apparently calibrated to ~0ft ;) Btw, congratulations to your Airpower 19 display pilot! The Swiss F/A-18 display was surprisingly boring and the Greek F-16 display was already noticable better, but the Belgian F-16 display was very impressive! But that's always the case with the Belgian F-16 pilots :)

Are you talking about the real F-16 aircraft or the real F-16 simulator? Watched more than 10 HUD videos now and in roughly 75% the ralt shows 0 and in 25% the ralt constantly fluctuates between 0 and 10 during taxiing. Seems to depend on ralt calibration and/or strut inflation, loadout, CG etc...

Don't know the F-16, but on most planes the RA shows either 0 or even a negative value on ground since it's usually calibrated to show zero at mainwheel touchdown at the correct approach attitude. E.g. in the 767-300 the RA shows -6ft on ground.

1. Reminds my a lot of the PZL104 I used to fly ;) 2. Even at 110km/h very close to stall you basically don't need any rudder. In the meantime I've deleted the Yak because aerobatic training makes no sense in its current FM state.

One of the advantages of a FBW system that you basically can't rip the wings off or stall the airplane, regardless how fast and/or strong you pull. What lack of response do you mean? Response is instant and FFB wouldn't change a thing if the required force would be 1lbs or 100lbs. If you e.g. need the maximum pitch rate, you simply pull the stick fully aft. In most (if not all) FBW planes you don't feel what the plane is doing. When I flew my first FBW airplane IRL this lack of feel was really disappointing since it feels more like playing ace combat than flying a real plane.

I believe that many flightsim pilots underestimate the force required to move the controls IRL. E.g. in the early 1950s the maximum force to apply full rudder was limited to 180lbs and this has been changed later to 'only' 150lbs. Can you imagine how tiring it is to fly e.g. one engine out with that kind of force required, not for a few seconds, but a few minutes?

Looks like comprehension/terminology seems to be a factor. I asked if you maintained constant thrust and attitude to touchdown and your response was; "I suspect this is where you are making the mistake" I never questioned that you use (ground) idle after touchdown. I repeatedly asked if you are reducing thrust before touchdown, not if you reduce thrust to (flight) idle. In most planes you start a partial thrust reduction before or during the flare, hence my question.

I don't get it. First you are stating that my 'mistake' is, to touchdown at constant thrust and at a constant attitude. Now you are saying, idle after touchdown. Do you reduce power before touchdown or not? If you do, your energy at touchdown will be lower, if not, where's the difference to the correct 'book' method? Weird and wrong assumption. I'd say most people here are able to perform the landing correctly. It's you who's still not able to explain how you actually fly the approach and touchdown.

Thanx for pointing out all the variables but after a few decades of simulated and RW flying (+17000hrs) I know how to read charts and how to fly with high precision. If you think that it is correct that locked/sliding wheels (how would this be possible with a working antiskid system?) have the same friction as rolling wheels, then I don't honestly don't know what to reply. But since ED numerous times said everything is fine, this discussion doesn't make any sense and it's only a waste of time.

If you know even approximate idle thrust values for various jet engines it's not exactly difficult to figure out that even a noticeable thrust difference at idle thrust can't be responsible for a 50% longer landing roll. (not even 10%) And it doesn't explain the antiskid bug either.

1. Of course it does matter. If you e.g. decrease thrust while still in the air, the total energy at touchdown will be noticable reduced. The ROD will increase and/or the speed will decrease as well. 2. You missed an important fifth one, energy. With this non-standard method the landing roll will be naturally shorter.

The 402 achieves its higher performance mainly due to higher rpms and temps. I severely doubt that idle thrust is significantly higher compared to the 400 engine.

1. If you flare it takes longer to get the weight onto the wheels after touchdown. 2. ? The correct procedure is to maintain thrust and attitude to touchdown. 3. I'm looking forward to the results (with the correct stable thrust & attitude/speed method)

1. A1-F18AC-NFM-200 Fig 11-161 and 11-162 2. Why did you test outside the weight limit since you need to flare above 33000lbs? 3. Did you maintain the 143kts and the thrust setting all the way to touchdown? Suggest you test again within the airplane limit for no-flare landings e.g. at 28000 and 32000lbs. And again, the distance shouldn't be the same with locked wheels and full antiskid braking.

A few of us have done countless tests in various configurations and since this is standard procedure, yes. Again. If the distance is the same with locked wheels and a working antiskid, there's something seriously wrong. Even if you forget to extend the speed brake and to apply full aft stick, this wouldn't account for a 50% increase ;)

If the runway is very looong you can of course do a nicely flared landing. :)

It's about the retractable flight idle gate in the real F/A-18. When pulling the throttles back to the idle stop in flight, rpm will be higher than when pulling the throttles to idle on ground. Since you shouldn't land the F/A-18 at idle thrust, the problem of having flight idle on ground after touchdown shouldn't be a factor.

I don't know why ED continues to claim that the brakes (or more precisely the anti skid) is working correctly. 1. Landing roll is basically identical without antiskid (and locked wheels) and with antiskid, which is impossible IRL. 2. In both cases the landing roll is approximately 50% longer than the values in the -1. If you post this bug in the bug section, it's immediately moved over to the whish list.

Do you need to keep the hand on the throttles while e.g. adjusting the nav lights?