bbrz

It might be a bit more difficult, but not significant IMO. Depending on the technique, the nosewheel drops just below 100kts onto the runway. This seems to be roughly in line with the -1 which mentions that full aft stick at 100kts is possible without lifting the nosewheel from the runway.

+1 I didn't see any 'waving'. Just a gust/turbulence correction at 0:22. No significant stick movement at any other point. Curves are only unrealistic if the joystick has exactly the same lenght and travel like the real one. edit: just tested and I don't find the Su-25 to be too responsive, even without any external loads I can do the same full deflections like the Captain in this Tu-154 without any noticable bank ;)

Considerable work, since the whole high AoA and stall characteristics would need to be redesigned. Furthermore the approach speed with the slatted wing is 10kts lower. @meti140; what's a 'runaway stall'? Never heard or read about such a stall.

Great it works now :) enjoy :) :)

Just tried taxiing (SP) the Su-25 and the Su-25T (100% fuel. no external load) on the runways in Senaki and Mozdok. On both runways the shock struts nicely filter the uneven runways and you have the expected slow frequency rocking motion. But in both cases you additionally get the very high frequency, 'tire failure like', minimal but nevertheless annoying camera shake.

A lightly loaded F-16 could easily takeoff from a carrier, even at 0 wind since the t/o distance at low weight is only 800ft. With a 20kts headwind this distance decreases to 500ft.

So much nonsense, sigh. Looks like you don't know much about airplane design and certification. A 'whole new manual' has absolutely nothing to do with a 'significant performance difference'. If you are using different engines, if they have a very similar, or even identical performance, you need to re-fly and re-test and publish all performance data valid for this airframe/engine combination. Btw. you don't need a 'whole new manual'. In case of e.g. the F-16 there are simply separate performance sections for the GE and the PW engines, and guess what, the difference in landing distance difference is (of course) negligible. You definitely don't need scientific proof to find out that there's a quite a difference between rolling and sliding friction and that idle thrust of the small F/A-18 engines doesn't have a significant impact on landing distance.

If you honestly believe that there's zero difference in braking capability between anti-skid braking and locked/sliding wheels, then any further discussion is useless. Not 100% correct? We are talking about a 50% error! Please enlighten me, how to actually read/interpret the performance tables since you claim that 'they aren’t used that way IRL'

You have apparently never tried to operate any controls in a RW cockpit in turbulence ;) Auto throttle systems are usually doing a rather bad job in turbulence and in most planes it's SOP to disengage the system in severe turbulence. Again, the ATC is a convenience item, nothing more. If it doesn't perform the way it should, or if it disturbs your operation, disengage it.

I've explained already why it is this way, that ATC behaves that way IRL, it's definitely not a design flaw and there's nothing to improve! If you don't like throttle movements simply don't use ATC, same IRL. Can't imagine that anyone would use ATC during anything but straight and level cruise and approach. The F/A-18 is a combat aircraft and the ATC is just convenient for a few cases, but that's it. As David said, if you are cruising straight and level, the throttles will certainly not move all the time. Apart from that; how are you performing your fine inputs in case of turbulence, even without ATC?

I highly appreciate your tests :), but it would be great if you could aim for standard no-flare landings (like the above one), which will result in the most precise measurement. Brake application was almost immediate in the above video btw :)

How did you get 4000ft? Using the landing distance table I get 2600ft (without flare)? edit: just watched the video, I didn't notice any flare and you didn't cross the threshold at 50ft either.

Apparently you do have a problem ;) The runway at Batumi is 8000ft and the landing distance for a flared landing at 30000lbs IRL is 3800ft. This means that you should be able to come to a full stop halfway down the runway if the brakes would work as they should!

And how much distance do you need with this method?

I don't understand this question. Again, if you have to operate the TDC it doesn't make any difference if you move the throttles manually or the ATC moves them. Furthermore the throttles shouldn't significantly move when e.g. in a steady state cruise. During the approach things are different, but you shouldn't do anything else than flying the F/A-18 ;) One advantage of the moving throttles during auto throttle operation is, that you have the immediate feedback about power changes and the present power setting without having to constantly scan the engine gauges.

Especially if the autothrottle is controlling the throttles on 'civilian' airplanes it's required that you keep the hands on throttles at all times during the approach. The go-around button and A/T disengage button are located on the throttles! I would expect that you need to apply considerable force to disengage the ATC in the F/A-18. On e.g. the 767 you can't disengage the auto throttle by manually moving the throttles since the auto throttle system immediately repositions the throttles as soon as you let go of the throttles. But you need to apply considerable force to override the electric motors. edit: force required to disengage ATC on the F/A-18 is approx 12lbs.

It's the same like the auto throttle in e.g. a 737, 767, etc. which means an electric motor is moving the throttles. You can't 'break' it. If you apply force to the throttles, or you hold them, the ATC will disengage. Since you always have the hand on the throttles, there's no problem to operate the switches the same way as usual when manually controlling the throttles.

We can agree, but not ED, since they consider this obvious bug as 'correct as is'....

CB = circuit breaker G = gravitational force. 1G = level flight. If you are pulling back on the stick you are increasing the G load (Gs) which 'pulls' the gear down and makes retraction more difficult or even prevents it.

Um, no. When you engage the AP it's in the basic (heading hold) mode. CSS isn't a mode, it's a function which is an important difference. (see 2.9.2.1)

Antiskid doesn't really work with normal brakes either in the DCS F/A-18. It doesn't decrease the landing roll and it leaves the same black tire marks on the runway. The only difference is that directional control is better with antiskid. Definitely a bug, but unfortunately not for ED. Haven't checked if there's anything in the -1, but usually emergency brakes don't have antiskid capability.

I don't get it. Maybe it's a language problem. But underpowered and sluggish are two entirely different things. Whatever.

Have to try ASAP when I'm back home. @Zeagle. thanx for the offer, :) but I guess that after a few decades of RW flying I simply enjoy to have to whole sky for me and not having to communicate with anyone ;)

On the other hand they can retract at high Gs and you can put the engines into ground idle in the middle of a dog fight. No fun either ;)

Exactly the same happens in the real F/A-18. ;) That said, given the very low thrust the engine develops at these low RPMs, the difference in landing run would be marginal and wouldn't account for a 50% increase. Again, the main problem is that full antiskid braking and sliding along with locked wheels results in the same distance being use which is a of course a plain and simple bug,