bbrz

That's exactly the opposite way the RW manual describes the operation. L LOW > opens the crossfeed valve and reverses rotation of left boost pump to provide fuel feeding from the right internal system. If the left fuel quantity is lower than the right one, you have to move the auto balance switch to L LOW.

Interesting observation and for me it's exactly the opposite. Apart from the deflection at the initial takeoff run (with and without auto rudder), the rudder never moves on its own with auto rudder checked and all turns are completely uncoordinated. The rudder stays left of center during flight due to the fixed rudder tab, (didn't notice any difference in rudder application with the trim fully left or right, so the on ground adjustment still seems to be non-functional). If the rudder doesn't move during the flight as you wrote, why do you think that auto rudder is on? If it would work, it would move to keep the turns coordinated. Where in the mission editor can you enable/disable auto rudder?

Not in my tests with very similar results. A 50% distance increase due to the difference between flight and ground idle wouldn't be realistic either. And of course there should be 'slight' difference between antiskid on and off braking ;)

I know that this is comparing apples and oranges, but compare the 3800ft landing roll to the 2400ft landing distance (50ft!) for a lightly loaded A320 ;) Let's see how long this thread lasts ;)

Because I read already a few times that for some reason game mode is automatically selected after an update. Since you don't have takeoff assistance or auto rudder on, and e.g. I don't have this problem, I don't think that this question is unreasonable. And you are sure that the rudder moves on its own during the flight and not only at the initial stage of the takeoff run due to the propwash?

Doesn't happen here. Game mode deselected?

It's a bad joke that ED moves the brakes bug within minutes of posting into the whish list. Don't know why some of use care about reporting bugs at all. It's no fun to waste precious time with digging into manuals and doing tests, only to find out that ED for some inexplicable reason doesn't consider this a bug.

Presently it's speed related and it occurs (luckily) only at high speed. At normal approach speeds ground effect is at least plausible.

It's in the performance section of the -1. Here's a copy & paste from the other thread. ------ According to the -1 the landing roll should be ~2600ft at 30000lbs. With antiskid I need 4000ft and without antiskid (and the associated directional control problems) even a bit less!

Oh, that's even worse of course.

The animation is definitely wrong for the AI planes but as IRL, I usually fly only jets, so I don't encounter this problem in DCS ;)

Prop pitch is usually measured between 50-75% from the center. E.g 26° means that pitch at the root is much higher and slighty lower at the tip.

Again, the pitch angle on the propeller blade can never be negative at any point if the propeller isn't capable if reverse pitch! That's the whole point. The blade creates thrust almost uniform accross it's span. That's why the pitch is always highest at the root and lowest at the tip.

I don't understand what you want to prove with the above screenshot. In all cases the leading edge is the most forward part at the root of the propeller blade, which is correct. The problem is that in very top screenshot that the pitch at the tip is negative, which can't be IRL. Again, the problem is that the pitch is around 15° too low.

I don't see this problem. With the trim centered (5.5 units) the stick moves the same amount forward and aft.

I did all tests with internal fuel only, and no external loads, so no weight difference. If the brakes would be overheating it would be a bug as well since they shouldn't during a normal landing well below max landing weight.

The brakes are definitely incorrectly simulated. There's no almost difference in stopping distance between antiskid on and off braking (slightly better braking with antiskid off!) Landing roll is approximately 50% higher than the flight manual values says, but since ED tagged this issue as 'correct as is' in a similar thread and moved it from bugs to whishlist, I guess we have to live with this issue :(

No. The blade axis is perfectly perpendicular to the airplanes longitudinal axis in both cases. It's the taper of the blade that makes the impression that it is canted forward as it rotates to a too low pitch angle. The difference in blade angle in these screenshots is around 15°.

Ah ok, now I understand. When prop pitch is reduced, the blade rotates along its axis and the leading edge move backwards, but in the animation it rotates too much so that the trailing edge is in front, at least in the tip area.

I don't understand. Agreed, the prop pitch at the tip is negative in the first screenshot but what has the leading edge to do with prop pitch?

A deadzone. Again, IRL on many planes there's a noticable amount of e.g. yoke movement required to achieve a control surface deflection. The point I'm trying to make is that a very small deadzone doesn't reduce realism.

IMO a very small deadzone like 1-2% is not unrealistic since the stick travel and the force required to move the stick is much greater IRL. I definitely don't want the flight controls to move when unintentionally moving the stick a tiny amount, since this doesn't happen IRL either.

The leading edge and pitch are different things and have nothing to do with each other. On the first screenshot you can see that the tip has a negative pitch angle which it shouldn't have. On the second screenshot the tip has a positive pitch angle.

:lol:But that's apparently accidentally, since we have differing knowledge about wing design. ;)

1. Are you sure? E.g. the Swift S-1 wing is designed to take much more stress than any of your fighters, the ultimate load limit is +15G and -11.2G. (you could jump up and down on the wing all day long) 2. That's what I'm saying/writing the whole time!