bbrz

+1

Don't know how much the difference is, but with the -1 and the actual AoA readout you can easily find out what the F/A-18 thinks it weighs, and that's of course the important weight. e.g. if 'on speed' is 137kts the weight calculated by the airplane is 33000lbs.

The OPs question was about the distance needed, not what is operationally desirable. Following your landing example, your T/O numbers need to be way higher as well for the same reason ;) At low weight the F-16C needs only 2700ft for landing.

That's a lot and only valid at (ISA and S.L.) the 'theoretical' 52000lbs tire limit weight and well above the brake energy limit weight of 48000lbs. At a more 'conventional' landing weight of 30000lbs the landing distance is less than half this value; 3600ft.

I believe that the point is that if you yank the stick fully aft during the high alpha pass, the pitch attitude and AoA will more rapidly and to a higher value than in (way) earlier FM versions.

If the nose 'wobbles' you aren't controlling yaw/rudder correctly.

You are completely missing the point. A modern glider is usually also a stressed skin, (multi) spar design and the same principles apply, the same load application etc. Again, if you look at the glider wing video you will notice the the bending occurs the most at the outer part, and there's (almost) no bending at the root. It's the same on the F/A-18, the 787 'plastic' wing or a 'classic' B-52 wing.

I don't know when the change occured, but I can't remember that I was able to achieve 60° AoA and to do a loop at 90kts entry speed (50kts on top) in earlier FMs. Pitch seems to be less stable and rather loose with the combination of low speed and high AoA.

Just checked, brakes are holding the Yak up to ~88%.

Considerable; from 5% to 3.5%, that's a 30% reduction!

Weathervaning causes the plane to turn into the wind even at a low crosswind component. E.g. a 5kts crosswind will be barely noticeable during the approach (very slight wind correction angle required) but it will cause the plane to turn into the wind on ground. Suggest to check the wind in the mission.

No, not all airplanes have this 'issue'. Which one are you talking about? Btw, it's way better to have it retract on ground on the apron or on the taxiway at nil or low speed, than at high speed during the takeoff run ;) If you accidently select the gear up on ground, it will IRL retract as soon as the airplane weight on wheel switches sense that you are airborne. But in can happen of course that the WoW switches only temporarily open due to runway roughness etc. This has lead to numerous accidents IRL. Nothing to fix IMO since this can happen IRL as well due to faulty WoW switches etc. You simply don't move the gear lever on ground. edit: just tested with the A-10C and the F-5E, and on both planes you can't move the landing gear lever on ground without pushing the override button first, and even in this case the gear doesn't retract on the A-10.

I don't understand. What has the GPWS voice alert 'roll left' to do with the engines? And what do you mean with 'roll the left engine'?

Well, if you are blind, or if you are deliberately drawing the wrong conclusion, I can't do anything. Hope ED doesn't change the 'basics' concerning wing flex. Over & out.

Being a civil engineer doesn't imply that you know anything about airplane structures and design. Your assumptions about 'embedment' and the associated bending are simply wrong. And I have zero idea why you are starting a personal attack. Nevertheless, here's a nice video about wing bending moments. Suggest to compare how much the wing flexes at the root and at the tip.

I see. In this case it was a classic language problem, sorry. At least in the translation 'embedment' doesn't fit to an airplane structure.

That's an entirely different issue and it might actually affect the FM. Airplane/wing structure design doesn't have much (if anything) in common with wing design since they are designed to flex. https://www.quora.com/How-much-can-an-airplanes-wing-flex-before-they-break

No adverse effects. Since FCS failures aren't going to be included in any mission right at the start, there can't be an FCS failure, hence the bit test can be skipped.

I guess that when you are writing, 'the wing is bended' you mean the geometrical twist or washout. Nevertheless, without load, the leading and trailing edges are simple straight lines. The shape of the F/A-18 wing isn't complex at all. The Concorde has a complex wing shape. That said, looking at various cockpit videos (easier to judge wingflex IMO) the wing does seem to bend in a slightly non-uniform way with a sharper bend at he folding joint. Again, I'm surprised how nice and realistic the DCS version is.

+1 Furthermore the first 'diagram' looks incorrect to me. Not only does wingflex start further inboard, due to the exaggerated bending it looks even worse than it is. The wing should definitely not bend that much directly at the root as in the second 'diagram'. As Nooch wrote: It's amazing how close to RL the DCS F/A-18 looks, thanks to the comparison pics.

Much better ;) thanx

Both links don't work.

Do you have a completely unmodded DCS? If not, I'd definitely try a repair and get rid of any mods.

You don't need a low pressure front to make QFE unusable. KLSV 1870ft, KLAS 2181ft. @imacken, mechanical precision/complexity? Furthermore since QFE usually isn't used, this adjustment range for QNH ops is sufficient.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3988136&postcount=15