bbrz

Definitely not and one of both obviously couldn't be the result of adverse yaw.

The A-10C is doing it too because it does IRL as well: The dual channel SAS provides rate damping in both the pitch and yaw axis as well as automatic turn coordination. If the yaw behavior with yaw SAS on and off is identical, it's because the flight model isn't so sophisticated that it simulates this 'failure' case.

What has a standard GA aircraft in common with an F-5? FYI, that's from a T-38 manual: Aileron deflection produces yaw in the direction of roll (favorable yaw). Rudder is not required to produce coordinated turns. Btw. not even the A-10 requires any manual rudder input to achieve turn coordination.

The problem with your posts is that you don't seem to accept facts you don't like. You are making statements like: It's physically impossible for a banking aircraft to not exhibit adverse yaw. We provide info that this is not always the case and your reaction is that you are suddenly talking about a different aircraft and claim that there's no ARI. Again you are proven wrong. Your reaction? If I turn the SAS off, the A-10 doesn't react the way it should. But that's a different story and not all failure cases are simulated in all DCS aircraft.

Page 55 from the manual you linked: The dual channel SAS provides rate damping in both the pitch and yaw axis as well as automatic turn coordination. (obviously an ARI) This feature is being called ARI in the A-10A -1.

I'm amazed that ED didn't even get flight model right on the basic Yak-52, so SMHs doubts are not unfounded. What's a Cessna 40?

The exact title is T-38A PILOT'S BRIEFING NOTES northrop corporation.

I've bought most of my manuals via different sources on the internet e.g. flight-manuals-online. What 'mechanism'? I have the impression that you are trying to apply C172 aerodynamics to high performance jet aircraft. In case you doubt that this is an actual quote:

If you agree that the T-38 is very similar to the F-5, you are wrong about adverse yaw and what's written in manuals. Quote from the T-38A pilot's briefing notes: TURNS Aileron deflection produces yaw in the direction of roll (favorable yaw). Rudder is not required to produce coordinated turns.

Do you even read your own posts???

Incorrect. Ever heard e.g. about roll spoilers? Differential ailerons are countering exactly this problem.

Not an 'issue' on the F-5 and an F-86 manual states; ....inherent stability of the plane is such that coordinated maneuvers can be made with minimum use of rudder.

Just take a look at the short wingspan, compared to the fuselage length. Not much surface sticking out to the sides to induce adverse yaw. On most jets you generally don't need rudder at a low AoA to keep the turn coordinated.

Erm, the same goes for the 172 and a number of other civil aircraft

Did you notice that there's a Yak-52 in your Combat Simulator? 172 = No 337 = Yes

The -1 also mentions to use wheel brakes and aerobraking to achive the minimum landing roll.

Out of curiosity, how do you 'correctly' stall an aircraft?

Thanx for taking time for the detailed explanation. Makes perfect sense

Without knowing the weight/approach speed, this doesn't mean a lot...

Yes, you are doing it wrong. 10° is too low. 13° is the minimum and 15° the maximum. 14° is being used in the performance charts. The higher the pitch attitude, the closer the wheels are to the CG and hence the easier it is to keep the nose up. Have you measured the distance or do you only have the impression that the distance is equal? Did you apply the wheelbrakes while aerobraking? CG has a large effect on the F-15 concerning the aerobraking capability and comparing the C with the E is in this case almost like comparing apples and oranges. The CFTs on the C are moving the CG up and aft and are thereby increasing the aerobraking capability.

Ruddy122 mentioned that he's using the formula just to crosscheck, which is a good idea and should be common practise IMO.

The reason why the C-17 uses increased thrust is due to the fact that their pilots apparently don't flare and thrust increase is the only way to reduce the ROD. You could theoretically land e.g. a 767 that way as well. In fact there are pilots who use a thrust increase during the flare with 'conventional' jets. I'd still like to know why you are stating that the T-1 and KC-10 are landing in a stalled condition.

Might have happened during a landing like this one.... Aviator Anil Chopra auf Twitter: "They were lucky to survive of that tail strike in rainy day and wet RWY #F16 https://t.co/dp44jfVWcE @fighterpics" / Twitter

I'm curious where these misleading statements come from that you land a KC-10, T-1A (or any other jet) in a stalled condtion. When using a normal approach speed and sink rate you can land the C-17 like every jet without the need to increase thrust. Why would a F-16 student pilot wait for the wing to stall since he knows that the stall AoA is well above any touchdown AoA? I've noticed this on other forums that the term 'stalled' is being used a lot, mainly (or even exclusively) by US pilots, when it's about landing/touchdown without referring to an actual aerodynamic stall.

The difference between the manuals is interesting, because the problem obviously didn't occur (or wasn't reported ) in the first few years, which means that Northrop didn't expect this to happen (as MCD thought that the F-15E wouldn't spin). My F-5E -1 is from 1977 wih the last amendment from 1978 and USAF started operating the E in 74.