bbrz

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.

I didn't read anything about an inverted flat spin which would directly develop from an IPH and again, no use of rudder is apparently considered essential to recover. I have an F-5E -1 and the 15000ft apply to an ejection when inverted only. (Section 3)

Since this kind of problem was apparently rather uncommon and it isn't even mentioned in the manual, I doubt that this can be simulated at all, not even on the most expensive sims. Interestingly the manual says that the minimum ejection altitude during an inverted spin is 15000ft and no rudder or aileron input is allowed.

You didn't mention that you were talking about xwnd ops. These are indeed way off on the DCS F-15.

Interesting. What's different concerning the landing and ridiculous about taxiing if I may ask?

Make sure that you are not exceeding the maximum speed for chute deployment. Otherwise it will deploy, but it will immediately disconnect from the F-5.

On the other hand this complaint proves that the original flight model apparently wasn't too far off ;)

F/A-18 ~8° Typhoon ~13° AoA doesn't vary a lot (if at all) due to weight.

What? This sentence doesn't make any sense. Neither as a reply, nor as an explanation.

Since you apparently know the answer, what's the reason?

That's why the pilots who have flown both, the A and the C (usually) agree that the A is the better dogfighter.

The lack of flaps.

Why should there be a pitch down moment from the flaps once they have stopped moving?

Exactly that. I remember when someone asked about the pronounced pitch down on the 767 when reducing thrust to idle during the flare and I honestly thought that this doesn't happen. On my next flight I consciously observed my yoke movement during the flare and I was surprised that there was a pitch down moment and not exactly subtle. It requires considerable force on the yoke to keep the nose from dropping, but once you get used to it you don't notice it.

Looks like we have to agree that we disagree. I definitely see a pitch down and no loss of lift. Just watch the carrier groundeffect video. At 0:43 you can see the pitch attitude decreasing as the tailerons enter the ground effect.

Same here.

1) The pitch down (I don't see any magnet effect) is consistent with the stabilator entering the ground effect of the carrier deck. 2) Don't see any problem here either. Just watch this RW video and how much back stick the pilot is adding during the final stage of the flare, without a significant pitch change .

It wasn't a 'perfect' landing, but given the high ROD and the thrust setting on final it was pretty good. Apparently he did all the necessary things for a successful landing correct. Reduce the ROD and touchdown with the nosewheel in the air. It's that simple. No bounce, no damage to the aircraft.

1. Suggest to watch the video again. If a +5deg pitch change can't be considered a flare, I don't know what you consider a flare. 2. Because this apparently it wasn't such a bad landing ;)

Suggest that you simply watch the above video from Rudel_chw from 2:00 and you will see that the MiG-29 definitely does not get 'sucked into the ground' The slower you are during the approach, the more aft stick during the flare you need of course to counteract the nose down pitch moment.

1. Yes and I do have the impression that there is a language barrier and/or a lack of understanding. You wrote: the lower the TAS, the tighter the turn - highest turn rate (TR)/lowest radius of turn(RT). 2. That's a weird question. Can you show me an official performance chart where a MiG-29 can pull 6G at M.36? I don't understand what you consider turn performance. Turn rate or turn radius?

No, the highest turn rate does not occur at the lowest speed. E.g. F-16 @ S.L. at MIL thrust. Tightest turn radius at M0.3. and 2.6G (68° AOB) > Turn rate = 14deg/sec Quickest turn at M0.6. and 8.0G. (83° AOB) > Turn rate = 22deg/sec