bbrz

Great that it works :) (and that the FBW systems apparently nicely masks the actual flap movement)

Very strange that it isn't animated, since the auto flap scheduling is definitely simulated/animated. Unfortunately I can't test it myself within the next few days.

ED already confirmed in this thread that they are working on this issue. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3960982&postcount=28

These are the maximum values. The actual flap angle depends only on AoA. If you fly the approach rather fast at e.g. 3° AoA the TE flaps will only extend to 5°. The interesting thing when landing with the flaps in auto happens when you reduce the speed upon approaching the threshold. The flaps will continuously extend further until touchdown, from the above mentioned 5° to e.g. 15°...if you flare.

Below 250kias, LE/TE Auto 34°/17°, Half 34°/30°, Full 34°/45°

Thanks for clarifying. With the flap switch in auto the FCS does extend the flaps, so you don't land 'without flaps'. That's why I was asking how or why you land with the flaps retracted/up.

If you land without flaps, how do make them stay in the up/retracted position? Btw, on the real F/A-18 the brakes aren't nearly as bad as in the DCS version.

In that case it would have been included right from the beginning. Since it was only added a few decades after the Hornet ops started, there have been most likely a few incidents where this function hasn't worked as it should and hence it has been added.

Ouch, any Sim, any VR, any motion platform, nothing of these crutches comes even remotely close to flying a real airplane.

It's part of the before taxi checklist, but only in the 2008 manuals. In the 2000 manuals this check isn't there.

I don't think that this has anything to do with outdated versions. The manuals I have are from 1997 and 2008 and the cockpit controls are also labelled ILS. In the first 30 years MCD/Boeing called it ILS and the DCS Hornet is a 1998 version AFAIK. ILS is correct for the DCS Hornet. When did the Navy change the nomenclature? The Super Hornet manual (2001) also says ILS. The only difference is that in the systems description is says ICLS instead of ILS, but the rest of the manual also refers to ILS. Nevertheless I agree that arguing/explaining things to SUBS17 doesn't make any sense, since he apparently doesn't even read all the posts in this thread.

Again, nowhere in the -1 systems description, procedures etc. is an ICLS mentioned, only ILS, that's (partially) the reason for the confusion IMO.

I don't know anything about the RW F/A-18 except the available info on the net like the -1 etc. According to the -1 (US NAVY F/A18s) the ILS consists of the AN/ARA-63 on board equipment and it works only with the carrier based AN/SPN-41 equipment. The -1 only mentions ILS and ACLS. Except for the deviation bar in the standby attitude indicator, ICLS is nowhere mentioned in the manual. Maybe that's where the confusing results from...

Since RightStuff only wrote; bleed air should be turned, it was difficult to tell if he meant on or off. Bleed air must be off for external air starts. Crossbleed starts usually need a separate/additional clearance due to the required high thrust and hence jet blast. 80% RPM is enough btw.

To get back to my original question. I would really like to know why ED puts this into the wish list instead of the bug section. The landing roll is more than 50% longer than it should be, so I'm curious why this is considered to be correct?

Increasing lift without increasing drag? Are you rewriting basic physics and aerodynamics? :lol:

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The first 5-15deg they usually considerable increase lift and only a little drag, anything more and they add much more drag than lift. The reason why flaps usually extend more than e.g. 15deg is that you want to increase drag so that you can keep a higher power setting on approach and speed stability is also higher. The ground roll is rather long, confirmed, but not as long as presently in the DCS F/A-18 ;) Btw, if your flap drag theory would be correct, all Hawker bizjets would have serious design flaw, since they extend the flaps to much greater angle after touchdown to reduce the landing roll due to the increased drag.

According to the -1 the F/A-18C cruises at M1.015 at 30000lbs between FL300-350. (DI=0)

125kts = 27500lbs 149kts = 39000lbs @yogipol, if you compare RW performance data with the actcual landing roll you will see that the DCS F/A-18 needs a lot more runway than it should. Btw, no need to be 50ft above the threshold and at e.g. St.Maarten even civil planes are way lower over the threshold ;)

'correct as is' in the wish list means that the anti skid is apparently not simulated, but we can hope that ED will implement it? Don't quite understand why this is in the wish list and not in the bug section.

That depends a lot on the plane and it's e.g. not required, (not even recommended) on the F-5 when trying to achieve the minimum landing run. It's just a note that braking is more effective with the flaps up. In the F-86 manual I didn't read anything about raising the flaps either. Neither on the F nor the K. Interestingly the F-86 manual mentions that opening the canopy will increase drag and help shorten the landing distance. In general you are trying to avoid any distraction during the landing run, and fiddling head down with levers and knobs after touchdown is usually to be avoided as much as possible. Quite a few flights ended with the plane sitting on the runway with the gear up instead of the flaps up with this technique ;) Back to the F/A-18: With the very large boards hanging down I doubt that retracting the flaps would put more weight on wheels than they create drag. Furthermore this isn't mentioned in the -1 when shooting for a minimum landing run. 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! Antiskid braking is apparently way too weak.

It's a mechanical idle stop that retracts with the WOW switch. No way to override it. On the other hand you can achive to ground idle in flight....just pull enough Gs and the idle stop may retract. If you now chop the throttles to idle, they will go right into ground idle.

Thinking about it, the problem 'theoretically' doesn't exis since you don't land the Hornet at idle. The -1 mentions that if you do a minimum descent rate landing, the WOW switch might not actuate immediately and chances are that the throttles are staying at flight idle, thereby increasing the landing roll.

That's a bit of a problem but it's not that bad. According to the manual the nose should drop onto the runway within 3sec without any pitch input. It takes around 1-2sec for me. The higher the pitch attitude on touchdown, the lower the pitch down moment. Even more important, the higher the sink rate, the greater the pitch down moment. You really have to grease her on to avoid the ugly pitch oscillations. If you pull the nose up to the 12° limit, (the lower edge of the AoA indexer with the default seat height) the nosewheel will hit the runway at 90kts. Note that the stupid attitude indicator bug is still there, and after the nosewheel touchdown the indicated pitch attitude will be between -2.5° and -5° so it's defintely not reliable. Last but not least the stick position is an important item. If you happen to relax the back pressure just before or at touchdown the pitch down moment will be very noticeable and you need a lot of back pressure to correct it, with a very likely overcompensation. The nose down moment will be minimal if you are still continuing to increase the back pressure as you touchdown. Hope this helps. As Deano87 wrote, It's really satisfying so it would be great if it would work for you.

The question is, does the Yak still climb at 160km/h with the gear and flaps down, although only very shallow of course. Pulling the throttle to idle in dirty config results in an almost Wilga like ROD. 10m/s. In level flight with the gear down, retracing the flaps will increases the speed by more than 100km/h (no change in power setting). Is that correct? A bit OT, but when reducing the speed from 200km/h to 110km/h (Vst pwr on), with throttle and prop full forward, there's basically no change in rudder application required to keep the ball centered. Is that correct? Thanx in advance :)