bbrz

I would be really interested in just flying the Turkey. Is it possible to completely shut up Jester or does one have to live with his babble?

Where have you got the 175kts limit from? The NATOPS manuals says 250kts is the limit for half-full and the pattern description also says at 250 gear and flaps down. I don't have any problems keeping pitch and altitude under control when using this procedure, regardless of the speed during flaps extension.

While I don't notice an abnormal climb, this does indeed look strange. The F-14 is more or less stable at 35° AoA but departs as soon as the AoA is considerable decreased.

Is there a difference in max horizontal stabilizer deflection angle between e.g. full nose up and nose down trim on the F-14?

You can't see 'anything' only when there is extremely dense fog and even then there's usually 50-100ft vertical and a few hundred feet horizontal visibility so that you can spot a few lights. When it's windy/stormy it's very seldom foggy at the same time. Furthermore during nighttime runway lights are easier to spot in low viz conditions than during daytime. But if you absolutely don't see anything and you are commited to land, then you do so without visual cues, since you are already flying on instrument in bad weather. On the CRJ we used to fly manual CAT III approaches down to a minimum of 50ft and 200m RVR. No fun but doable and contrary to a carrier landing you need to flare with basically no visual cues. That's about the worst viz you can land at IRL without breaking the law.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe_pEK_kRVw

Without knowing the actual weight and loadout it's difficult to judge where the problem is. This departure doesn't seem impossible for e.g. a low weight config.

The shaking on ground during taxiing is very unrealistic mainly due to the way too high frequency. It feels exactly like a tire failure IRL!

ATTH works as well in climbs/turns etc. Up to +45° pitch and +70° bank angle, but the AP flies the airplane without any possible manual control input. CSS, (ControlStickSteering) as the name implies, still leaves you in control of the airplane. Inputs are just heavily dampened. Very similar to the CWS in e.g. the DC-10 and remotely comparable to manual flying in a Viggen or an A320.

Without any wind/turbulence you don't need any rudder/elevator input during the takeoff run. At the correct speed you only need to tap a few times on the nose up key. No special skills required. Since the rudder deflections happen already during the takeoff run on your setup, you don't even need to get airborne.

? Flight controls and throttle can be controlled via the keyboard so it's no problem to do a test without any connected hardware.

Where did he write that he achieved the 90m without flaps? I don't understand why you are testing without flaps at all since there aren't any performance data for this configuration available. Don't know what to say if you think that the deceleration with and without flaps is identical….

Motoradve used 90m, that's a 30% increase...

Have you disconnected your joystick/rudder/throttle hardware to check if the jitter is still there without them?

According to the RW manual it's the standard entry/recovery. entry 1. trim for 170km/h in level flight at min 1500m AGL 2. idle, keep altitude and reduce the speed to 110km/h 3. apply full rudder 4. as soon as the nose and the wing start dropping, apply full aft stick. pitch attitude -50° to -70°. One turn 250-300m. Two turns 500m exit 5. apply full opposite rudder 6. as soon as the rudder reaches the stop, apply full forward stick. 7. at 160-170km/h pull out from the dive.

Smoothly means that you shouldn't brainless kick the rudder to its stop, but to push the rudder in a controlled way to align the nose. Nevertheless you have to be fairly quick...as you found out. Furthermore pushing off the crab angle will increase lift on the accelerating, forward moving wing (especially on swept wing airplanes), which introduces an additional rolling moment. It's not uncommon that you need full opposite aileron to keep the upwind wing from lifting. Concerning the drag chute; It greatly increases the weathervaning effect and if used in a crosswind you have to jettison the chute at much higher speeds than usual, since the weathervaning effect increases with decreasing airspeed.

. Whatever the reason is, a brake input by the FCS is very unlikely and it seems to be connected to the uncommanded yaw input.

Do you notice any related pitch/yaw changes when these jerks occur, or is it just that you notice these e.g. in the external view? Can't remember that I ever encountered handling anomalies with the Eagle.

Your touchdown speed is the same as mine, ut your landing roll was noticeable longer. Did you apply full braking immediately upon touchdown? I'm not sure if the brakes are the actual problem. The DCS Yak flaps IMO have way too much drag, which has been confirmed by AcroGimp and ground effect is completely missing. Both bugs will shorten the landing roll. edit: Just found the correct touchdown speed in the manual. 115-120km/h. So the 115km/h in the 'short field' video isn't any slower than the normal landing speed.

I don't have access to my DCS PC for a few days to do tests, but with the much lower touchdown speed (115 vs 130-140) way less than 200m is definitely possible...in DCS...

S.L. Sea level. Anything higher and the takeoff/landing roll will be longer. I'm measuring the distance in ME first and after the landing I'm watching the replay from the external view to measure (or more precisely count) the divisions to measure the distance from the actual touchdown to the full stop. The guy in the RW video was also touching down rather slow, approx 115km/h but that's still more that 60kts. Without disk brakes, antiskid and prop reverse 100m would be a real challenge for every plane ;)

To measure takeoff/landing performance I'm using S.L. airports where I have measured the distance between the transverse joints. That way it's easy to measure the exact distance. Flight manual 300m at Vapp 160km/h and the websites 200m at Vapp 130km/h looks plausible. Unfortunately both don't mention the actual touchdown speed and if you mention only the landing roll without the landing distance, the landing roll value is of little value. Using 160km/h I need 200m without an excessive flare and a touchdown between 130-140km/h.

Where did you read the 200m? That's still a lot less than the flight manual 300m figure.

? I have no idea what you mean with this sentence, most likely because English isn't my native language either.

That's surprising since the manual says to establish a climb at 160km/h during a go around before retracting gear and flaps. With the present FM I can just barely fly level at 160km/h with full flaps, gear down and full power. So you can confirm that this behavior is correct?

Wow, you are even questioning a RW pilot who flies both planes IRL, that's something new! Did you actually read what motoadve wrote??? I suggest you check the countless manuals available on the net and then show me a single airplane that approaches at 160km/h and which can stop within 100m. I can guarantee you that you will not find a single one.