bbrz

I do have the impression that the wake turbulence presently behaves like in the above graphics, but it should be much more like this:

Besides the fact that I strongly disagree with this statement, what does this have to do with the original post?

The point is that I tend to believe a real Yak/CJ owner and pilot much more if he states that the brakes are crap, instead of an armchair pilot who says the RW pilot doesn't know how to operate the brakes correctly on his own plane! Svsmokey already wrote that brake design plays a significant role.

But you do notice that we are talking about the real airplane, not the game plane. I wouldn't even remotely think about comparing the game brakes with the real Yak/CJ brakes.

So you mean they lock up too quick/easy I assume.

Please re-read what I wrote several times. I'm talking about the airplane in the air, not on ground! 1. On ground you need aileron into the wind to avoid the wing being lifted, but definitely no aileron trim, since the effect is gone as soon as wheels are leaving the ground. 2. See point 1. That's only applicable on ground during the takeoff run. Btw in planes without FBW you also have to apply aileron into the wind immediately after touchdown during the landing run for the same reason.

No. As long as you are in the air, (steady) wind doesn't affect any airplane at all. It's only the ground track and ground speed is affected due to wind.

The first time I've experienced wake turbulence I was stunned how incredible brutal, fast and concrete like it hits you. Sitting in a sturdy tiny fighter I wasn't concerned about the structural integrity...reading your story I guess I should have been ;)

Although I fully understand your frustration, it was only a week ago when bignewy confirmed that they are working on this issue. Since this is still my favourite module I'd love to see the headwind/tailwind and artificial horizon bug fixed as well, but I agree, the non working yaw damper makes the F-5 unusable :(

Why are the brakes crap? If they lock up, which is expected without antiskid, aren't they too powerful?

That video is 6 years old and apparently the Su-25 HUD has been corrected in the meantime. The analog ASI shows IAS and TAS but the HUD shows only IAS. (GS wouldn't make any sense)

No ASI shows such low speeds. Look out of the windows and estimate the speed, as IRL. Just tested and the slight vibration during taxiing isn't too disturbing but it is rather unrealistic at this high frequency. That's exactly how a tire failure feels IRL!

Poor ED. They are investing thousands of hours to design a great looking new F-16 model and people are already delighted when they see this old horrible low res model with low res textures.:lol::lol::lol:

1 Exactly :) You don't control an aircraft with trim. With trim you are only 'trimming away' the force required to constantly apply elevator/rudder/aileron. 2. Once you are trimmed for your approach speed and you don't need apply any power changes, you 'theoretically' don't need to trim anymore. But as soon as the speed starts to decrease/increase, or you need to climb/descend, you would need to re-trim. Since these changes are only short term changes, you don't need to trim. Furthermore we are talking about an high performance prop fighter which is by far less stable than e.g. a C172 so you can expect that it will never fly perfectly straight and level for a prolonged length of time. 3. Fuel doesn't have any effect in such a short time span. Not even during a complete pattern. Generally you should basically use aileron (trim) to correct a lateral imbalance and rudder (trim) for power changes. One last item; on final a few miles out I usually neutralize rudder trim since I'm going to land power off, and I want that my plane flies in straight line in this case. That said, 2km from the runway is a very short distance and very little time to get the airplane trimmed out. At this point my rudder trim is usually already at neutral and an imbalance isn't a factor, so you only have to fly the airplane the last few seconds... edit: just re-read your assumptions in your initial post are all correct. :) Just don't assume that a P-51 will continue on its approach track indefinitely on it's own. Even the slightest change in power and/or pitch would require re-trimming, but see above concerning short term changes.

Just tried at 2 Caucasus airfields, no problems

20%? No way. Btw, the hall sensor equipped T16000M is by far the most precise joystick I've ever used. But again, how much resolution do you need/expect? Btw, every joystick that's shorter than the original stick and every throttle with less than the original travel can be considered a toy/crap ;)

No, since you don't use rudder and/or aileron trim during or for the flare! Additional lift is only created when you are e.g. applying rudder to align the airplane longitudinal axis with the runway centerline after a crabbed approach, but this is also not wind related. When you touch down, the upwind wing can be lifted due to the crosswind, but then you are not in the air anymore ;)

Don't fully understand what you are trying to say. Again, I'm talking about the airplane in the air, not on the ground.

NO! For the airplane there is no such thing as a crosswind. The ground track changes and you must adjust the heading. That's all. There's absolutely zero change in lift etc....

Concerning aerodynamics/handling/performance etc., (steady) wind doesn't affect any airplane in flight. Only ground speed and ground track are changing according to the wind.

If the flight controls wouldn't move across their whole operating range during this check, this check would be rather useless and I doubt that the FCS limits the surface deflection with the airplane sitting static on ground.

I don't think that any RW Yak52/CJ6 pilot would routinely perform a max performance landing and apply full braking, since the flight manual landing roll is already really short 300m. So I'm not sure if you can easily make a RW comparison. Touching down at 140km/h and applying full braking immediately afterwards (again I doubt that any sane Yak/CJ owner would do that) I need 200m. That's still considerable less than the flight manual 300m, but more than double the distance (90m) motoadve needs. One (or even the) reason for the too short landing run might be the still way too high flap drag.

Just read this thread and tested the F/A-18. Setup without deadzone and no curve, the throttle slider works perfect with the F/A-18. Even with the small area without throttle response and the rather small throttle range on the T16000M, I can control the RPM within 1% steps. Don't know why I would need an even finer resolution.

@ PanicMan15, like previously, I agree in all points. Expecially the wrong/restricted aileron travel, which would get th aiplane grounded before even moving out of its parking spot IRL, is rather annoying. Now let's see how long this hydraulic thread survives :(

Ah, didn't need to maneuver the F-15 into and out of very tight spots since I've re-installed her. Thanx :) Since I've sold my pedals I'm back to the twist-rudder control and there's the rudder/nws way less sensitive/twitchy of course.