bbrz

That's strange. Without pushing the steering button, I've got a relative wide turn radius and when I push the NWS button, the F-15 locks the nosewheel at the present position and I can't turn at all.

That's weird because especially the F-16 should be landed with full crab since: the ARI switches off at touchdown and undesirable yaw transients may occur if roll control is being applied during this time. Concerning airliners. Of course you are always shooting for an aligned touchdown in a crosswind. The problems start with higher crosswind components. Since you should land in a wings level attitude, you start to drift to the downwind side of the runway as soon as you are pushing off the crab angle. Usually you start the decrabing just before or even during the flare, but due to the swept wings you have to counteract the upgoing 'wrong' wing and a touchdown on the downwind side landing gear is the last thing you want. Hence, with a high crosswind component you simply have to land fully or at least partially crabbed. Especially on a wet runway. Landing in windy conditions can be a real challenge in fighters ;) https://youtu.be/5BJP7H52_YM?t=13

Don't understand. A curve shouldn't have any impact on max deflection, regardless if it's 0 or 100. My F-15 taxiing ok. A 180° turn requires approx 3/4 of a runway with. No need to lead anything. I'm using no curve for the rudder, but I didn't notice any difference in the turning radius when using a 100% curve. No twitchiness at all with 0% here.

Don't know about the MiG-29, but many jet fighters have to be landed with the full crab angle and can't/shouldn't point the nose down the runway like e.g. the T-38, F-5 and the F-15. If you have to land the MiG-29 at night and with a crosswind from the left, then things are bit more difficult, but you still have the runway edge lights for guidance. Btw, since you have to land airliners (almost) wings level, you sometimes need to land with the full crab angle as well which has been demonstrated nicely by e.g. Boeing test pilots:

ED is already working on a completely new A-10C cockpit with corrected dimensions, higher res model etc. etc. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3807915&postcount=184

Neither IRL nor in the sim I'm using the FPM for the flare. Too much concentrated on the runway surface/texture for a precise flare.

Did you touchdown at idle? Just flew an approach with 50% fuel and 300km/h. Touchdown at idle occured at 260km/h, no bounce.

The point is not aerobraking, but the fact that the MiG-29 requires quite a lot of aft stick before touchdown. Looking at the various RW videos, either the CG is further forward on the real MiG-29 and/or the stabilator is less effective, because it seems that almost immediately after touchdown the pilot applies full aft stick without risking a tailstrike. No finesse needed ;) but you can't do that in the DCS MiG-29. Btw, usually the interesting part when lowering the nosewheel (on any airplane) is, to reserve some aft stick travel so that you can control the pitch rate and avoid that the nosewheel slams onto the runway with the stick already at the aft limit.

How to fly/land the MiG-29 depends a lot on the operator and individual pilot, so there's no 'fixed' set of rules. Never had a problem with quoting RL manuals. Why would that be?

That's one of the problems with the DCS F-15. The -1 states that the ground effect is so pronounced that it can be difficult to notice that actual touchdown. Without this effect you need more energy and/or a more positive flare than with the real F-15. Let's agree that you don't land a heavy F-15 with the approach power setting ;) With a heavy F-15 you have much more inertia/energy, so the tendency to float is even higher IMO. I always land the F-15 at idle, regardless of the weight.

Since you are touching down at idle, the extended speed brake can't be a detriment and since it's extended for all landings in the -1 performance section, I'd say it's not optional in the max performance case. The -1 states that the extended speed brake may help with speed control and to shorten the landing run. Retracting the flaps during aerobraking and even shutting down one engine after touchdown should be also considered on a wet runway. Concerning xwnd; the -1suggests not to aerobrake down to a very low airspeed on a contaminated runway.

Difficult to tell. The -1 doesn't even mention the use of the speed brake for max performance, crosswind or flaps up landings. If the -1 doesn't say anything, it's up to the pilot, experience, preference etc.. Don't know how strict the US or Japanese SOPs are. Those are fighter pilots, not airline pilots ;)

Just re-tested the F/A-18 and the F-5E and (at least) in these 2 planes the ground effect is definitely simulated.

No, this doesn't have anything to do with the engine spool up / go around in case of the F-15. The RPM during the approach is way above the slow acceleration area, and the difference between speed brake in and out is only approximately 2%. The F-15A preliminary manual says to extend the speed brake to assist in speed reduction for the gear extension and the later manuals are stating that the use is optional. The main difference between speed brake in and out is, that with the speed brake retracted, the tendency to float is higher. So if there's a slight ballooning during the flare, you will float along quite a bit longer than with the retracted speed brake. Contrary to the real F-15, the ground effect in the DCS version is (almost?) non-existant.

And as soon as the plane is at the parking position you can place fans in front of the brakes:)

It takes about 10min for the brakes/tires to reach their maximum temp after brake application and it's likely that a rejected takeoff at high weight and high speed (and a max performance heavy weight landing) will ruin the brakes and the tires. I was just trying to point out that max braking after a landing at the usually low weight and speed will not necessarily upset the crew chief.

That's correct, but the big difference is the way higher energy when aborting the takeoff. Accelerating vs decelerating, plus the very high pitch attitude during landing.

I don't think that the brakes will come even close to overheating during a max performance landing, since the takeoff abort speed can be as high as 180kts (at almost MTOW).

Correct. With the required 14° pitch up after touchdown and no wheel brakes, the real F-15C needs a ground roll of 5500ft. If you need the maximum landing performance you lower the nose immediately after touchdow and the ground roll dramatically decreases to 3500ft. Usually, you can start braking already with the nosewheel still in the air and you control the pitch down rate with the stabilators. On the F/A-18 things are a bit different because the main gear is considerable more aft of the CG than on land based planes. Hence full aft stick will not, or at least not as easy, keep the nose up. Without groundspoilers/lift dumpers getting the weight onto the wheels is always a problem if you need maximum braking performance. Applying full aft stick during/after lowering the nosewheel would theoretically increase the braking performance a bit.

I don't think that the F-15 speed brake generates a downward force. It's not like spoilers on a wing which reduce lift and besides that, it would make formation flying rather difficult. Furthermore at this low speed and high AoA its effect is already very weak, especially considering the fact that the speed brake automatically retracts at 25 units AoA. Last but not least, the -1 landing distance is only valid with the extended speed brake.

1. Where did I trash the Extra? I said it's a toy, like the Su-26/29/31 etc. due to their low weight, size and Vne etc. 2. That was a 'jab'? LOL, but why? 3. A convenient way not having to admit that you are wrong, and/or having the wrong expectations. 4. Luckily it doesn't. At 70° AOB the g-load is 2.9 and the lowest point at the Tagab valley is 5500ft. If you are able to read/and or believe the -1, even at a lower 5000ft, ISA conditions and DI 0, the maximum sustained G-load is 2.9 between 260-265kias. What magic performance do you expect? 5. Oh, another 'jab' I guess. I don't know why you are suddenly getting personal, but ususally that's a sign that the attacker knows that he's wrong ;)

Same here. Since you've provided the info how much back stick is used during the flare, and knowing that the reduced stab downwash is almost perfectly simulated, I find it easier to land the MiG-29. I chop the thottle to idle when crossing the threshold and pull back, almost like landing a Super Cub. Works exactly as in the videos. :)

Strange. Even with 14% fuel the pitch down moment is very noticable on my install... Btw, you cheated. Touchdown occurred without any thrust reduction ;)

latest beta

That's why I initially tested with DI 0: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3958841&postcount=65