bbrz

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

Flying AoA or IAS doesn't make any difference during the approach. In most aircraft you fly approaches in good visibility at a much higher speed than necessary. Even in a 747 it's sufficient to reach the correct approach speed at 500ft AGL.

Exactly. Isn't that what you want?

1. 10G in which plane? And please don't say an Extra or a similar toy plane. And what has inverted flying to do with it? 2. Quite a useless number without any weight info. What turn performance do you expect? Vst is almost 140kts at MTOW. At 2.2G the stall speed will be 210kts. That's exactly what I'm seing in the DCS A-10.

Just did a few other tests with a similar config Habu23 posted and a calculated DI between 4-6. At S.L. IAS should be 320 and was 320. At 10000ft it should be 285, DCS A-10 = 285. Initial ROC close to 4000ft/min.

I don't know what a 'Russian' and a 'Western' style landing is in your opinion, but you do flare in the West as well.

R U sure? With the xwnd from the right you have to crab to the right as well.

Great info concerning the handling :) , but 'almost' doesn't equal 'full'. Concerning the ground effect; If there's no AoA change then is must be something else. As mentioned before, the pitch down moment might be the effect of the altered stabilizer downwash. Have to re-test but AFAIR the pitch down occurs way too early/high for this effect to be the reason.

Simulator or video game. Getting the performance and handling correct isn't rocket sience neither in a sim or a video game. That said, even RW multimillion dollar Level D sims are sometimes grossly wrong at the edge of their performance envelope. I haven't read all the complaints about the FM since I own this module only since yesterday. All I can say is that under few the conditions I've tested so far, the A-10 performs according to the -1.

I've only tested the A-10 in clean config so far, but at least in this area she performs according to the manuals (and even better). I don't know what point you are trying to make. Have you tested the DCS A-10 performance yourself? How do you know that the FM is 'improper' and/or which part of the performance envelope?

Especially on the 2nd video it's clearly visible that he applies full aft stick well after touchdown. This can be noticed much better when looking at MiG-29 landings from the outside view.

At least with DI 0 @ 30000lbs the climb, sustained turn, max speed and AoA values are matching the performance section from the -1. The time from brake release to climb speed is even noticable shorter than the -1 numbers.

Where? Looking at the various MiG-29 landing videos I've not seen a single landing where the pilots applies full aft stick during the flare.

That's new to me since e.g. the performance data/manuals for the A-10 are available. Following this logic Ace Combat 7 would be as realistic as DCS. edit: just did a max power run with a DI of 0 at S.L. where the A-10 should accelerate to 345kias, and that's exactly what I'm seeing. Concerning the AoA 'secret'; With the NACA 6716/13 a close to 17° max AoA doesn't seem to be too far off, if at all. Found the 6716 wind tunnel data. Max AoA = 18°. edit 2: Did another test: 30000lbs, DI 0, max sustained G at 270kts should be 3.8G.....again exactly what I'm seing. Presently I'm rather impressed!

If it is true that ED intentionally derated the engines, this would be the most stupid thing I've ever heard/read for a flight simulator. Bought the A-10C yesterday and will do some tests ASAP.

That's new to me. What makes you believe that the real MiG-29 requires full aft stick for the flare?

Interesting observation since this is what I initially thought was going on in the F/A-18 as well (before doing the ground effect tests) https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3945053&postcount=97

Talk about precise weight control. Got rid of the gun ammunition, started the approach with 1000lbs fuel. Suddenly the 7.5°AoA equals 290km/h and touchdown at 230-240km/h is no problem, except for the annoying destabilizing pitch down in ground effect.

Tried the latest beta and can't confirm that the reverse ground effect is gone.

15min...it wasn't unusual to land with 10min fuel remaining (or even worth mentioning to ATC) back in my time.