bbrz

On the RW video the average AoA on final is a much lower 7.5°. 10° seems to be a bit high/slow since the touchdown AoA occurs at 10°. Noticed in your video that, although you said that you trimmed for 11° AoA, you were never in trim and even needed to apply back pressure already above 7° AoA.

Since we don't know the weight, the AoA is much more interesting. A few moments before touchdown it's close to 11° and at touchdown it's just a tad above 10°. Looking at the ASI, the touchdown occurs just a tad below 250km/h. It's interesting to note that (if it's not related to the pitch instability) he uses a slight trick to achieve a smooth touchdown. Just before touchdown occurs, he slightly decreases the pitch attitude. This makes the main gear to rotate a bit upward and the following touchdown will be very smooth if you get the timing and height exactly right. It's not as easy as it looks! If you are bit too high the pitch attitude will decrease too much and/or the sink rate will increase again.

I don't see a problem. Rather the opposite. This video nicely shows that the MiG-29 apparently is very pitch sensitive, at least at low speed on final. From 17:22 until touchdown you can easily notice the constant pitch/AoA oscillations.

I'm using a 2% deadzone on the rudder, roll and pitch axis, and a 15% curve for pitch and roll for all my DCS planes. Nothing special for the MiG-29. @Ironhand, a pretty impressive landing, not only for a layman!:thumbup:

I don't understand. What do you want to figure out?

That sounds more than it actually is ;). Almost one third was flying long range on the 767. Apart from this, basically everything, from small open cockpit gliders via 1-4 engined turboprops to various jets.

Yes. Too difficult to see a 'camouflaged' deer in the grass in time.

The radalt warning only prevents you from flying unintentionally into the ground. If you are flying intentionally low you should look out of the big window and of course turn this nuisance warning off. I've once even hit a deer during a low flying exercise :(

That's (almost) an insult. LOL. I'm a pilot and not an engineer and I'm basing my comments almost exclusively on my +17000hrs flying experience.

It seems that the misunderstanding partially comes from your misleading/non standard choice of the words speed and fast. When you say fast, this means only IAS/TAS/GS in aviation. If you are talking about V/S, ROD or sink rate, it's either low or high. We agree that the sink rate was higher than usual on short final, but the pitch attitude was normal. The result of this combination is a higher AoA = lower IAS.....that's what I wrote right in the beginning. Concerning the tail strike; Again, if he would have been another 5-10kts slower! I mentioned the nosewheel because it has nothing to do with a bounce or 'correct' touchdown speed as long you don't land on the nosewheel or you do a three point landing. In fact, the faster you are at touchdown, the lower usually the sink rate and the probability for a bounce is even lower.

Exactly that. This completely shuts off the RA warning (and that's about the first thing I do when entering the cockpit)

Have you done/applied any mods to the F-5, input files etc.? I'm using a completely unmodified DCS beta and I'm not experiencing any problems.

Are you sure that you are sure? Here's a copy & paste from another thread: I just checked the flight manuals I have (MiG-21, -23, -29) and for all they say the pilot before landing flare should look left and down to visually estimate the height. The MiG-21 and -29 also have landing lights pointing slightly to the left (demonstrable fact). On MiG-31 landing lights are also pointing to the left.

I wouldn't even remotely think to compare the DCS MiG-15 to the real one! Regardless how smooth the landing is, the RW MiG-15 landing gear seems to induce bounces: Why are you looking at the nosewheel? The low tail position is the limiting/critical factor.

Again, have checked the pitch attitude and the tail clearance at touchdown? Another 5-10kts less and he would have had a tail strike. I really don't why this landing makes the impression that he was too fast.

While I really appreciate ED is working on the Yak-52 (again) :) I don't quite understand what they are working on. There are now flap failures, but the basic flap drag is still way too high... Performing a go-around according the RW procedure (establish a climb at 160km/h before retracting the flaps) is impossible.

Erm, that's exactly what I said. With the no flare landing technique, it doesn't. If you try to grease her on with a high power setting you would most likely notice it. Same goes for the DCS version, since the required AoA and thrust is lower in ground effect.

You flare to break/reduce the ROD. Speed reduction, if at all, is just a secondary effect. Actually IRL in most planes you have to take care that the speed doesn't decrease too much during the flare. E.g. a 5kts speed reduction is considered average with many jets.

Strange, just tested again. No problem with the trim or the yaw damper. SP, Caucasus

Judging by the pitch attitude and vertical speed just before the flare, the rather large flare movement and the tail clearance on touchdown, I'd say that he was rather too slow than too fast.

I don't understand why people are having problems with the nosegear on landing since you are not supposed to land in a 3 point attitude or on the nosegear. But even if you touch down on the mains, lowering the nosegear too fast can result in a serious high bounce. Just take a look at this RW MiG-15 bounced landing. This one could have easily ended in a disaster.

Here's a very short pattern, didn't have any time for practise. Just to show that she's not too difficult to land smoothly. 29_pattern.trk

Without FBW it can't be unstable, not even relaxed stability. It's a 'classic' stable design. She's simply very responsive. :)

Where did you get this info from? Looking at the wing span, loading, its position, flaps/flaperon size and deflection angles, it's rather easy to calculate that there is ground effect. That it isn't noticable/effective during unflared landings, where you are descending rapidly through the ground effect, is a different story. Maybe even the FBW masks it.

Ok, intercept and Gs are an entirely different story. It's only about the optimum climb speed with the maximum ROC. No maneuvering.