bbrz

Do you have a link for these NASA docs? After a quick search I only found TM X-3231. Thanx in advance :)

Looks like you are in game mode instead of simulation mode.

Depends on the outside lighting conditions and time of day as well. If it would be 'fine' ED wouldn't have fixed it in previous versions. That's why the OP wrote that the issue is back.

Confirmed, the super dark tinted HUD is back. :(

No it's not. The altitude warning at touchdown bug has been reported a looong time ago.

I have no idea what you mean with ' flight rudder left/right 1 notch'. Can you explain in more detail?

The F-86 is also less fun to fly IMO. The F-5s envelope is noticable bigger and learning to fly/land the F-5 is more satisfying than the F-86.

The F-5 is by far the best choice if you are (like me) interested in the FLYING part of the sim. The L-39 and the C-101 are more underpowered motorgliders, not much fun and not much to learn IMO.

Using the search function for 'replay' in this thread brought up nothing. Am I the only one who's still waiting for a useable replay feature which has been promised by ED since many years?

Concerning flaps. They are usually in AUTO in the F-5. As soon as you drop the gear, the flaps extend fully.

I don't think so. Just check this for comparison: or this:

Just watched your track but I didn't see any 'snap' back. If you watch the replay from the cockpit POV you will notice that a lot of forward stick is being applied before the nose pitches down. The pitch up rate is noticeable higher than the pitch down rate. Nowhere in your track I did see an AoA which came even close to the AoA which occurs during the cobra.

As a RW pilot I'm quite happy with the MiG-29 FM. This and the F-5 FM I like most due to their general handling and responsiveness. The FBW aircraft like the F-16 & 18 are really boring if it's about flying, not fighting IMO.

Just tried at -2°C (gnd temp) and M2.2 was max.

How do you get TAS displayed on the HUD? What was the temp and wind during this test. Even with cheating (starting the flight at 12500m with full internal fuel) I couldn't get past M2.58. Furthermore after a few minutes at M2.58 I get a LH afterburner failure on each test.

That's from another G-2 test done at Wright Field: ------------------ Test of stall was made with wheels and flaps up and wheels and flaps down. UP. About 120 m.p.h. the aircraft began to lose height. The nose did not fall appreciably and there was no tendency to drop a wing and there was still aileron control. ------------------ The stall behavior you are describing doesn't look like a stalled tail to me, but simply running out of elevator/pitch authority. If the whole stabilizer/elevator assembly would stall, the resulting pitch down would be pretty violent and since the airfoil used isn't exactly a thick one, I doubt that it would immediately recover once stalled.

Looks like a comprehension/language problem to me. Can not be stalled by accident means IMO that it doesn't stall without warning and without the pilot noticing that he's approaching the stall. It can't be stalled unintentionally, contrary to the Fw190. AFAIR the 190 stall behavior was the reason why many pilots preferred the 109. It could be flown closer to the edge of the envelope, since the 190 gave little to no warning. 2. And what makes you think that this is being caused by a stalled tail?

Looked through all my docs and reports and didn't find any hint that the 109G can't be stalled. Don't know where the elevator stall theory comes from, but this doesn't match any stall description of the 109G. If the tail would stall (and if it would stall before the wing does), there would be a severe nose drop, no wing drop and no loss of aileron control. None of these things happen from what I've read. Furthermore stall (or non-stall) behavior depends on the stab trim setting as well. Since the adjustment range is 8deg, it might be possible that you can't stall the 109 if the stab trim is too much nose down. That's one of more detailed contemporary G-2 reports I have: The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward.

I don't understand. Where does it say that the 109 can't be stalled?

Here's a bit of additional reading for those interested in the handling characteristics of the various 109 models and the, not surprisingly, wildly different opinions among 109 pilots. http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#109hard

Don't understand. Every aircraft will be become unstable/destabilize when flying it into a stall, especially with full power applied. The OP specifically asked about the stability in level flight.

More like a glider? At idle, with full flaps and the gear down?

That's interesting because all the reports I've read state that the ROD is very high if you fly the approach at idle and that you have to touchdown in a three point attitude because the 109 otherwise will skip back into the air if you don't.

Neither in history or in the present age. Otherwise pilots wouldn't claim that the 109 was a delight to fly (Eric Brown) or mention that the 109 is surprisingly docile for a high performance fighter (Hermann Liese) etc. etc. Furthermore there are numerous flight test reports available on the internet with detailed data where you can draw your own conclusion.

You still don't understand. If the trim tabs would be made of 'steel plates' you wouldn't be able to bend them and they would serve no purpose. So in your opinion, there are only two possibilities. Completely crazy stupid or perfect. No. Suggest you re-read your own post. You wrote The fuselage was very light (only around 3500kg)