bbrz

1. Wrong. Where were these 'steel plates' located in your opinion? 2. Completely wrong. Even the DOW for the complete 109 was only ~2000kg and what's 'crazy' about using a 1370hp engine? 3. The Spitfire has an very similar narrow track landing gear, what's so 'crazy stupid' about it? 4. Don't know where you've got this 'info' from. FYI, the first 109 versions had only ~700hp engines and the landing gear and tail size were perfectly adequate for these versions, absolutely not 'deadly'.

Ah, ok. With the 'realistic' POV this bug report makes much more sense.

Since you can't see these parts when you are not smashing your head through the canopy, fixing this 'bug' doesn't make much sense IMO. Especially the first screenshot is a good example how to save textures. Parts from the internal model which can't be seen from the inside are kept as basic/untextured as possible.

Same goes for trim. If you don't trim, your F-16 will settle at a 1deg too low AoA for the optimum approach speed, hence trimming nose up is definitely not wrong.

Just tested and the drag chute can be deployed up to 300km/h. If you increase thrust above 80% it will shear off at any speed. During the tests I noticed that just above 300km/h I'm experiencing various tire failures. Nice :)

Why should they have deployed the RAT? I'm not aware that they had lost both engines and I assume that at least the backup instruments were working.

The SS100, like most (if not all) modern airliners, has a RAT which provides sufficient electric and hydraulic power to be able to fly the aircraft in the dual engine failure case.

It might seem off to you, but it's correct.

It's correct that the nosewheel centers with the NWS disengaged. It works that way on most aircraft.

There's not too much WoW and hence rather low brakes effectiveness in the aerobraking attitude. With a working antiskid, the nose down moment shouldn't be too excessive, even with full brake application.

+1 As can been seen e.g. here: https://www.google.com/search?q=f-16+hud&sxsrf=ACYBGNToKJhIlj5NdDuC22dVrK2YDOoo8g:1581862843744&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj30YmnotbnAhXgAhAIHWyyC8QQ_AUoAXoECAkQAw&biw=1920&bih=935#imgrc=9rBPeKKmeVhjNM

? Bouli306 exactly explained how you should do it on the previous page.

Wrong technique if you want to achieve the shortest possible landing distance. Why should the tires blow with a working anti-skid system?

Doesn't make sense since the wheels will lock up if you apply more brake pressure than with the anti-skid on, hence the brakes will heat up less. If you apply less brake pressure, the stopping distance will increase and brake temps will be lower as well.

Since the emergency/parking brake disables the anti-skid, stopping distance should increase. Normal manual braking with the anti-skid on IRL results in the shortest possible stopping distance. In the DCS F/A-18, apart from the different tire marks and the noticeable reduced directional stability, there's no difference in stopping distance between anti-skid on and off.

Wouldn't make sense because pitch and VS changes are obviously necessary in turbulence.

Even fully extended flaps wouldn't reduce the speed that much in full AB. It's very strange.

And how do you know without anti skid when the wheels start to lock up?

Why should the brakes be more effective with anti-skid off? That's one of the DCS problems. There's virtually no difference in stopping distance, with anti-skid on or with locked wheels.

A F-16 is not a Cessna 150 and you don't de-crab in a F-16 (and many other aircraft).

Are all modules affected by the deck sliding 'solution'?

Nevertheless it should be noticed that the brakes on the real F-16 are noticeable more effective than on the present DCS version.

Testing without actual fuel burn isn't ignorable either.

If this would be the case, the L-39 would be another module which is incorrectly affected by wind. Steady wind has absolutely zero impact or influence on handling or performance of an aircraft in flight!

e.g.