bbrz

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)

I don't know why you have such a bad opinion about Germans and there are in fact quite a few advantages if you mount the landing gear on the fuselage. FYI, an Extra 300 has a much higher power to weight ratio than the early 109s and a fuselage mounted landing gear. It doesn't seem to be another crazy, completely stupid German dump idea. If a 109 actually weighs 50% less than you wrote, yes, then it's IMO completely wrong. Maybe if the very light weight ground adjustable aluminium trim tabs (your steel plates) and the fuselage would be made of steel it would double the weight of a 109 ;) Again, there are no 'steel plates' for trimming on an aircraft and it wouldn't make any sense because you couldn't bend them! The reason for me to be that 'critical' is that you are a real pilot and hence I was surprised about your inaccurate/misleading post.

And the 1938 He 100 was far ahead of the 109.

You've forgot the main competitor…

If the 109 would have been actually that horrible from its beginnings, I severely doubt that it would have become the standard fighter.

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).