bbrz

Yes, finally, he got it!

Corner speed is in TAS?

You are disregarding my example only because it doesn't fit into your wrong picture? Ok, I give up. Luckily it occurs rather seldom that someone is so stubborn. This is costing me way too much time and it's apparent that you are not even willing to consider changing your flawed view of the world/aerodynamics and their relationship. I've promised myself to leave this thread many pages ago....I should have stuck to my decision.

Wrong again. It's exactly the other way round. GS depends on IAS/CAS/TAS but IAS/CAS/TAS does NOT depend on GS. Flying at e.g. 400kts IAS will always result in the same energy, regardless of GS. If you pull up into a 90deg climb at 400kts IAS, the climb rate will be always the same, regardless if the GS is 200, 400 or 600kts.

So all flight manual performance tables like climb & turn performance & stall speed etc. are useless?

NO!!!! The climb angle is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's 9 or 90deg. In both cases you need excess energy to be able to climb.

According to you explanation which always includes ground, aircraft can of course fly backwards! 50kts TAS/IAS (which is the same at low altitude), 100kts headwind = -50kts groundspeed.

If you want an answer, just read my previous post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4197183&postcount=100

No. Climb rate, turn rate, stall speed etc. is usually measured in CAS/IAS/EAS not TAS.

NO, and NO again. According your flawed theory the energy is zero, hence and aircraft shouldn't be able to climb at 0kts groundspeed, which is obviously wrong. An aircraft flying at 200kts indicated airspeed in a headwind of 200kts does NOT have zero energy despite a ground speed of 0kts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You still haven't understood aerodynamics, the related physics and you are still throwing navigation into the equation which doesn't belong there. IMO you weren't more clear. Rather the opposite. To me it was confusing and wrong as usual. I really don't understand why you keep discussing without knowing the basics about aerodynamics and aviation terminology.

Don't know where you get a variation from during a no flare landing. 3000-3700ft isn't a meaningful value. There's no 'range' in the performance tables. Yes of course. Lots of tests with the F-16 and the F/A-18. It's not exactly difficult to find out during testing that there's a serious brakes performance problem with and without antiskid.

With items like turbulence and thermals you are not making things easier to understand for The Falcon. If you want discuss basic flying techniques with prop driven aircraft and gliders you should open a new thread.

Please don't tell me that you are correcting the heading with the rudder IRL during the approach. Concerning gliders, either you are doing something wrong or the glider you are flying is bent.

What's de-crab? ;)

He doesn't use the rudder during the approach! He simply applies the WCA (wind correction angle) and flies a corrected heading so his track in relationship to the ground leads him to the runway. Again. Once ground (the runway) comes into play, we are talking about navigation and hence ground speed and ground track . None of these items has anything to do with aerodynamics or performance which is related to air speed, not ground speed. E.g. runway heading 090°, wind direction 360° = WCA -10deg. With the WCA applied you need to fly a heading of 080° to maintain a track of 090deg. The aircraft flies a heading of 080° without the need of any rudder application. The same is valid for all other directions. If the pilot wants to navigate at 30000ft towards a fixed point like e.g. a VOR and there's a crosswind component which requires a 10deg WCA, he flies the corrected heading to maintain the desired track to the VOR. Without the fixed point on earth you don't notice any difference if you fly a heading of 080°, 090° or any other heading, regardless of the wind speed and direction.

If this would be the case, every aircraft would weathervane into the wind during flight and you would have to correct with the rudder which clearly isn't the case. That's the proof.

@Deano87 I don't know why you are still arguing with 'the falcon'. If someone like he does posts things like ...if you don't understand the most basic things... ...Just to be clear for those who are slow to understand... ...Imop you all, are misunderstanding things written... any further discussion is obviously completely useless and just a waste of time.

With a heavy duty braking system you get e.g. these data for an A319. 40t, VREF 198km/h, landing distance from 50ft = 670m. Deceleration rate with autobrakes LOW = 0.17G, MED = 0.3G, MAX = 0.6G. The MAX value is just a target value and can't be achieved AFAIR.

There's definitely a problem with the brakes since e.g. on the F/A-18 and the F-16 is that there's no difference in stopping distance with antiskid on and off, which doesn't make sense. Furthermore stopping performance is (at least) on both aircraft considerable longer than the flight manual values. But since ED has tagged these reported bugs as 'correct as is' I've given up on providing additional info.

Ok, I give up. It's apparently useless trying to explain anything to you. Concerning climb. I wrote exactly the opposite!!! One more time: If there's a 100kts head or tailwind doesn't matter concerning climb performance. Climb rate will be the same at 200kts groundspeed and at 400kts groundspeed. Isn't it strange that most aircraft in DCS and in all other flightsims are fundamentally wrong in your opinion. For the last time, your video shows that wind affects the airplane only in relationship to the ground, but I know, that's not what you want to read. Bye.

I don't know how often we have to repeat this. Steady wind only affects ground speed and ground track, both have nothing to do with aircraft performance. The aicraft is climbing at a fixed IAS. If the optimum climb speed is e.g. 300kias the aicraft will climb best at this speed. If there's a 100kts head or tailwind doesn't matter concerning climb performance. Climb rate will be the same at 200kts groundspeed and at 400kts groundspeed. Again, once ground comes into play, like during landing, things will change. If there's an obstacle in your way after takeoff at a fixed distance, the aircraft will be lower over the obstacle in a tailwind condition than in a headwind condition. During landing wind only has an impact on the aircraft because you need to correct your heading (or keep the downwind wing low and apply opposite rudder) to maintain the runway heading. But performance doesn't change. It makes no difference on which heading you are flying. For a goldfish isn't doesn't matter and it makes no difference if he swimming in his goldfishbowl while it sits steady on a desk or if it's travelling in a car at 100mph. As cofcorpse mentioned, you are talking about navigation which means the aircraft id moving relative to the ground. But it's about aerodynamics which don't affect performance. If you still don't believe/understand it and you don't believe real world pilots, there are lots of documents in the net for you to read. One more item that might help in understanding this issue. If an airliner takes off in a 40kts crosswind, climbs with V2 +10kts and turns 90deg into the 40kts taiilwind, it would stall according to your theory....but apparently this doesn't happen IRL.

You are comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about steady wind which has zero, no, nil effect on an aircraft in flight. Your example shows the transition from air to ground and that's the only point (and vice versa of course) where wind does have an effect.

Suggest to take a look at the winter update thread when you can roughly expect an update.

I assume that they would have expected that their Yak would have the basics right, like a realistic engine behavior and engine indictions, correct RPM/MP relationship etc.