Figaro9

yes, think it works. f18, centerline bag, 50% initial fuel 1) stabalize at 150kts, 35kft 2) select spin recovery switch. since the leading edge flaps drives to 34° and the trailing edge to 0°, nose drops... 3) power idle, slowly full after stick 4) smoothly apply full rudder 5) slowly increase opposite power lever to mil , other engine idle when yaw rate is achieved 6) both engine idle 7) spin recovery swith to norm Recovery need some adjustments to the natops. You need mil power on the engine against spin direction. msrm spin recovery.trk

Yes, that's how I thought about it too. 4.7 alpha is close to the best L/D ratio. It is possible that drag and lift difference becomes large enough above that to outweigh the lifting effect of the canted stab. Pure speculation though... But it might also explain why the roll rate increases with higher AOA.

Probably that one?

This behavior is not speed but AOA-dependent according my today’s tests.Above ~4.7 alpha the roll is in direction of the rudder input. Bellow ~ 4.7 roll is very slightly in the opposite direction. Can’t tell why. Probably the outboard angled stabilizers play a role here…

Check the srv-info-changelog on the mob discord. It was definitely a wake turb you caught It is turned off again.

Sure, it is a design for a specific spectrum (5000h, max 9g, A/A only, 40’ sortie, 30 years lifetime). In addition to the structure and software, other critical parts were strengthened like landing gear uplock pawls, fuel cell retaining clips and wing fold hinges.

The swiss do have a 7.5g peace time limit, but the aircraft is 9g rated. Here is a vid with a demo pilot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS2LwzbjWhs&t=952s They have a reinforced structure using titanium instead of aluminium in some parts and a customized 9g flight control software. https://www.slideserve.com/kaspar/strategic-engineering-designing-systems-for-an-uncertain-future-powerpoint-ppt-presentation

Exactly the same as non fbw-aircraft like f5,m1, f14 ect. can be modeled above their g-limits (outside em-charts) in game. Search for the Flight model principles document. Ed shows how the magic potion is prepared. A pinch of drag polar (preferably data from a rw wind tunnel), a bit of thrust (if possible installed) and above all a lot of math and physics... Em charts are not the basis of the fm, it is a result. There are also programs that can do the math. http://www.alr-aerospace.ch/index.php?id=fighter-performance-mission-analysis By the way, great update ED. Thanks for that.

Do you use bushmannis miz? Check temperature?

True, but compressor stalls still happened sometimes. Here is an excerpt from the flight accident report on how the j-5235 was lost: During this training flight on 14. october 2015, the F/A-18D Hornet was to practice air combat against two F-5s. When the hornet reached the minimum safety altitude (so-called hard deck), the pilot changed the target. He wanted to pull away to the upper right with full afterburner deployment in order to fight the other F-5. The aircraft began to turn to the left with an unintentional rolling motion. The pilot responded by changing control from right to left to stop the roll before entering the clouds. At 11.29 a.m. and at an altitude of approx. 2,280 m above sea level, the pilot received the acoustic warning "engine left, engine left" and at the same time the warning "L STALL" (stall in the left engine) was shown on the cockpit display. The pilot did not take the immediate action prescribed for this case. (In this case, the flight manual stipulates that the affected engine should be put into idle by changing the position of the power lever, which leads to a reduction of the pressure in the engine and thus to the elimination of the stall as the cause of the power loss. ) As a result, the aircraft continued to lose altitude and dived into the clouds. A few seconds later, at an altitude of approx. 1,855 m above sea level, the pilot activated the ejection seat The technical expert concludes in his report that a combination of various factors led to the stall in the left engine and ultimately to the loss of the stable flight attitude necessary for a possible further flight with only one engine: 1. flight at very low speeds and thus high angles of attack; 2. aggressive maneuvering with rapid changes in angle of attack and abrupt power lever movements. Here is another one, which was recovered the proper way… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFLbAUkCNFY

According to bn, Cg is a little too far ahead in edf18 iirc, which leads to too high takeoff speeds.

acceleration looks good to me, at least for di0 22000lbs at 15kft. blue is sep for edf16, orange for haf block 50. Where the orange line indicates 0sep (m0.85-1.0, 1.15-1.3), no correct sep-value can be read from the chart and I do not want to speculate here. keep in mind that there is some tolerance in measuring sep in game and also in interpreting charts. Overall it is very close.

Check also: https://tawdcs.org/radar-f15/

OPs plots are from another game as already correctly stated above. And they were proven incorrect when the famous gao report was released. Mstr in those game-plots are 2dps (!) below the official dod figures. Mstr for the epe hornet is rather close to the -200sep curve (33325lbs/ 2*2 FE). Those gamers were lacking 2 degreese per second compared to the real jet! EDs performance in that regard is 'correct as is' based on available data.

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-gPWlODKCY 01:21:58 10.5g on a Hornet It is operator technique, you can’t blame the aircraft.