Jump to content

Ironhand

Members
  • Posts

    6210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Ironhand

  1. That’s a valid criticism. In my defense, I know that a pitch of 14° at my height above the runway brought the nozzles no closer to the runway than the recommended 10° pitch up recommended for takeoff. And doing so allowed me to land as gently as possible. While I agree that the landing should be made with an 11° AoA (mine was 11.5° and the source I have says “about 11°”), I’m wondering why you state that the approach should be made at 11° as well. Is that your opinion or do you have a source? I ask because nothing I have states anything like that.
  2. A small bounce, as draconus notes, isn't really an issue. In fact, you won't even notice them sitting in the cockpit. You'll only notice them in the external view. So I don't know how much of an issue it is. If you're landing properly, you'll only get a small bounce, at most, from one or both wheels. If you lightly kiss the runway in landing, there won't be any bounce at all because of the slow rebound. The absence of smoke in a very gentle landing is puzzling. The only scenario I can imagine is one in which you are skimming the wheels so lightly over the runway that there isn't enough friction to spin them up quickly. And, then, you finally settle down.
  3. Had time this weekend for 3 quick landings at a gross weight of 13652 kg which is fairly close to @Tin_Rat’s landing weight in his original post. The first 2 were similar to the one I posted above with one wheel coming off the runway. The third resulted in both wheels sticking. Interestingly enough, there wasn’t any wheel smoke either. This was probably the smoothest landing I’ve ever made in this aircraft. TRK attached. (I porpoise in the first minute of the flight. It’s not the TRK misplaying.) Here’s a quick video at 1/8th speed of the few seconds before and after the landing: MiG-29A Senaki--GW-13652kg.trk
  4. Never be afraid to ask a question, especially after you’ve done your due diligence and searched for the answer first. There will always be someone to help. Enjoy the Flanker.
  5. Unfortunately, you read my post before I realized what you were actually referring to and edited it. The TD controller, whatever you call it, is only used to designate the target. TD Control is found in the non-axis section for assignment, while TD Slew is found in the axis assignments section. But both do the same thing. Use one or the other.
  6. The TDC is just that. It moves the TD over the target in Bore and the target mark in the BVR modes in order to lock the target. What it’s called depends on whether you are using the keyboard assignment or binding it to an axis.
  7. Looks like you’re right about that right tire. I didn’t check from that side. From the left side it looked like both stuck. At first I was going to protest that those images weren’t from my track but then I realized that I was using a custom Ukrainian skin. So, of course, you’d see the default Russian skin. Watched your video. From the cockpit, you’d never know that the tires left the ground.
  8. Well… it’s not guaranteed that you’ll bounce. I was both lighter (40% vs 70% fuel) and careful to do this landing pretty much by the numbers (height and speeds over outer/inner markers, threshold etc). TRK attached. If time allows, I’ll try again this weekend with the heavier version. MiG-29A Senaki-No Landing Bounce.trk
  9. I’ll add this track as well. From the cockpit I had no sense that I’d bounced. MiG-29A Landing Bounce.trk
  10. Still…Anything is better than nothing. Great news!
  11. No. You’re not going crazy. I checked from a different angle and the tires definitely leave the runway: As draconus suggested, it’d be best to create a new thread in order to report it. This isn’t the thread to leave it in. Include your track and, if you want, link the above video which is made from your track. Edit: I thought I had posted this 3 hours ago. Just came back and realized I had written it but not posted it. Anyway, I don’t think you have much more chasing to do.
  12. Yes. Over use of the afterburner can boost you into the next century.
  13. Of course. But Section 2-9 in the 1986 revision uses 350 for both profiles, not 300 for one and 350 for the other. That’s why I was curious.
  14. Are you making 1 or both aircraft “clients”? Any aircraft you want to fly in multiplayer must be a client aircraft.
  15. That’s white smoke making it look elevated. The animation wraps the smoke effect around the tire starting from the front. Yes. The strut animation seems extreme.
  16. Well…this is interesting. From the 1986 revision of the manual:
  17. In my viewing of the track the starts compress (a lot) but the wheels never leave the runway. Regardless of weight, the struts should not be unloading like that in a gentle landing.
  18. There are two versions, aren’t there? One from around 1974 and another around 1984. Which is yours, the latter? Edit: Oops. Didn’t notice draconis’s post until just now.
  19. No problem. I had double-checked myself before making the post to Gilligan. So much info to keep track of.
  20. No I didn’t. Both are climb at 350. The difference is the Mach number at crossover.
  21. No. More like 40-45 minutes, I think. You’re dealing with IAS and the higher you go, the more speed that number actually represents. Assuming you’re at 35,000 ft, that 250 knots (IAS) would translate to somewhere around 580 knots at sea level. Edit: 250? I thought the climb was at 350 to M0.9 and M0.9 thereafter. Regardless, it’ll be less than 1:45.
  22. Ahhh...yes. Forgot about that rule...which is too bad.
  23. That’s why I used the qualifier “roughly”.
  24. Ditto. Great way to handle it.
  25. FWIW, I can only watch the FA-18 track, since that's that's the only module we have in common, but F6 works fine on my end. The view switched to the weapon and, once multiples were in the air, switched to the next one in sequence.
×
×
  • Create New...