Yo-Yo

Разница огромная: один зеленый, второй белый. И один в правом вираже, второй - в левом.

And this just proves that you need very low sink rate to avoid ballooning, because generally the time constant of mechanical system "undercarriage suspension - longitudinal MOI" is sufficiently lower than time constants of aerodynamic moments at low landing speed.

The tail wheel bouncing has no relation neither to the main wheels and touchdown behavior nor to wheel physics at all. It is a matter of surface noise model and has a quite complicated nature similar to aliasing problem. It is not so noticeable for the old model, but some small wheels having the new model can be affected with it. We are trying to change things, but it requires time because of its complexity.

The choice is well known:

I am afraid, your opinion about tail dragger kinematic is very far from reality.

"and LESS prone to bouncing" you probably wanted to say? Because the bouncing tendency or AoA increasing has its cause in three things: an arm between contact points and CoG, the MASS (the more is the mass the more pitch-up torque will be generated) and sink rate.

I think that nobody read this forum... especially ED answers. Yes, the struts already adjusted down, but IT IS NOT A REASON of nose pitch up. (Too many times was mentioned on the forum, as well). There are two main reasons of it for tail draggers - high sink rate at touchdown and high GW of the aircraft.

The only problem is that in fact rubber blocks, as the drawing shows, have no friction contact with the case or any fixed part of the strut. Energy is absorbed using internal friction of rubber that is symmetrical during a compression cycle. And it is absolutely right approach to do it. Friction in this case is the worst way for it because the heat can not dissipate from the contact zone and rubber will burn and wear every time the strut is used. The energy at the touchdown can be estimated as 4500*1^2/2 for 1 m/s strike velocity that gives up to 5-7 kW of power concentrated at the surface. Remember, how rubber belts smoke and fire in seconds as the pulley is jammed even at small engines. Moreover, as you are trying to use friction for the stack, you will see that only lower block moves full travel, while the majority of blocks move much less or simply stays in place, and provides no significant work at all. Any rubber details has its internal energy dissipation, otherwise your garden wheelbarrow would bounce for minutes as you drop it. It stops bouncing after several times. But if it had a oleo-pneumo strut it would react exactly as in your video.

Except the fact that the manual gives the numbers for fully dead rubber stack.

Do you see a difference between rubber blocks and gas-oleo struts?

Yes, we changed it, and it will merged sooner or later.

Anyway, the manual contains just terminal compressions for fully degraded rubber blocks. It means that physical parameters of the rubber degraded. But the initial compression is not available. But, I am not sure I see this information here, in this degraded conditions the manual directed to replace half-size block to full-size. This can add about 20 mm to the numbers specified in the table, and this is what we can do for the struts in DCS. So, the strut will be authentic for refurbished one.

So, the initial procedure for good 2-wheels landing: 1. 10-15% of fuel, no bombs. 2. VSI zero mark area is visible (adjust camera position left, but only to see this area, not more) 2. Maintain 210-220 kph at normal stabilized approach. 3. As the wheels is about 2-3 m from the ground, start lowering VS to 50-100 fpm watching steady IAS app. 200-210 kph. 4. As the new VS is established do not touch the throttle, use only small stick deflection to maintain VS. 5. Wait. 6. As you feel ground, move the stick forward a bit as a mongoose and fix 2-wheel attitude. 7. Slowly retard both throttles. (Slowly forward throttles and go-around, if the airfield fence is too close). Freeze the stick and enjoy, you are cool. 8. Wait for the tail lowering itself.

I can only say that attempts to 2-wheel landing with full fuel load from ME will not be successful. The landings you see in videos are performed for much lighter planes. I think, that I have not to explain, why GW is directly affects the pitch-up torque t touchdown. The second thing that is important: stabilized low vertical speed and IAS. IAS is important to be sure that the desired low vertical speed is the same up to the moment of touchdown. In this video the speed just before the touchdown lowers from 208 to 200 kph that means that the plane lost about 8% of lift, and the vertical speed increased. As you can see, g-meter shows 0.9 g instead of 1 just before the touchdown. And the third thing: small forward moving of the stick JUST AT THE MOMENT of touchdown . Not before and not too late, both cases worsen the situation, but if it is done in time it really works. In this video one can see constant vertical speed and the almost constant IAS before touchdown. Anyway, small forward stick was used as well.

It was "low tail" touchdown that frequently happens during planned three-point touchdown. It is safe as a three-wheel landing, especially if you stop to pull the stick after main wheels touch the ground. But even if you miss this point nothing serious will happen - the additional AoA is low, speed is bleeding. and the bouncing will not be excessive. This is an example:

Yes, very, very bouncing...

Эти усилия оптимизированы под реальный самолет с реальными перегрузками.

Элементарно. Чем выше температура, тем больше теплоотдача в воздух в радиаторе при прочих равных.

To find out the origin of the effect try MiG-29. It has pronounced nose-down trim effect close to the ground. Try it on concrete first to get acquainted and then try over a CV.

Из всего этого потока сознания и коллажика (кстати, не надо сильно надувать щеки, бОльшая часть из этого у нас есть) понятно лишь одно - что наличие даже большого количества документов ни на шаг не приближает некоторых к какому-либо практическому результату и даже к простому инженерному пониманию предмета. Например, в вопросе о числе критически нагруженных подшипников в радиальном двигателе, который не сводится к простому пересчету на пальцах подшипников из перечня деталей.

Что значит "по-моему"? Есть четкое общепринятое определение понятия "критическая высота". Без всяких вопросов. И особенности работы конкретной схемы регуляторов к этому отношения не имеет. А почему я стебусь? Потому что становится все больше "блоггеров", девизом которых становится "Я ничего про это не знаю, но сейчас вам про это расскажу". Для широкой публики и с иллюстрациями. Если я пишу про какие-то устройства, то это только потому, что на них почти невозможно найти более или менее компактную и исчерпывающую информацию. По R-R есть масса хороших технических статей в интернете, которые ищутся на раз.

Я вот недоумеваю, зачем писать длинные теоретические посты, и делать выводы космического масштаба, не разобравшись вообще в предмете. Например, что такое есть КРИТИЧЕСКАЯ ВЫСОТА. Есть же замечательные книжки для советских летчиков, где все прекрасно разжевано.

Надо же было так поставить с ног на голову... выше границы высотности пилот может подкрутить давление наддува только если руками подкрутит крыльчатку импеллера, предварительно оторвав ее от вала, который связывает ее с двигателем. У регулятора Ролс-Ройса необходимость двигать вперед РУД - это как раз недостаток примененной схемы регулятора, вследствие чего на более поздних сериях двигателя устанавливали регуляторы Симмондcа, которые работали аналогично немецкому.