Tom Kazansky

Thx @Hiob Just requoted that because on my end the format wasn't readable. No offence.

thanks

Is it by about or to about 70%? Just curious.

40nm turn radius would be quite off, according to the following info: Found some good insights on almost every AAR aspect where it is stated that a RL* pattern is more like max. 20 nm x min. 50 nm https://wiki.ivao.aero/en/home/specialoperations/Documentation/AAR Edit: *the info is from the IVAO website, so I don't know how close it matches RL info.

Ich bin gespannt wie die 3840 x 3840 Pixel pro Auge (mit FovRendering) der "Super" einschlagen werden. Obwohl der Aufpreis natürlich heftig ist, sehne ich mich sehr nach mehr Auflösung. Vielleicht auch weil damit die Qualität der Kantenglättung immer weniger ausschlaggebend wird. Interessant sind aber für mich alle angekündigten Varianten. Auch wenn ich (noch) kein Pimax-Fan bin.

By definition, "Phantom pain" refers to painful sensation perceived in a part that is not present.

... the first plane with an even bigger angle of stabilizers to the outside, that came to my mind was the YF-23 Black Widow II and I found the following interesting behaviour: while taxiing on the ground the YF-23 moves its stabilizers clockwise in a right taxi-turn. correct me if I'm wrong, but this should mean a right rudder press. the control surfaces ot the much more perpendicular (i.e. vertical) stablilizers of the Hornet move "counterclockwise" (or to the right, in this regard) with a right rudder press. This tells me, that if the stabilizers are installed with an higher and higher angle to the outboard sides, the effect I described in my previous post becomes so pronounced, that it is the better solution to invert the stabilizers' movement to get the roll/yaw you want to get. Here is a YT video of the right taxi turn (starting at 34min 50s), you might need to slow the replay speed down to see it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLiMYGBE2Q#t=34m50s I admit that's a far excursion, and not a proof by no means, but it helps me understand what could be going on, till proven otherwise.

Couldn't stop thinking about that, so I came to the following: let's assume hypothetically(!) we could increase the angle of both of the vertical stabilizers even more to the outboard sides, and consider them almost like wings: so a (e.g.) left rudder input would look exactly like a right aileron input (if those stabilizers were wings). The right control surface would point upwards and the left surface downwards. The result would be a right roll. You get what I mean? So this would explain why a smaller angle of the stabilizers to the outboard side could induce a smaller (but noticeable) roll to the opposite side of the rudder input. (Does not explain why it is AoA dependent, but ok.)

I have to correct myself: the FCS of the Hornet does not do "nothing" with the control surfaces, it does adjust the rudder itself while changing AoA (of course not to the opposite direction). I did not manage to reduce the influence of the FCS to stop that, not with the Gain switch, nor the Manual Spin Recovery Mode switch (thanks @DummyCatz ) I fanally saw some unclassified aerodynamic formulas* (thanks again @DummyCatz) that explain that the Hornet is able to create such opposite rolls at certain states and all that lead me to my cautious and tentative conclusion that it's ok for me at the moment. Thanks to all of you for your interest and helpful replies. (* I'm not quite sure I'm allowed to post here, so I don't) EDIT: the link should be ok, I guess: "AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF HIGH-ANGLE-OF-ATTACK RESEARCH VEHICLE (HARV) ESTIMATED FROM FLIGHT DATA", NASA TM 202692, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900019262/downloads/19900019262.pdf

checked that today and I can confirm your statement. was able to control the direction of roll (with pressed and held rudder) just by adjusting the AoA with the elevators at any (tested) speed. thanks, again (got to change the title... again, we are getting further here)

interesting, thank you. will check tomorrow, but it seems I'll have to change the title of the thread once again

if so (which I doubt), this should be equal for all planes. but the Hornet is the only plane with an opposite role (above 260 kts). so it does not make sense.

237 knts thank you @Hulkbust44 although I was aware of the aerodynamics, it is helpful to explain it here, so we learn about the expected behaviour. thank you also for your observation about the speed differences, and finally, but most important, you are correct: the other control surfaces are not moving at all, so there is no way the FCS/fly-by-wire compensates anything. (certainly, the thrust of the two engines is always symmetrical and this is not changed.) It is interesting what happens below 236-260 knots (maybe depending on altitude? haven't tested that yet, just jumped to the default Freeflight mission): the DCS Hornet goes from a (e.g.) left rudder induced roll to a right roll just by increasing speed, without any movement of the other control surfaces. so my initial question stands: Why is the Hornet's rudder the only one that works the other way around? (above 260 kts) (have to change the title)

Ok, but what happens if you just use and hold rudder and no stick? Does it really roll to the opposite side? All planes I tested rolled to the side of the rudder I pressed. All but the Hornet.

That's correct. But not the case here.