Jump to content

bbrz

Members
  • Content Count

    2459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bbrz

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/30/1964

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    none
  • Location
    Europe
  • Interests
    aviation art
  • Occupation
    ret. mil and atp

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The -1 also mentions to use wheel brakes and aerobraking to achive the minimum landing roll.
  2. Out of curiosity, how do you 'correctly' stall an aircraft?
  3. Thanx for taking time for the detailed explanation. Makes perfect sense
  4. Without knowing the weight/approach speed, this doesn't mean a lot...
  5. Yes, you are doing it wrong. 10° is too low. 13° is the minimum and 15° the maximum. 14° is being used in the performance charts. The higher the pitch attitude, the closer the wheels are to the CG and hence the easier it is to keep the nose up. Have you measured the distance or do you only have the impression that the distance is equal? Did you apply the wheelbrakes while aerobraking? CG has a large effect on the F-15 concerning the aerobraking capability and comparing the C with the E is in this case almost like comparing apples and oranges. The CFTs
  6. Ruddy122 mentioned that he's using the formula just to crosscheck, which is a good idea and should be common practise IMO.
  7. The reason why the C-17 uses increased thrust is due to the fact that their pilots apparently don't flare and thrust increase is the only way to reduce the ROD. You could theoretically land e.g. a 767 that way as well. In fact there are pilots who use a thrust increase during the flare with 'conventional' jets. I'd still like to know why you are stating that the T-1 and KC-10 are landing in a stalled condition.
  8. Might have happened during a landing like this one.... Aviator Anil Chopra auf Twitter: "They were lucky to survive of that tail strike in rainy day and wet RWY #F16 https://t.co/dp44jfVWcE @fighterpics" / Twitter
  9. I'm curious where these misleading statements come from that you land a KC-10, T-1A (or any other jet) in a stalled condtion. When using a normal approach speed and sink rate you can land the C-17 like every jet without the need to increase thrust. Why would a F-16 student pilot wait for the wing to stall since he knows that the stall AoA is well above any touchdown AoA? I've noticed this on other forums that the term 'stalled' is being used a lot, mainly (or even exclusively) by US pilots, when it's about landing/touchdown without referring to an actual aer
  10. The difference between the manuals is interesting, because the problem obviously didn't occur (or wasn't reported ) in the first few years, which means that Northrop didn't expect this to happen (as MCD thought that the F-15E wouldn't spin). My F-5E -1 is from 1977 wih the last amendment from 1978 and USAF started operating the E in 74.
  11. I didn't read anything about an inverted flat spin which would directly develop from an IPH and again, no use of rudder is apparently considered essential to recover. I have an F-5E -1 and the 15000ft apply to an ejection when inverted only. (Section 3)
  12. What do you exactly mean with 'it feels a bit off'? The pull the side is normal for prop driven aircraft.
  13. Since this kind of problem was apparently rather uncommon and it isn't even mentioned in the manual, I doubt that this can be simulated at all, not even on the most expensive sims. Interestingly the manual says that the minimum ejection altitude during an inverted spin is 15000ft and no rudder or aileron input is allowed.
  14. You didn't mention that you were talking about xwnd ops. These are indeed way off on the DCS F-15.
  15. Interesting. What's different concerning the landing and ridiculous about taxiing if I may ask?
×
×
  • Create New...