New Fulcrum PFM is very susceptible to PIO and excessive bounce.

On the RW video the average AoA on final is a much lower 7.5°. 10° seems to be a bit high/slow since the touchdown AoA occurs at 10°.

 

Noticed in your video that, although you said that you trimmed for 11° AoA, you were never in trim and even needed to apply back pressure already above 7° AoA.

Thank you for your advice.

I'm sorry, but my sentence is not perfect, so there is a misunderstanding.

My trimmed is elevator up to 11 clickes, not for 11° AoA.

I tried my best to keep 10 degrees aoa during landing approach, but it is not perfect.

And, I attached the real world Mig-29 approach the shot.

I tried my best to keep 10 degrees aoa during landing approach,

And, I attached the real world Mig-29 approach the shot.

You are making your flying unnecessary difficult if you are not in trim.

The screenshot you posted shows neither the approach, nor the average (7.5°) AoA during the approach ;)

It shows the moment as he flattens the approach and starts the speed reduction.

You are making your flying unnecessary difficult if you are not in trim.

 

The screenshot you posted shows neither the approach, nor the average (7.5°) AoA during the approach ;)

It shows the moment as he flattens the approach and starts the speed reduction.

Landing has its own style for every pilot.

Trim is also the same.

I do not think this story will end.

You are the best.

Thought I had touched down once at 250 km/hr but now I wonder. At any rate, the best I can do now is 260. Been awhile since I’ve been in this pit. I should have known better than to touch the trim around the inner marker. Had to compensate the rest of the way in. But, anyway...

Might have a bit of time this weekend to try again.

Thought I had touched down once at 250 km/hr but now I wonder. At any rate, the best I can do now is 260. Been awhile since I’ve been in this pit. I should have known better than to touch the trim around the inner marker. Had to compensate the rest of the way in. But, anyway...

The approach AoA and touchdown are identical to the RW values. So it's either the weight or the FM that's a tiny bit off.

Concerning the trim; Is this the latest beta? If so, since the reverse ground effect has reportedly been fixed (haven't tried myself), there should be no more need to re-trim before the flare.

I also hvae the some the other dcs modues which is that F-14, F-18, A-10, MIG-15, MIRAGE 2000 ...

 

Although the MiG-29 is difficult to land, it is not at a level that I can not understand.

Among the games I have played, the most difficult of landing is falcon 4.0.

If you want to discuss bouncing at touchdown, play this game and you will know.

 

 

My MiG-29 landing video, It is below that.

https://youtu.be/VcXTVmHJwZU

 

 

My joystick some setup.

Deadzone 3, curve + 20 (AILERON, ELEVATOR, RUDDER)

 

 

APPROACH SPEED: 290 KM/H

TOUCH DOWN: 270 KM/H

 

 

Before approach, I trimmed the elevator up to 11 clickes.

 

I almost trying on the approch:

Maintain the 10 degrees AOA and the glide path 2.5 ~ 3.0 degrees.

Not sure which version of F4 you are running, but the one that begins with B, has an M and an S in it lands smoother than any FC3 module. AOA donut, and FPM on the threshold - land. badda-bing & nary a brake-chute in sight.

The approach AoA and touchdown are identical to the RW values. So it's either the weight or the FM that's a tiny bit off.

Concerning the trim; Is this the latest beta? If so, since the reverse ground effect has reportedly been fixed (haven't tried myself), there should be no more need to re-trim before the flare.

I flew twice. Once on OB at 30% fuel and this one on Release with less fuel. Other than the weight difference, I didn’t notice any difference in the landing.

I only retrimmed because I was still trimmed for a somewhat higher airspeed and the stick was starting to feel heavy. I was high at all the checkpoints, though onspeed for each one. So gravity was contributing a bit more to my airspeed than it should have been. If I have time tomorrow I'll refly it and try to hit the checkpoint numbers.

Departure with 30% fuel in AB. Landing out of a half cuban eight with some unintelligible Russian kilogram aural warnings.

Touchdown at 220km/h is possible but only with a tailstrike....

Btw, still noticed the reverse ground effect.

Departure with 30% fuel in AB. Landing out of a half cuban eight with some unintelligible Russian kilogram aural warnings.

Touchdown at 220km/h is possible but only with a tailstrike....

 

Btw, still noticed the reverse ground effect.

I think we can safely call that a non-standard approach. :)

500 kg fuel remaining...another 15 minutes to fly.

15min...it wasn't unusual to land with 10min fuel remaining (or even worth mentioning to ATC) back in my time.

15min...it wasn't unusual to land with 10min fuel remaining (or even worth mentioning to ATC) back in my time.

:) Not sure it’s truly 15 minutes. Maybe more, maybe less. I suppose it depends on where your throttle’s set. Some manuals refers to a “normal landing” (when citing approach air speeds and other particulars) as one made with 15 minutes of fuel remaining. That number’s stuck in my brain for some reason.

In my day we hit the circuit with 130gall of fuel remaining. Each circuit was 40gal :)

In my day we hit the circuit with 130gall of fuel remaining. Each circuit was 40gal :)

Is that Imperial or US?

Talk about precise weight control. Got rid of the gun ammunition, started the approach with 1000lbs fuel.

Suddenly the 7.5°AoA equals 290km/h and touchdown at 230-240km/h is no problem, except for the annoying destabilizing pitch down in ground effect.

Talk about precise weight control. Got rid of the gun ammunition, started the approach with 1000lbs fuel.

Suddenly the 7.5°AoA equals 290km/h and touchdown at 230-240km/h is no problem, except for the annoying destabilizing pitch down in ground effect.

Never thought of getting rid of the ammo. Hopefully I'll have time tomorrow to do it myself.

I've done a little research, and this is what I have found:

Fuel: approx 800kg

1. Flying out of ground effect straight and level with gear and flaps and with speed of 280ish km/h AoA is approx. 10 degrees. For elevator deflection see the screenshots.

2. Flying IN ground effect straight and level with the same config with speed of 280 (274) km/h AoA is the sameat 10 degrees. Elevator deflection is very different, as you can see on the screenshot.

This was not during a flare, but straight and level flight at that altitude with time slowed to 1/4

What this shows me is that, since you can fly the same parameters with the same indicated AoA there (and pitch is the same), the is currently no inverse ground effect trying to suck me in the runway, but also not much the other way around (of course this whole thing is quite inacurrate on my part)

On the other hand, there really is a strong pitch down tendency there as you can see with the increased elevator input.

"

Also in slow motion (1/4) during a mil-thrust take off keeping the exact same elevator deflection, that is just enough to get me off the ground gently, and producing a near 1,0 G path in ground effect, produces around 1,7 G pitch up after the plane climbs above 20m AGL (pitch up starts to increase around 10m)

It is interesting to play around with it in slow-mo.

Interesting observation since this is what I initially thought was going on in the F/A-18 as well (before doing the ground effect tests)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3945053&postcount=97

Maybe these are separate issues, who knows...

"

When the first F-18 fighter […] was flight tested at Patuxent River, it became evident that the airplane would not rotate at the predicted speed. This made the field performance of the airplane unacceptable. The problem was traced to an error in the calculation of aerodynamic forces in ground effect. This is particularly severe in case of a

low placed horizontal stabilizer

. As a result there was

insufficient down-load capability

to effect early rotation during the takeoff ground roll.

The problem was fixed by toe-in of the rudders. A squat-switch on the main gear biasses the rudders to deflect inward while on the ground. This creates enough positive pressure over the aft fuselage to effect early rotation.

This fix, although impressive, came at a price. All flight control software had to be revalidated. Also, the squat-switches represented additional system complexity. "

 

 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19214/why-are-the-f-a-18-rudders-deflected-in-opposing-directions-during-takeoff/35867#35867

 

 

This is about the F-18, I know, but I think this is connected, the ground effect reducing elevator effectiveness, creating nose down moment.

 

That was an interesting but of reading, thanks!

Is that Imperial or US?

Imperial Mirage IIIO/D

I have try again landing and I notice is less bouncing now. So better.

I couldn't get to terms with the new MiG-29 FM since day one. Su-25 and Su-27 feel great, they can be controlled very precisely and are easy to take off and land, but the MiG-29 feels all wobbly and twitchy. Also, thrust seems to be exaggerated now, acceleration without AB is incredible. And why is it that when going supersonic you almost cannot push down the nose?

I hope ED will start from scratch when they do a full MiG-29A module. Congrats on the Su FMs, but this one is messed up, tell me what you want.