Do we have real-life SU-26 pilots here?

[raaaid]

yeah im sure with internets anonimity some will appear

[Kwiatek]

I havent flown real Su26 but other aerobatic plane and i could say that Su 26 FM in Clod is much better modeled then other CLOD planes ( 109 or british fighters).

It is possible to make quite good hamerhead (stall turns), snap rolls - even half snap roll, inverted spins which most of these manouvers are not possible to do in CLOD fighter planes ( but should be possible).

[Flanker35M]

S!

I managed to get the Bf109 in a strange floaty state in a hammerheadish move. And you will flip flop the Bf109 EXACTLY the same way as in original IL-2 when you apply rudder while banking the plane and have even slightest of pull. Overheat is not a problem though when you do not fly 100% all the time but maximum 1.21ata PS! Didn't JG52_Tuckie say he will ask some real life Su-26 pilots to test the plane and then post here the results?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

I havent flown real Su26 but other aerobatic plane and i could say that Su 26 FM in Clod is much better modeled then other CLOD planes ( 109 or british fighters).

It is possible to make quite good hamerhead (stall turns), snap rolls - even half snap roll, inverted spins which most of these manouvers are not possible to do in CLOD fighter planes ( but should be possible).

that's an interesting assumption, but it's hard to make any correct guess if you don't have experience with an aircraft that has more than 1000hp power and certain aerodynamic characteristics.

Aerobatic planes normally have a symmetrical wing profile, unlike WW2 aircraft, to make aerobatics easier, so it surely is easier to do aerobatic (and come out of certain manoeuvres) with an aerobatic plane as opposed to a WW2 fighter. I have flown with a Yak 52 in a couple of occasions and they're quite well balanced machines, a Yak 50 would probably be closer to the Su 26, but I can ask a couple of folks, although they'd have to try the sim as well.. oh well, I'll try..