Easy to land

[freemind_fly]

I find the P-47 quite easy to bring to takeoff and land compared to the P-51D. Can someone elaborate a bit? Is it the shorter tail and wider landing gear? Or just CG more favourable? Or simply the flight model?

 

How is the Spitfire in comparison?

[BuzzU]

I think the Spitfire is the hardest.

[Northstar98]

Funnily enough, though there might be other reasons for it, I find the P-47 absolutely impossible for me to land.

 

This video should provide an insight into the kind of noises I make while trying to land it.

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Northstar98

[rrohde]

I think the Spitfire is the hardest.

 

Then you haven't tried the I-16 ;)

[BuzzU]

You're right. I had enough of that plane in IL2.

[LeCuvier]

I find the Jug extremely well-behaved in general and that includes take-off and landing. It might be a bit easier than the Mustang, although I've never found the Mustang hard to land. The Spit feels certainly more difficult due to the "strange" way you steer on the ground (like the Mig-21), and the Bf-109 also seems more difficult to land - to me it always feels as if she was creating her own cross-wind. The worst of all certainly is the I-16, but if you can take off and land the Ishak you can do it with any other taildragger. "Think Russian!"

[Art-J]

The Jug is on the somewhat difficult side for me as far as landings are concerned, but that's only because of abysmal forward visibility, when you have to get into a bit of a nose-up attitude even during approach to maintain low sink rate. Steep, curved approaches only help so much. It's worse even than 190 A8 in this regard, but of course, just requires getting used to.

[RodBorza]

Strangely enough I disagree with all the posts above. I guess piloting is a very personal and individual experience.

 

Anyway, landing for me is:

1) P47 is the hardest

2) P-51 was the hardest, but I've trained this to exhaustion now I can fly it;

3) Spitfire was always the easiest.

 

The Jug in particular was impossible for me until they've released the first patch. That changed everything.

 

As a general rule, for the three birds, I use this: 120 knots/mph on approach and in landing config, using throttle to maintain descent rate to -500 ~ -1000 fpm. And never, never ever cutting the throttle as crossing runway threshold, but maintaning the throttle at -500 fpm before touchdown. The Mustang taught me to touch softly as its undercarriage is made of glass.

In the Jug you can use a little more of abuse, as it is more rugged and can handle a hard landing (after the patch, before, it had a glass undercarriage too).

 

Once at the runway threshold, roundout, don't flare, and let the bird touch down softly. Once on the ground, cut the throttle and let it roll down the runway filed.

 

All aproaches I start at 1,000 ft above field elevation, the only exception is the Jug to which I use 500 feet as instructed in the manual. The Jug likes to be down low.

[Swagger897]

I've read and viewed conflicting reports about flying the P47 and that's the first to say to come in low. Most I've seen have been about starting high and slow when on final and crabbing to have a runway picture.

 

Personally I find it easy to do either standard pattern work or the crab approach and kicking the tail back in line before a 3 point landing. I think however that the struts lack any sort of dampening and the aircraft bottoms out far too easily. I've tested this with a power on and power off approach and both end in the same result where the struts simply just collapse. The only way to grease a 3 point I've found is to continue to fly the aircraft all the way until lift is completely lost at a steady rate.

[Ketchup]

Flaps certainly make a huge difference in the 47 too! And keeping an eye on your peripherals as you round out!

[RodBorza]

I've read and viewed conflicting reports about flying the P47 and that's the first to say to come in low. Most I've seen have been about starting high and slow when on final and crabbing to have a runway picture.

 

Personally I find it easy to do either standard pattern work or the crab approach and kicking the tail back in line before a 3 point landing. I think however that the struts lack any sort of dampening and the aircraft bottoms out far too easily. I've tested this with a power on and power off approach and both end in the same result where the struts simply just collapse. The only way to grease a 3 point I've found is to continue to fly the aircraft all the way until lift is completely lost at a steady rate.

 

Yes, that's the technique. Fly it on to the runway. I do that with power on. It takes a lot of runway, but it is the way to do it. And, for me, coming in low, helps a lot to refrain that excess energy.

[freemind_fly]

Once at the runway threshold, roundout, don't flare

 

By this you mean don’t increase the AOA to much? if that’s what you want to say, I have the same impression with the P-51. By not pulling the stick to much the landings usually get smoother.

[GUMAR]

Strangely enough I disagree with all the posts above. I guess piloting is a very personal and individual experience.

 

Anyway, landing for me is:

1) P47 is the hardest

2) P-51 was the hardest, but I've trained this to exhaustion now I can fly it;

3) Spitfire was always the easiest.

 

The Jug in particular was impossible for me until they've released the first patch. That changed everything.

 

As a general rule, for the three birds, I use this: 120 knots/mph on approach and in landing config, using throttle to maintain descent rate to -500 ~ -1000 fpm. And never, never ever cutting the throttle as crossing runway threshold, but maintaning the throttle at -500 fpm before touchdown...

Once at the runway threshold, roundout, don't flare, and let the bird touch down softly. Once on the ground, cut the throttle and let it roll down the runway filed.

No flare with 500fpm vertical - its not an airliner.

 

I try to make touchdown 300 ft down the runway threshold with acceptable v/s. Usually 3-point. In comparsion with P-51 its harder to determine hight because of poor forward visibility. So, wheel landing (if landing distance is not a factor) seems to be easier to perform. And yeah, steep approach to see where you're flying

Edited September 18, 2020 by GUMAR

[Davee]

Yes, that's the technique. Fly it on to the runway. I do that with power on. It takes a lot of runway, but it is the way to do it. And, for me, coming in low, helps a lot to refrain that excess energy.

 

An old video with Jeff Ethel flying shows just that.

 

Going from ancient memory, once lined up with the runway at approx 600 ft. alt., set flaps full and keep power on around 15% I think he said. Do not play with the throttle because of the torque. I can't recall the pitch settings but I do recall him keeping the approach around 130 knots. He leveled over the threshold and as the nose came up the speed dropped and he just flew it onto the runway gently cutting the throttle after wheels down.

[RodBorza]

By this you mean don’t increase the AOA to much? if that’s what you want to say, I have the same impression with the P-51. By not pulling the stick to much the landings usually get smoother.

 

You don't pull to much. Just enough so you you are not able to see the horizon anymore.

 

Look at the picture below for a visual reference: This is the roundout after the threshold. Actually, the picture there is a bit exaggerated. A little less pitch up is fine.

 

Forward visibility is poor, so you will have to use the "Lindenbergh Line". Look out in YouTube for the Finer Points channel. The CFI there will tell you how to use the lateral references of the canopy to judge altitude and runway alignment. That's a big help on landing warbirds.

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by RodBorza

[RodBorza]

An old video with Jeff Ethel flying shows just that.

 

Going from ancient memory, once lined up with the runway at approx 600 ft. alt., set flaps full and keep power on around 15% I think he said. Do not play with the throttle because of the torque. I can't recall the pitch settings but I do recall him keeping the approach around 130 knots. He leveled over the threshold and as the nose came up the speed dropped and he just flew it onto the runway gently cutting the throttle after wheels down.

 

Very nice. I'll look for it.

[Igor4U]

Strangely enough I disagree with all the posts above. I guess piloting is a very personal and individual experience.

 

Anyway, landing for me is:

1) P47 is the hardest

2) P-51 was the hardest, but I've trained this to exhaustion now I can fly it;

3) Spitfire was always the easiest.

 

=====================================================================

 

For ME:

 

- Spitfire is the Toughest to Land

- Mustang & Jug are Next - equally challenging

 

 

I find that landing WWII Tail-Dragger Fighters with Limited Forward Visibility due to the Big Engine and Mid-Fuselage Cockpit is more Difficult than Tri-Cycle Gear Birds.

 

Landing Smoothly with a Reduced Rate of Descent (Touching down as close to Zero fpm V.V.I.) is more Difficult to judge because it's much more dependent on Peripheral Vision Alone to determine Sink-Rate.

 

But my Gripe with WWII Fighter Flight Dynamics is that Landing seems especially Over-Reactive in terms of Bouncing with the Slightest amount of (what the Sim considers) Excessive Descent Rate. I'll review 'Watch-Replay' to look at Touch-Down Parameters. I've touched down with as little as 100-200 fpm descent rate and have Bounced 5+ Feet Back Up into the Air.

 

In real World - Pretty Sure you might experience a Firm Touchdown - but the Aircraft's not going to Rebound as they do in DCS. It's as if the Landing Gear is too Springy - it should absorb more of the Kinetic Energy and not return it with a Back Up in the Air (Bounce) Vector. It's 'Coefficient of Restitution' Thang.

 

After every Spitfire, Mustang, and Jug Mission - I'll finish with a Landing.

 

Maybe Just 'My-Bad' Landings - so 1,000 Landings from Now - Hopefully I'll be better at Landing.

[grafspee]

Landing P-47 is easy. And believe me, i didn't fly this plane a lot.

I hit ground hard but it is ok in my book.

if you bounce you are just flying too fast just slow down :) this is main reason whey you all bounce at touch down

Very good tip for touch down is to not cut throttle to 0 just left throttle tiny bit open.

Second tip if you bounce recovery procedure is to apply power. when you are landing on short runway it is better to just go around.

[Art-J]

 

- Spitfire is the Toughest to Land

- Mustang & Jug are Next - equally challenging

 

 

I find that landing WWII Tail-Dragger Fighters with Limited Forward Visibility due to the Big Engine and Mid-Fuselage Cockpit is more Difficult than Tri-Cycle Gear Birds.

 

Landing Smoothly with a Reduced Rate of Descent (Touching down as close to Zero fpm V.V.I.) is more Difficult to judge because it's much more dependent on Peripheral Vision Alone to determine Sink-Rate.

 

But my Gripe with WWII Fighter Flight Dynamics is that Landing seems especially Over-Reactive in terms of Bouncing with the Slightest amount of (what the Sim considers) Excessive Descent Rate. I'll review 'Watch-Replay' to look at Touch-Down Parameters. I've touched down with as little as 100-200 fpm descent rate and have Bounced 5+ Feet Back Up into the Air.

 

In real World - Pretty Sure you might experience a Firm Touchdown - but the Aircraft's not going to Rebound as they do in DCS. It's as if the Landing Gear is too Springy - it should absorb more of the Kinetic Energy and not return it with a Back Up in the Air (Bounce) Vector. It's 'Coefficient of Restitution' Thang.

 

After every Spitfire, Mustang, and Jug Mission - I'll finish with a Landing.

 

Maybe Just 'My-Bad' Landings - so 1,000 Landings from Now - Hopefully I'll be better at Landing.

 

 

When Agathos published his youtube vids with comparison of real life experience in P-51 with its virtual representations in DCS and Il-2GB, he did note his impression of insufficient damping in DCS Mustang indeed.

 

That being said, 200 fpm is pretty outrageous for a two-pointer in any tail-dragger and I would be very surprised if the DCS planes wouldn't bounce :D.

 

Check what happens when touching down with similar sink rates in awesome Flightchops' videos featuring his landings in T-6:

 

It's a bit rough and bumpy but manageable in DCS if doing three-pointers! 100 or less is preferred though.

 

I agree about the rest, especialle re. the Thunderbolt. In DCS it requires much more nose-up attitude during approach with manual-recommended speed of 120, compared to Il-2GB Thunderbolt, or to all other DCS warbirds for that matter. Then, with that big fat engine at the front, I personally find the abysmal forward visibility being the biggest hurdle in flaring and touching down correctly.

 

 

[grafspee]

Check this out, p-51 bounce at touch down

Another mix of landings, second landing look how pilot recovered from bounce, if he would not add power it would end badly.

[grafspee]

 

 

That being said, 200 fpm is pretty outrageous for a two-pointer in any tail-dragger and I would be very surprised if the DCS planes wouldn't bounce :D.

 

 

I did 200fpm touch down in P-47 with no bounce, my theory is that if you have speed low enough plane will not bounce even when hit ground hard,

this was my initial way of putting Dora down, hold it until it drop like a rock, since i have very little feel for warbirds in DCS some time i broke my landing gear, but never bounced. Most of it probably was a tail touch down first :P

 

And i agree that flaring plane in DCS is the hardest part, this is what i noticed about bounce landings, it is in most cases that flaring is not executed or executed wrongly.

[rayrayblues]

 

I did 200fpm touch down in P-47 with no bounce, my theory is that if you have speed low enough plane will not bounce even when hit ground hard,

this was my initial way of putting Dora down, hold it until it drop like a rock, since i have very little feel for warbirds in DCS some time i broke my landing gear, but never bounced. Most of it probably was a tail touch down first :P

 

And i agree that flaring plane in DCS is the hardest part, this is what i noticed about bounce landings, it is in most cases that flaring is not executed or executed wrongly.

 

Exactly, if the tailwheel touches the ground first, a bounce is guaranteed. A slow 3 pointer is the way to go with all taildraggers.

[grafspee]

Tail wheel will often not survive if plane touch ground with it first.

[zcrazyx]

i find the mustang and spitfire the easiest to land, the p47 is the hardest but probs just lack of time in the aircraft

[josuha1901]

I suppose everyone has their own preferences.

The P-47 was my first war bird.

I was really surprised how easy it was to takeoff and land.

Once trimmed, rock solid in the air. My favorite.

Mustang to me would be next easiest to fly.

Then Spitfire.

The worse for me is the BF-109. (Takeoff and landing)

I believe the BF-109 actively conspires against me...