Jump to content
JohnHardtack

How Do I Bring the LaGG-3 to Full Stop? With NO G-Loop?

Recommended Posts

The beautifully modelled LaGG-3 has to be one of the most frustrating a/c to stop in a straight line in the landing roll-out. This is, of course because of its freely pivoting tailwheel and CG ahead of the mains.

 

I have been able to grease landings only to end up with a final ground loop at the end of the roll-out. Every time.

 

I have tried

  • 100% flaps, no retraction, full retraction, tap brakes
  • 70% flaps, no retraction, full retraction, tap brakes
  • full up elevator, tap brakes
  • wait on brakes, then brake last 1/3 of runway

Nothing seems to work. I don't have this problem with any otner a/c.

 

Anybody have it figured out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standby for lots of advice!  I'll just start the ball rolling by saying whatever you do; don't touch the brakes until you're doing less than 80km/h and then only use cadence braking and get ready with the rudder/tailwheel. 

 

Same goes for - imo - the much worse La-5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping ~1400-1500 rpm while rolling out helps a lot.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@30725

Yep, after a certain speed the rudder stops helping. Keeping the engine at the low rpm makes the plane still want to turn rather than it slowing down to the point the rudder does nothing and then sliding around.

 

I did it fine after the 3rd attempt once I worked out that I needed to keep the rpm up a bit at the end. No crashes though as it seems like you can slam this plane into the deck without the gear crumbling and some pretty harsh spins without breaking anything.

 

Most of the runways seem built for flying tanks. There should be no panic to stop even if you spend a 3rd of the runway getting it on the ground. Other than that, go land on the Volga. Loads of room to play there.

Edited by deleted@30725

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God...

 

I look forward to reading the techniques offered in round two of this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh God... I look forward to reading the techniques offered in round two of this topic.

 

Dont even start Prefontaine. We're not saying what is right or what is wrong compared to real life or what the plane should do or behave, we're merely trying to help a fellow pilot land his LaGG without ground looping. Is it non sense compared to real life ? I dont know, but thats not what we're discussing here. Please dont start another war in this thread.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and CG ahead of the mains.

 

...

 

If the CG was ahead of the mains the plane would be standing on its nose.  LOL 

 

Actually, the further BEHIND the mains the CG is located the more unstable the ground handing,  This was the 109's problem.  The 109 was very resistant to noseovers but was famous for groundloops, while the directionally friendly Spitfire (due to the CG being very near the gear), even with its narrower gear, was just as famous for nosing over.  Heck, you couldn't even do full power runups in the Spitfire without securing the tail (just like the Corsair and Hellcat).

 

Isn't there differential braking?  (It seems I should know ... )

Edited by chuter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction. The CG is behind the mains in the LaGG-3. Differential braking is tied to rudder input. Pulling the brake handle with left rudder gives you left brake and vice versa with right. Neutral rudder allows braking to both sides.

 

Surely, there is someone here who knows the magic formula. I've tried adding throttle after the initial landing and slowdown but braking seems pitifully weak and I still ground loop.

Edited by JohnHardtack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont even start Prefontaine. We're not saying what is right or what is wrong compared to real life or what the plane should do or behave, we're merely trying to help a fellow pilot land his LaGG without ground looping. Is it non sense compared to real life ? I dont know, but thats not what we're discussing here. Please dont start another war in this thread.

Easy there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might not be the first thread where this is being discussed...

 

Personally I like to advocate keeping rudder inputs tiny, and applying brakes late, and then only when the rudder is close to neutral. Application of power does not seem to make too much difference to me... I made a little video about this on the occasion of an earlier discussion: http://youtu.be/jrNhJR7zYpE.

 

The last time it was discussed here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/13741-landing-help/?hl=+landing%20+la#82085=&page=2.

 

The LaGG and the La-5 require the same technique because they share a similar airframe and do not have a tailwheel lock.

Edited by andyw248

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't cut the throttle, keep at least 1200 RPM to maintain rudder authority at the end of the rollout.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Don't brake and move rudder at same time.

2.Keep rpm ~1400

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Don't brake and move rudder at same time

I forgot this, propably because it has become second nature to me, but this is actually THE most important advice for a budding VVS pilot.

 

The LaGG and Yak have differentiated brakes controlled by the rudder pedals. Kick the rudder left while holding the brake down and the left wheel brakes much harder than the right one and vice versa, inevitably resulting in a ground loop.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your YouTube video, Andyw248. I'm impressed that you avoided a ground loop. However, most aviators would prefer to stop before the end of the runway. It's SOP and avoids unnecessary excitement involving ravines, gullies, fences, trees, etc. that may include loss of life, not to mention damage to the a/c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your YouTube video, Andyw248. I'm impressed that you avoided a ground loop. However, most aviators would prefer to stop before the end of the runway. It's SOP and avoids unnecessary excitement involving ravines, gullies, fences, trees, etc. that may include loss of life, not to mention damage to the a/c.

 

Focusing too much on not hitting the brakes I guess... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your YouTube video, Andyw248. I'm impressed that you avoided a ground loop. However, most aviators would prefer to stop before the end of the runway. It's SOP and avoids unnecessary excitement involving ravines, gullies, fences, trees, etc. that may include loss of life, not to mention damage to the a/c.

I've been informed the advice in this thread isn't grounded in reality; rather, it is meant to help people land and stop as the planes are currently modeled.

 

Real world considerations such as not FOD-ing out an aircraft by running off the end of the runway aren't the aim here...or so I'm told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... it is meant to help people land and stop as the planes are currently modeled.

Real world considerations ......aren't the aim here...

 

 

I can assure, the planes are modelled perfectly. If I do the same as in the "real world" I never groundloop either the Lagg3 nor the Lagg5. What do you want from this sim ? Do you want a simulator as close to the "real world" as possible ?  That is what the devs promised, and they delivered.

 

Or do you want a dumbed down FM, where every PC pilot without clue and without training can land a heavy taildragger on a icy runway like "on rails" ? There is an unfamous WW2 sim, where you can easily land a fighter without any training. I don't need a second one of that kind.

 

The landing of a heavy taildragger without forward view (the bombers with forward view are much easier !) is the most difficult procedure I can think of. After 15000 hours in the air I am still 100% concentrated from flare to full stop. One fraction of a second of "sleep" and you are bound for a ground loop.

 

 

 

Now some tips:

 

1.  Touchdown  in the first quarter of the runway, stick full back, and the shortest runway is long enough, even without brakes !   Check Andy's vid about the touchdown.

 

2.  Power idle ! (landing with power on a icy runway is not a good idea)

 

3.  Brakes only when rudder authority gets too low. (around 60 / a bit higher with crosswind). Differential brakes are not easy to handle. Neither in RL nor in BoS. 

 

Most important:  you need "fast feet". And you need to get the "view". This needs lots of training. Keep it straight and it will not ground loop. It's that easy. But as long as you don't see, what is straight, it is almost impossible.

 

 

Lagg3:

 

 

Lagg5 -  dead stick with crosswind:

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Quax. Just what I was looking for! Great landings! The dawn deadstick of the LaGG-5 was especially pretty! (I'm curious. Did you feather or forget to feather on purpose?) I have been retracting flaps at touchdown to "kill lift" as I do in RL. Of course it also reduces drag. I see that you maintain full flaps and, indeed, your rudder feet are much "fancier" than mine. I, too, want accuracy and fidelity in the FM with this sim and fly all practice flights in "Expert" mode, "by the dials" as I do in RL. This gives me the most enjoyment and feeling of accomplishment as I log the necessary practice hours in familiarization with each type.

 

I shall endevour to "pick up my rudder dance-step". I have made it a habit to watch the replay of every landing (and mission) to try and learn from my mistakes.

 

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bos has got this correct can u imagen the amount of pilots that binned it on their first flights as probably impossible to practice before and if UK pilots had on average 10 flying hours training I would hate to know how many vvs pilots had

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes noncombat loses were higher then those combat ones.War is not a game we play ;) Famous soviet ace Alexandr Klubov killed himself when performing first flights in La7.During landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bos has got this correct can u imagen the amount of pilots that binned it on their first flights as probably impossible to practice before and if UK pilots had on average 10 flying hours training I would hate to know how many vvs pilots had

 

I think you will find that in reality most 'fighter pilots' would have had to show a fairly comprehensive skill in flying a taildragger before being let loose solo in a 1000hp plus fighter, VVS flight training was lengthy and to a high standard, however their tactics and actual combat experience was what was lacking

 

Where did you get that average 10 flying hours of training from  figure from? I fear it may be one of those oft repeated myth's :) ...possibly 10 hours on type maybe in a few cases but certainly not an average

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bos has got this correct can u imagen the amount of pilots that binned it on their first flights as probably impossible to practice before and if UK pilots had on average 10 flying hours training I would hate to know how many vvs pilots had

 

10 hours flight training? Where did you get that from? Even during the height of the Battle of Britain, the RAF tried to get their pilots to at least 24 hours in a Hurricane or Spitfire alone, before they were sent into combat, to say nothing of the time their actual flight training took (which was never under a year).

 

The Soviet flying schools and general flight training of combat pilots was actually of a very high standard and took 2 years IIRC. VVS personel were often quite skilled and well-trained pilots. They we were just kinda poor soldiers, because of lacking tactics, poor communication and rudimentary gunnery training. 

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John, you are right, I forgot to feather. I would have earned me a cup of coffee with the commander, if I had crashed before the runway  :biggrin:  As Andy suggested somewhere, it might be better to keep the flaps at 50 in the Laggs. It makes the control at three point attitude easier. But I wouldn´t dare to touch the flaps during landing. If it works for you, it´s ok  :salute:  ... but if it doesn´t, it will be coffee for you  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right...

 

The LaGG and the La-5 have this little quirk with the flaps; I believe they had that in real life too. When you deploy flaps on a taildragger, you want to get the aircraft into an attitude where all three wheels touch the ground simultaneously exactly at stall speed. With the flaps fully deployed I don't think this is easy with these two aircraft  - if the flaps are fully deployed then you will have to touch down reallllllyyy slow to get to a 3-point attitude, and it will be exceedingly difficult to keep the wings level. However, the aircraft will be in a nice 3-point attitude when the flaps are deployed to only about 30 - 40 degrees (that's about 50% of max deflection, if you use those little help widgets in BoS). So that will set you up for a nice 3-point greaser, with the stick fully pulled back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure, the planes are modelled perfectly. If I do the same as in the "real world" I never groundloop either the Lagg3 nor the Lagg5. What do you want from this sim ? Do you want a simulator as close to the "real world" as possible ? That is what the devs promised, and they delivered.

 

Or do you want a dumbed down FM, where every PC pilot without clue and without training can land a heavy taildragger on a icy runway like "on rails" ? There is an unfamous WW2 sim, where you can easily land a fighter without any training. I don't need a second one of that kind.

 

The landing of a heavy taildragger without forward view (the bombers with forward view are much easier !) is the most difficult procedure I can think of. After 15000 hours in the air I am still 100% concentrated from flare to full stop. One fraction of a second of "sleep" and you are bound for a ground loop.

 

 

 

Now some tips:

 

1. Touchdown in the first quarter of the runway, stick full back, and the shortest runway is long enough, even without brakes ! Check Andy's vid about the touchdown.

 

2. Power idle ! (landing with power on a icy runway is not a good idea)

 

3. Brakes only when rudder authority gets too low. (around 60 / a bit higher with crosswind). Differential brakes are not easy to handle. Neither in RL nor in BoS.

 

Most important: you need "fast feet". And you need to get the "view". This needs lots of training. Keep it straight and it will not ground loop. It's that easy. But as long as you don't see, what is straight, it is almost impossible.

 

 

Lagg3:

 

 

 

Lagg5 - dead stick with crosswind:

 

I'm not sure why some people think that anything I'm saying implies that I want a less hardcore sim. This has happened multiple times now, and it certainly isn't true.

 

My comment was in reply to another members post who essentially told me to leave this thread alone because the aim was to help people learn to land in-game, as planes currently exist. I can respect that, so I backed off. In the aforementioned (I.e. other) thread, I critiqued the techniques offered for landing because they were not in accordance with how you land an aircraft in real life. That is all.

 

One finally comment: you mention things are perfect as they are. Bold move.

 

I won't argue the point, but realize that any subsequent changes from hereon out (made via patches) will mean either that the new changes are wrong, or that the old models were incorrect. The second option would mean you were wrong, for the record.

 

So heads up for any further flight model changes, and in the meantime, I'd suggest you use the word "perfectly" a bit more carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The focus of my post was not the question, wether you want a realistic sim or not. In the first case I did want to help those, who have a problem to avoid the groundloop. And I think I could prove, that the RL technique works perfectly with BoS. Every software can be improved at every time. I suggested some FM changes myself in other threads. But I don't see anything wrong in the behaviour in question in this subject.

Edited by Quax
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah my figure was an average of 10 hours on spitfire. But they normally had about double that on the tiger moths.I need to read better sometimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's off topic and I am not intentionally singling you out for arguments sake :) but the 10 hours on average for a spitfire pilot is really an urban legend that only came from one or two examples due to lack of aircraft availability for transition training at the height of the BoB,

 

"I was able to go to the National Archives at Kew and found the file covering this topic. It was a substantial file and the attached is a summary which covers it nicely. I think its worth covering some of the key aspects in some detail and the chokepoints.

 Its worth starting out with some numbers that show how difficult it was to deliver the training that was needed. In 1935 the RAF trained about 300 pilots a year, by the second revise in August 1940 this had increased to 7,000 pilots a year once the second revise was in place. With this kind of expansion you were going to have some problems along the way.

 There were three types of training:-

 EFTS - this was elementary training using aircraft such as the Tiger Moth
 SFTS - Called Service Flight Training and this had two aspects ITS Initial Training and ATS Advanced Training. This used advanced trainers such as the Master
 OTU - These introduced the trainee to front line aircraft and taught them how to fly and fight.

 EFTS were often pre war flying schools that had been paid by the RAF to train pilots to a standard level. When war broke out they were incorporated into the RAF and expanded. However the transition was fairly simple, the core instrutors often had years of experience, new instructors were easily trained and everyone was familiar with the planes both pilots and engineers.

 SFTS These schools were the choke points in the training process. The advanced trainers were few in number and couldn't be delivered quickly as the front line had the top priority for production capacity. The Instructors needed detailed schooling and were understandably in demand for the front line. The accident rate was heavy which is understandable if you have a shortage of aircraft being worked into the ground, ground crew often being asked to do other roles (such as guard duty) and trainees who by their nature are going to have more heavy landings etc, and increase the wear and tear on the aircraft.
 Its worth noting that camera guns were used in the training at SFTS but no live firing. Comments have also been reported about training schools not working at maximum capacity during the BOB period. These were almost always made about the SFTS schools and the problem was you will have guessed, a lack of aircraft.

 OTU - Initially these also had difficulties with aircraft. In the first few months of 1940 there were few Hurricanes to spare and almost no Spitfires for OTU. As a result fighter pilots often had to spend some of this time flying biplanes and bomber trainees Battles. Around May 1940 this had eased and Hurricanes were more common in the OTU.
 This lack of modern fighters in the first few months probably explians why some pilots went to squadrons with a limited number of hours on Spitfores and Hurricanes

 As you can see the problem was in the SFTS and mainly it was a lack of aircraft. A number of things were tried and in the second quarter a couple of the SFTS schools trialed the introduction of their trainees to Hurricanes before sending them to the OTU. The OTU were delighted as they didn't have to train the pilots how to fly the Hurricane, the pupils had confidence and they were able to concentrate on the business of teaching them the more advanced aspects of training.
 The down side was a further increase in the accident rate at SFTS. As you can imagine these Hurricanes were older versions which had seen hard service, The already hard pressed ground crews at SFTS now had another type of aircraft to maintain which brought its own complications, plus these aircraft were worn out and needed more maintanence than average, throw in the fact the pilots were trainees and the problem is clear. The Hurricane took the rough handling quite well but there were a number of engine failures and the experiment was curtailed.

 The attachments show the training at the start of 1940 and the amended schemes introduced during the year.

 Most of it is pretty clear but there are a couple of things I should mention
 a) You will see Group 1 and Group 2 mentioned Group 1 are Fighter trainees, Group 2 Bomber and Coastal Command trainees.
 b) Fleet Air Arm are not covered. They had two schools of their own and had different periods in each of the schools.
 c) Third Revise. This should be ignored iro the BOB as it was introduced at the end of November and needed significant changes right from the start.

 A summary is as follows Note the number of hours stayed the same

 EFTS 50 hours
 SFTS 100 hours
 OTU 40 hours (fighters)

Period
 Start of 1940 - 28 weeks
 June 1940 - 23 weeks
 August 1940 - 22 weeks"

 

Most of The RAF pilot training was already taking place overseas at this time, after British Commonwealth training programme was formalised in 1939 and well underway by 1940, and by 1941 including the US, the majority of pilot training was done overseas, 110,600 pilot in total, and again these were the minimum amount of flying hours with about 30% failing to qualify the course, and a considerable amount of training was done before embarking on flying training

 

Sorry for off topic and wall of text but it is better to have the facts...+- 200hrs of flying training in six months  ;)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play I stand corrected but the 10 hour thing is defo banded around a lot, I didn't pull it from a hat. Ow well spread the wor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play I stand corrected but the 10 hour thing is defo banded around a lot, I didn't pull it from a hat. Ow well spread the wor

 

Absolutely, the 'only ten hrs on Spitfires' is quoted all over the place, originally I think from an old newspaper article, however like most good stories there is a small element of truth, embellished for the amusement of the general reading public... :) especially in those days! the more the story was repeated, the more it gains hold as an actual fact, then quoted from more legitimate sources.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this John,

Its not as hard as it seems, though I know how frustrating it was till I cracked the matrix...

 

Safe Landings

Zulu

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Try this John, Its not as hard as it seems, though I know how frustrating it was till I cracked the matrix...   Safe Landings Zulu
 

 

Hey Zulu a very nice example and I hope to learn a lot from it. If you have any more ideas for videos I would happily watch them

cheers

Jacko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit its early to post about any success but I did two consecutive landings without ground looping in the LaGG-3.

The most important things to keep in mind for me were to keep the stick pulled back after touching down and use the rudder with quick stabs.
I throttled down completely during my flare (no 1200-1400 RPM while rolling out) and was using about 35-40 degrees of flaps.

I never thought not ground looping could be so exhilariting.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrekezM said:

I never thought not ground looping could be so exhilariting.
 

 

Annnd now you know what it is to have the flight sim bug :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for warming up this again. I have just bought IL2 BoS and am trying to get my grip on the IL2 series while practicing in the LAGG 3 in single missions, alone. Not using TrackIR or VR (yet).

 

First try was starting at 1500 m altitude, i flew a few manoeuvers and then shut off the engine via 'e'. Gliding down i did not apply flaps, lowered the landing gear at 200 km and managed to land alright in the wild snow straight and perfect.

Alright i thought, so let's try a start from some runway east of Stalingrad. I have started with normal difficulty, so someone pushes the right buttons to start the engine.

Taxiing was difficult, i did not know of brakes yet, but managed to get on the runway, align, and pushed the throttle. Went alright but the the plane soon veered off to the right, turned and lost both ailerons. Ok. Next try, starting worked alright, without flaps. There are no flaps in RoF, so..

Needed some time to build up speed which made me wonder if i flew a Thunderbolt, and this crate is made of plywood?

 

To make things short i made some turns, aligned with the runway, landed alright with engine off and w/o flaps, straight; did that two times.

Third time i let the engine run at idle while applying 30 percent flaps, landed a bit left to the strip, but parallel, no loop, ok.

Fourth time i landed with engine at idle, flaps at full angle, landed on the strip, but when almost at stop the plane suddenly turned left and circled, losing one aileron.

After this i have not been able to land the plane straight, and come to full stop straight. Revving up to get some air to the control surfaces only seems to worsen the problem - too much torque?

 

So either the Lagg pilots landed their planes with standing prop or i am doing something wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ground loop behavior has been incorrect from day one.  Still too much WW1 in these WW2 birds.  Across the board they feel too light and floaty for high powered, multi ton aircraft.  The changes made recently with the introduction of the P47 D22 are a step in the right direction, but that is one series of aircraft, in a sea of aircraft that feel like ultralights wobbling around the sky.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Catfish2 said:

...

Needed some time to build up speed which made me wonder if i flew a Thunderbolt, and this crate is made of plywood?

...

 

Separating this comment out since it's related takeoff instead of landing - make sure you've advanced the prop pitch to full (100%) after engine startup or yes, takeoffs will take forever. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

This ground loop behavior has been incorrect from day one.  Still too much WW1 in these WW2 birds.  Across the board they feel too light and floaty for high powered, multi ton aircraft.  The changes made recently with the introduction of the P47 D22 are a step in the right direction, but that is one series of aircraft, in a sea of aircraft that feel like ultralights wobbling around the sky.

Took me 3 years getting accustom to the HE 111. It felt like a helium baloon in the start

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Catfish2 said:

Sorry for warming up this again. I have just bought IL2 BoS and am trying to get my grip on the IL2 series while practicing in the LAGG 3 in single missions, alone. Not using TrackIR or VR (yet).

 

First try was starting at 1500 m altitude, i flew a few manoeuvers and then shut off the engine via 'e'. Gliding down i did not apply flaps, lowered the landing gear at 200 km and managed to land alright in the wild snow straight and perfect.

Alright i thought, so let's try a start from some runway east of Stalingrad. I have started with normal difficulty, so someone pushes the right buttons to start the engine.

Taxiing was difficult, i did not know of brakes yet, but managed to get on the runway, align, and pushed the throttle. Went alright but the the plane soon veered off to the right, turned and lost both ailerons. Ok. Next try, starting worked alright, without flaps. There are no flaps in RoF, so..

Needed some time to build up speed which made me wonder if i flew a Thunderbolt, and this crate is made of plywood?

 

A small point of correction that may help in the context... the LaGG-3 is made out of thin layers of birch or pine and baked in a resin at high temperatures. It was actually a fairly ingenious method of construction and makes it roughly as good as an aluminum constructed aircraft, however, the weight is higher as a result and I think that in part causes problems for people flying it and landing it. Keep in mind that it's a bit on the heavy weight side.

 

Quote

 

To make things short i made some turns, aligned with the runway, landed alright with engine off and w/o flaps, straight; did that two times.

Third time i let the engine run at idle while applying 30 percent flaps, landed a bit left to the strip, but parallel, no loop, ok.

Fourth time i landed with engine at idle, flaps at full angle, landed on the strip, but when almost at stop the plane suddenly turned left and circled, losing one aileron.

After this i have not been able to land the plane straight, and come to full stop straight. Revving up to get some air to the control surfaces only seems to worsen the problem - too much torque?

 

So either the Lagg pilots landed their planes with standing prop or i am doing something wrong.

 

It is possible to fully control the aircraft on landing with power on so, you are doing something wrong, but that is ok because its possible to correct the technique.

 

My approach is this:

1) Standard landing approach with landing flaps deployed, flare and three point landing near the stall speed

2) Hold stick back to keep tail wheel tracking on the ground

3) Very light applications of brake and rudder to keep the nose straight

 

On point three I emphasize light taps. The Russians use a differential braking system on most of their aircraft so rudder input is tied to brake input. Over do the rudder when you apply the brakes and you'll go spinning off in the other direction. A small amount of rudder back and forth with short taps on the rudder should help. You have to anticipate and be ahead of the momentum or your will spin out. If you over correct you will also spin out.

 

Check out these two videos and watch Requiem do a full stop landing without a ground loop.

 

 

 

Hope that helps! Requiem's channel is great for learning techniques and how to fly aircraft in the series. Sometimes just watching someone do it once or twice is all that you need to start replicating the same technique yourself. Suddenly you'll be a pro at it :)

 

Good luck!

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...