Landings?

[unreasonable]

That is how I like to land in RoF - not that I can quite judge it to end up 5 feet outside my hanger! I suppose the WW2 pilots must have practiced that as well.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

That is how I like to land in RoF - not that I can quite judge it to end up 5 feet outside my hanger! I suppose the WW2 pilots must have practiced that as well.

 

The difference in RoF and that video is, as you well know, the brakes .... I'd be surprised if that pilot (in the video) didn't get fined.

 

Chief

[Rama]

"French letters" and "capot anglais", IIRC, well into 20th century.

Correct spelling in French is "capote anglaise", who means "English greatcoat", and who's still used today by oldtimers. Others just use "capote"

[Bearcat]

I agree Blade, unfortunately though you are not going to get anywhere with it here...

 

..... Where is there to "get" ... some will agree some will disagree...

 

Just guess how many flying hours these pilots flying warbirds have on any type of aircraft and then ad the hours on warbirds... that's why they rarely bounce. 

 

This is me listening to chief (otherwise I wouldn't talk about that). My father was trained flying warbird-like trainers in the 70s. He doesn't fly sims. He flew and landed the 109 F in BOS and the 109 K in DCS. He flew them for the very first time and landed without bouncing at all. he did 2 approaches and go arounds and landed. Two flights, two differnt sims. One try. He told me that the flyight dynamics are great. If you bounce go around. That's all.

 

Consider in all those videos that those pilots had something that we do not have... seat of the pants feedback.. Not only that... just because

[Y-29.Silky]

Every time I land without bouncing, I'm cutting it very close to the edge of the runaway. It's mostly the 109, but I think I read somewhere that more 109's were lost while trying to land than in combat.

[indiaciki]

She was like the Camel in WWI. You have to know that those who were flying the 109 had one year training -basic training and acrobatics (according to Guenther Rall flying at least 7 types of aircraft during basic trailing) Following another 4 moths of fighter training before flying the 109. During training the losses were 30%. Still they had very significant non-combat losses flying the 109 on the front. Dives that were not recoverable and TO & landings. So you are right.

 

The dive problem isn't that obvious in a sim since it has to do with extrem physical power to pull her up.

 

The TO and landing problem is simulateted pretty good. Point is. Gorund handling is not only problematic because of its narrow gear its also further complicated because of the angle of the gear. You have to keep ground handling to a minimum.

 

That's why every hanbook and checklist of any 109 model says: take off with flaps and give throttle quickly as opposed to every other aircraft with a powerful engine, where you have to increase power slowly. Another thing is landing: you have to do your approach high, full flaps on final and land at a much steeper angle, then flare very near the ground and this is other than in most fighters: you have to trim her nose up for landing because with full flaps she's very nose heavy. Of course you can do it differntly. This is what all manuals and checklist say. Incl. Messerschmiits manual on flying plane with flaps. This procedure is for all 109s regardless of model. If you normally start your appraoch at 400m you'll do it in a 109 at 800m altitude. The drag with full flaps will slow you down when flaring. You'll just have to pull the stick. The slower you touch down (about 150+) the better. You won't bounce if you 3-point at 150 km/h.

 

Aim a point near to the beginning of the RWY. Flaring / decreasing airspeed takes time. She's very forgving on the brakes. use rhem. The 109 will not nose over.

Edited February 26, 2015 by indiaciki

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It was just 1C's sneaky way of training you to be precise enough for carrier landings! You're welcome