PE-2 ser 87

[reddog=11blueleader*]

Hello combat pilots, I have a question, what is the best way or I might should say is, how in the world do you land a PE-2 without damage? I have tried  and tried and all I do is bounce and bounce til the AC either slides off the RW or goes on its nose and damages both props and engines. I am about to be washed out because my flight commander said I do more damage to AC than the enemy !! Ha.........

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

You fly at 6000m, perpendicular heading to the runway. 

When the end of the runway appears in the glazing below your feet you 

1.Extend Flaps Fully

2. Extend Gear

3. Extend Airbrakes

4. Open Bomb Bays

5. Trim full nose down

6. Switch Supercharger to 1st gear and Mixture to 100%

7. Throttle to 0%

8. Radiators Closed

9. 100% Propeller RPM

 

Then you push your column fully forwards and keep the end of the runway just above the aiming reticle in a roughly 90° dive. 

At 800m above the runway you roll the nose towards the runway

At 300m you slowly ease back on the column

Keep the aircraft above the runway until speed has reduced to 200kph.

You should be halfway down the runway at this point.

Now you just slowly let the aircraft settle down, brake and try to get the tail on the ground as soon as possible. 

Steer using brakes.

Edited January 7, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Jade_Monkey]

Correction: 6000Km

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Correction: 6000Km

Uh..?

 

6Km =/= 6000m

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Uh..?

 

6Km =/= 6000m

Yes, he forgot the [iRONY] disclaimer

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yes, he forgot the [iRONY] disclaimer

 

You're probably correct. I guess that isn't what I initially gathered from the post.

[Fidelity]

I land the PE-2 with 45 degree flaps, 175ish kph on final approach. I typically have at least 35% throttle during touchdown and aim to do a main wheel landing. Do not let your airspeed drop to 150 kph; it is way too slow and you will stall into the runway when you try to flare. Try to keep the tail wheel off the ground and be very light on the brakes so you don't nose over. I mostly slow down from drag and don't really brake until the tail-wheel has settled by itself.

 

If you bounce try to level the nose. If you pull back after a bounce it will cause a stall and will slam you into the ground at which point you will bounce again. It can get ugly and I see people make that mistake every time I fly.

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

Nose down pitch at 25, (not nose up -25)

Flaps 35-45

200Kph approach

 

when at threshold you should be at 160KPH

when over the strip start flaring at 135Kph

 

she should settle nicely.

 

with a few bounces. Hans stated this is correct bouncy super structure.

Edited January 8, 2016 by 71st_Mastiff

[reddog=11blueleader*]

Hey thanks pilots for the replies. I will try some of these suggestions except the first one !!  Practice, Practice and more Practice.

[Lusekofte]

Nose down pitch at 25, (not nose up -25)

Flaps 35-45

200Kph approach

 

when at threshold you should be at 160KPH

when over the strip start flaring at 135Kph

 

she should settle nicely.

 

with a few bounces. Hans stated this is correct bouncy super structure.

 

I have done perfect landing like this, but it is a training matter. You need to stay above stall speed in last seconds, and stay sideways level. And make a 3 pointer, witch means nose up . I still mess up the landing , but it is seldom I wreck the plane this way

[-TBC-AeroAce]

If u make a fast approach with flaps at 30%, dump speed brakes when close to the ground, and hold off until it drops on the ground. This works well for me.

 

But to be honest I have flown the pe2 for 100s of hours and I still make some terrible landings

[6./ZG26_Emil]

You people are strange.....

 

You fly 600m parallel to the runway

 

turn cross wind while dropping your flaps and gear

 

as you turn on to final with 100% flaps and zero % throttle you simply....

 

Disconnect

[Lusekofte]

Now why did not I think of that. 

 

But honestly, I try to use this as a Sim, even if it is a game. So I try to make as good landings as I can. And I depend mostly on levelbombing, witch the majority of PE 2 was used for. There was few trained to use them as dive bombers. Later there where commanders that put their pilots in training for doing it. 

[Retnek]

Hello combat pilots, I have a question, what is the best way or I might should say is, how in the world do you land a PE-2 without damage? I have tried  and tried and all I do is bounce and bounce til the AC either slides off the RW or goes on its nose and damages both props and engines. I am about to be washed out because my flight commander said I do more damage to AC than the enemy !! Ha.........

 

Don't worry too much, imho there's still a lot of fine-tuning missing and Pe-2 sadly is one of the worst cases. (Oh yes, enough practice will make you land a brick and the Space Shuttle is much more difficult to fly and can be safely landed, too. No need to discuss the problems that way.)

 

- The shock absorbers overreact in a strange way during imperfect touch-downs. True for the Pe2, same for LaGG-3 and Yak-1 and to a lesser degree for the Me 109. After the first touch the planes refuse to settle down, it's more like an abrupt take-off. If you fight down your bad feelings, resist your (normally good and healthy) impulse to level and bring down the nose, just keep the stick at your belly, you might get away with it. But to me the ground contact modelling in that moment feels wrong. Recording rough landings and looking at it from outside I suspect the (rough) underground vs. gear physics suddenly bounces the plane into flight positions with parameters not really expected / covered by the flight model. (no, I'm not a flight engineer, just a sim pilot with some hours under my belt, it's an assumption, I try to explain it)

 

- I'm certain there is a bad interaction between dirt strips and the gear physics, resulting in a resonance. For details see this link. That effect is hampering your slow-down phase after the landing additionally, especially if your landing was a rough one and you're already fighting to keep control.

 

Don't get me wrong - I really praise the efforts of the developers to improve the ground contact modelling, to me it's a welcomed detail adding much to immersion. But imho it's still beta, for the Pe-2 very much beta. Maybe a problem in mature projects, when developers and beta testers together become too experienced. There is no need to scale it down to the extremely forgiving way IL2-46 and IL2-CoD handle landings, but it's always good to keep in mind a WW2-warplane had to be friendly by design and in most cases it was. Translating that "friendly by design" into a demanding, but still friendly plane handling in a PC-simulation demands balancing facts and feelings, the job of an artist. Difficult to discuss art

Edited January 10, 2016 by Retnek

[Sokol1]

I find that the trick to landing Pe-2 - and work too for LaGG-3 - in one piece is: 

 

Approach fast but more low possible, drop landing gear - don't trim, drop all flaps and trim all nose down, at same time stay above 200KMH - if need force the nose more down,

this will put you flat over run way at ~1 meter, cut the engine, the plane will kick 2/3 times but don't put nose up and jump "2 meters", at same time of touch down "type" on brakes and

then apply all brakes, they will stop fast, without ground loop.

 

In resume don't try "glide" this planes, "plank" then on runway. 

 

In this way I manage to landing Pe-2 with one engine off and with the bombs loadout.

[LukeFF]

In reality, the Pe-2 was a difficult plane to land. One Pe-2 regimental commander (a Colonel Pestov) described it as being "too complicated in handling" especially for takeoffs and landings and as the sort of plane that really demanded an above-average pilot. 

 

Original familiarization/instructional video for the Pe-2. Note that even the pilot in this video bounces the landing(!) (starting at 12:00).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBoDaD-om5k

Edited January 10, 2016 by LukeFF

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Back in 2009 I talked to a pilot who joined the Soviet Air Force in 1946, who gave tours in the Monino Museum. He spoke decent English, and knew a lot about every single aircraft there. Nice lad

 

He was trained on the U-2, then the Pe-2, and finally started his regiment career in the Tu-2 and later the Il-28 (if I remember correctly). He said the U-2 was easy, the Tu-2 flew so nicely it basically landed itself if you wanted it to, and the Il-28 was very easy to fly too. The Pe-2, however, despite looking similar to the Tu-2, was very complicated to land and generally a troublesome aircraft to handle.

[URUAker]

Ah Lucas you gave me such a nice memoryfrom il2 1946 flying the Tu-2 online, I think it was in spit vs 109 server. Tu-2 was so uber, you could carry tons of bombs to wipe an entire objective and then it was fast as hell, could turn with the 190´s and the gunners were deadly

[Retnek]

 

Nice video, thanks.

 

I see a Pe-2 touching down and most of the energy is absorbed by the suspension system. The plane is bouncing, but it remains more or less in a horizontal flight.The nose isn't coming up that rapidly like it is done in IL2-BoS at the moment.

 

Anyhow, I think the transfer from real flight expierence into a PC-sim is more an art than a matter of exact conversion. The developers have to make lot's of compromises and simplifications anyhow. If they decide to keep it in a more forgiving style, it might sell better, but disappoint themselves and the (usually much more active) friends of realism.

If they decide to do it in a more demanding, the "real" way, they have to prepare precise, plane-specific guidelines and training missions. This will pick up the freshmen and serve all of the customers, because it's a lot of fun.

 

Sadly the companies tend to ignore that part of the business. Maybe they hope for the community to fill in that gap and they still seem to hope frustrated customer will invest time and energy. A young man, grown up with gaming consoles and software-products mainly designed to deliver a constant stream of rewards for a minimum of effort. How many of the frustrated Il2-BoS-newbies will dive into the forums searching for a gem telling them how to land the difficult Pe-2?

Edited January 10, 2016 by Retnek

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Ok, I've tried a couple of things.

 

First Off, the fuel level is very important. The Fuselage Tanks are mounted quite far back, so they upset the trim on landing. This means that if you don't flare absolutely perfectly, it's weight and inertia will cause you tail to quite violently yank your nose upwards, causing excessive bouncing and either Nose-Over, Ground Loop or structural damage to the tail. 

 

Secondly, a heavy tail also causes the aircraft to nose up during a stall, which causes the aircraft to behave very unforgiving, since it doesn't recover from a stall by nosing down and gaining speed, like well trimmed aircraft do, but by reducing it even further.

In the End this stall doesn't announce itself throught controls at all, you don't feel it coming and it hits you by Surprise.

 

To work around this, some advice:

-Don't use 100% flaps unless you have less than 15% fuel. If you are above this , use between 50% and 80%. This way you don't loose speed as quickly. 

-Don't land, if possible, with full fuel tanks.

-Keep your aircraft above 220kph during the approach by trimming the elevators for that speed

-Use brakes to stabilize your aircraft

-Pull the elevator fully back when you are slow enough. 

[andyw248]

Here's what works for me:

• Rather steep final approach
• 20 degrees flaps on final (50%)
• Keep airspeed at 200 kph on final
• Make a very gradual power-on flare, keep the aircraft flying as long as possible by pulling the stick all the way back in a swift movement - but maintain some power until touchdown! This should result in a 3-pointer at 150 kph or lower
• At touchdown reduce power to idle
• On rollout add a little power to avoid groundloop

[310_cibule]

Never lower flaps more than 50 percent when landing or you stall. This is what Han mentioned in discussion under his last developer diary. Andyw248 submit instructions that work perfectly for me.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes, excellent Andy!

[Monostripezebra]

just don´t be too afraid of minor damage, the mechanics too want to work on saving the motherland and want some exciting stories to tell..

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlYbuzo_DDA

 

 

As a BoS bomber pilot you currently can get no better ride, it´s fast, durable and caple of accurate delivery as well as getting home. A few bumps and bruises or a missing stabilizer part won´t stop it from flying.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[Sokol1]

That's OK, for the next flight you receive a "fresh factory" plane.

[Lusekofte]

Yes Mastif has said the 50% flap thing for years, but like all others flight simmers I do not trust all other flight simmers , a bunch of whiners the lot of them. So when Han said we should use 50% flap and it is a historical fact, I started to land without the jumping. I have for 3 days landed perfectly or crashed totally, witch is a improvement by 50%

[Lusekofte]

Back in 2009 I talked to a pilot who joined the Soviet Air Force in 1946, who gave tours in the Monino Museum. He spoke decent English, and knew a lot about every single aircraft there. Nice lad

 

He was trained on the U-2, then the Pe-2, and finally started his regiment career in the Tu-2 and later the Il-28 (if I remember correctly). He said the U-2 was easy, the Tu-2 flew so nicely it basically landed itself if you wanted it to, and the Il-28 was very easy to fly too. The Pe-2, however, despite looking similar to the Tu-2, was very complicated to land and generally a troublesome aircraft to handle.

 

I read about the female pilots flying PE 2. During take off the observer helped pulling the yoke back, because the controls was so heavy. I guess we do not think of this flying with our digital devices. BBC made a series about a modern flight crew that was to reenact the dam buster raid. They was at one point allowed to fly a Lancaster for real, and they said they where very surprised how heavy the controls where.

It might very well be one of the reasons we cannot duplicate a WW 2 plane 100 %

[Monostripezebra]

I read about the female pilots flying PE 2. During take off the observer helped pulling the yoke back, because the controls was so heavy.

It might very well be one of the reasons we cannot duplicate a WW 2 plane 100 %

 

Yep, I can totally see why that "female copilot pulling the stick back"-thingy may be a bit harder to get by for simmers then just buying the game and joystick ;=P

Edited March 1, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I read about the female pilots flying PE 2. During take off the observer helped pulling the yoke back, because the controls was so heavy. I guess we do not think of this flying with our digital devices. BBC made a series about a modern flight crew that was to reenact the dam buster raid. They was at one point allowed to fly a Lancaster for real, and they said they where very surprised how heavy the controls where.

It might very well be one of the reasons we cannot duplicate a WW 2 plane 100 %

 

I got to have a go in a USAF B-52 simulator....that was ridiculously heavy controls we could barely get it off the ground lol

[andyw248]

This video shows a power on landing in a Mosquito (fast forward to about 4:50) - same technique as with the Pe-2:

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by andyw248

[310_cibule]

What a great video. Thx for posting.

Edited March 2, 2016 by 310_cibule

[Lusekofte]

I got to have a go in a USAF B-52 simulator....that was ridiculously heavy controls we could barely get it off the ground lol

 

 

My point being, this almighty FM discussions , the constant bitching about not being realistic. 

 

What if I told you, that flying a airplane during ww2 involve hard work. it involve G forces and it involve real danger. It included aircrew that was genuine concerned by their own lives and well being. It involved bad quality fuel making the airplanes not performing by and chart made. It involved weather and thermic situation that require software and hardware we cannot afford.

Personally I have bought hardware that feels realistic,  that need muzzle force to operate, this is for adding immersion, not for making simulating easier.

 

What if I told you that, behave and fly the plane properly and historical would be the most cost effective progression toward a realistic flight sim than any tweaks on any FM ever would do.

This would require a effort from the community itself, and that is much harder than getting the developer to change a FM. In my opinion the software is adequate and good enough for realistic flight sim. I wish the visual damage model where much better, I wish for a lot of things. But to get this game significant better the community that fly it have to shape up. They have to use public TS available for all that fly n a server . They have to at least try to make a effort to the team. And for god sake they need to learn to taxi the planes.

[Trooper117]

Yes, brilliant video of the Mossie.... now, imagine getting that thing just above wave top height, then flying over to Norway and giving the Kriegsmarine a hard time, whizzing back to Blighty with the Luftwaffe in hot pursuit... loved doing that in the old IL2!

[Lusekofte]

I still do the Norwegian fjord mission with beufighter and Mossie . Getting attacked by 190 and 109´s the outcome is different every time. Love the more challenging torpedoes also . But for some strange reason the B-20 ( RAF Boston preferable) is my all time favorite

[Trooper117]

I used to make missions based on accounts from the book ''A Separate Little War'' by Andrew Bird, all about the Banff Strike Wing... a fantastic read for anyone interested in that part of Coastal Commands history during 1944-1945... I was going to make a campaign as well, but that went out the window when my HD went up the chute, lol!

[Lusekofte]

I still work on adapting old campaign into 4-12 features and make them work. Things like taxi to runway. I have also made some campaigns, a bunch of them went corrupt after a HD crash and recovery. When I got them working a new patch was released and that after reinstalling all needed objects to make saving the mission work. I was so frustrated that it took 2 years for me to open a FMB again

[6./ZG26_Emil]

My point being, this almighty FM discussions , the constant bitching about not being realistic. 

 

What if I told you, that flying a airplane during ww2 involve hard work. it involve G forces and it involve real danger. It included aircrew that was genuine concerned by their own lives and well being. It involved bad quality fuel making the airplanes not performing by and chart made. It involved weather and thermic situation that require software and hardware we cannot afford.

Personally I have bought hardware that feels realistic,  that need muzzle force to operate, this is for adding immersion, not for making simulating easier.

 

What if I told you that, behave and fly the plane properly and historical would be the most cost effective progression toward a realistic flight sim than any tweaks on any FM ever would do.

This would require a effort from the community itself, and that is much harder than getting the developer to change a FM. In my opinion the software is adequate and good enough for realistic flight sim. I wish the visual damage model where much better, I wish for a lot of things. But to get this game significant better the community that fly it have to shape up. They have to use public TS available for all that fly n a server . They have to at least try to make a effort to the team. And for god sake they need to learn to taxi the planes.

 

Did you think I was being sarcastic? I wasn't.

 

I got my PPL in Atwater California near Castle Air Force Base, the owner was a former USAF Colonel and B52 instructor so I got to have a tour round the airbase and we got a quick go in the simulator....a very cool experience! In the case of the B-52 they apparently made the controls heavy to prevent accidental damage to the airframe if I remember correctly, either way it tool two of us to get it off the ground although I doubt we had it trimmed etc. It was a long time ago but an unforgettable experience

 

I don't disagree with what you say except I won't use the Public TS, we do however try to get coordination with other squads where possible.

Edited March 2, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Emil

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

One thing that changed my perception of flight models versus real life was an experience at MAKS, way before Lock On had the Su-27 AFM.

 

Through luck and contacts I managed to have a go at the Su-30MKI simulator, with a pilot on the backseat to keep crashes to a minimum since those simulators take some time to reboot. Anyhow, took off, I did some aerobatics (asked the lad for permission though, the first time I tried a barrel roll while kicking the rudder trying to replicate the same manoeuvre the pilots had done during the display my controls were stiff and barely moved because the pilot on the back held them thinking I was about to screw it up), did a landing approach, came in too high so I powered on, went around and put it on the ground nice and smoothly, no bouncing and so on. Went home pumped - that post-airshow feeling - and fire up Lock On to play with the MiG-29 and mainly the Su-27, for the sake of comparison.

 

...how disappointing that was

 

You see, here is the deal: in Lock On (and from what I see DCS:FC3 too) the Su-27 is extremely manoeuvrable, but very touchy on the controls. Every single deflection of the stick or rudder you make sends the aircraft exactly how much you moved, and it takes some time and very soft hands to fly it properly. Once you do, you can throw it around anywhere, but get any little bit overexcited and you'll stall.

 

Now, in real life, the Su-30 is also extremely manoeuvrable, and movements of the stick translate instantly to the aircraft so you must mind your every move. The difference, however, is the weight they put on the stick. In the beginning I was also having to yank it to move it anywhere from the centre! The rudders are hard but don't feel so inert. If you deflected it all the way to the left, it would roll like a beast, and if you did only halfway from it you would get a moderate but very fast roll. A slight pull would rise the nose steadily, a full pull would raise the AoA critically and pull a whole lot of G. But the forces included made it so that any pilot would have to put a pretty decent amount of force so every move is very much calculated and intentional, since it would take an elephant to exert such force by accident.

 

Replicating that into sims with controllers that don't require such force feels nigh impossible to be honest - if you limit it too much, it's unrealistic because you can actually get that done by adding enough force. As is, it's also unrealistic since you don't get as tired from continuous manoeuvring, but at least you can fly the aircraft like they were flown in times of need. The solution is having those interested flying with high resistance on their sticks, yokes and whatnot. I have mine maxed out on the T-Flight HOTAS, and a couple of times during long sorties (like last FNBF where we flew 3 sorties in a row with combat in all of them) my right arm is sore. But it's fun, and above all optional for those who don't want to or can't for multiple reasons.