Bunch of Whiners!

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Am I alone in this?  The 109 is easy to handle on the ground.

 

The German pilots must have been a bunch of whiners if they didn't like the 109's landing manners if the simulator is anything like accurate.

 

Even cross wind landings are cake.  

 

I really expected it to be the other way around.

 

Maybe the Russians just didn't mind so much if they broke another airplane!

[DD_bongodriver]

I can't help feeling it's far too easy, therefore something is up with the modelling.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Partially overbloated myth. Bf109 was a trickier plane, but not a total beast if you flew it right. If you read the link DB605 posted, Finns even LOWERED the landing speed instead of going in fast. Kyösti Karhila told us in one Urban Blitz meeting that he used to fly the plane in at around 170km/h with slats open and came down in a 3-point and with a lot shorter ground run. Locking tail wheel was imperative, forgetting that could make the take off a tricky experience.

[DB605]

S!

 

 Partially overbloated myth. Bf109 was a trickier plane, but not a total beast if you flew it right. If you read the link DB605 posted, Finns even LOWERED the landing speed instead of going in fast. Kyösti Karhila told us in one Urban Blitz meeting that he used to fly the plane in at around 170km/h with slats open and came down in a 3-point and with a lot shorter ground run. Locking tail wheel was imperative, forgetting that could make the take off a tricky experience.

 

Exactly. This is my favourite quote:

"Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.

The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane."

- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy),

[HagarTheHorrible]

I don't think the flying landing bit was difficult, per say, it was probably more a problem if the aircraft hit a bump or bounced awkwardly and it tipped slightly to one side or the other, there was nothing the pilot could do  to stop it digging in a wing tip or several.  As with all things experience helps, but I reckon an awkward bump could catch the best of them as well from time to time.  I expect if you didn't land on both main wheels at the same time then the castor angle o the wheels could also quickly make things worse rather than better.  I would be surprised if BoS went to that level of detail in the physics.

Edited November 25, 2013 by HagarTheHorrible

[Sim]

Best landing ever.. in first landing attempt I bounced and though screw that, will do a go-around. During the second landing I landed and was almost at taxi speed when the tail section simply.. detached   Must have been structural damage from the first attempt 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Looks perfectly alright to me !!!!

[FuriousMeow]

I think the difficulty for the 109 was off fields that were literally just fields rather than finished runways.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think the difficulty for the 109 was off fields that were literally just fields rather than finished runways.

 

Agreed.

[Matt]

Compared to the LaGG-3 of last week, the 109 feels a lot easier to land with, but it seems like they also made changes to the LaGG. It's way less bouncy now and overall, i think it's easier to land and take-off with.

 

Having said that, i don't find the 109 hard to take-off or land with, but i'm not sure if it should. If you make mistakes like giving full throttle immediately or not locking the tail wheel, it can be quite hazardous.

 

Seems pretty much like it's supposed to be.

[JaMz]

Best landing ever.. in first landing attempt I bounced and though screw that, will do a go-around. During the second landing I landed and was almost at taxi speed when the tail section simply.. detached   Must have been structural damage from the first attempt 

 

 

You do have an option for 'Jettison tail'.. you may have pressed that accidently

[Fifi]

 but it seems like they also made changes to the LaGG. It's way less bouncy now and overall, i think it's easier to land and take-off with.

 

 

+1

Same feeling here.

[dkoor]

I don't think it is really that easy.

Sure thing it's not hard I can tell that because I did it first time right, both take off and landing part.

With engine on all the time.

Haven't locked the wheels or anything.

Just plain raw take off and land /w flaps without any extra actions.

Bf-109 has quite powerful engine so it lifts up more easily compared to the LaGG-3 s29.

 

But it is harder than in IL-2 I can tell that too.

 

So I'm not really sure what is this "it should be more tough" all about.

 

FM's are, both of them, trickier than in IL-2.

[No601_Swallow]

Best landing ever.. in first landing attempt I bounced and though screw that, will do a go-around. During the second landing I landed and was almost at taxi speed when the tail section simply.. detached   Must have been structural damage from the first attempt 

 

 

I was wondering that about something that happened in my second landing (after the second mission, doing a circuit of the river). I came in very steep, side-slipped my way down, thought I might crash, but saved it at the last minute and touched down at 200 Kmh, with no bounce, so half way along the runway I thought I'd turn in and park cheekily under the tower. Just as I started to turn my gear collapsed. Now it could have been that I was turning while the plane was still going too fast, but I'd prefer to think that I hammerd it a bit too much with my on-the-edge landing and progressive damage (whatever that is) caused the gear to collapse with the least further stress.  I hope it's true. Would be cool.

Edited November 26, 2013 by No601_Swallow

[MarcoRossolini]

Best landing ever.. in first landing attempt I bounced and though screw that, will do a go-around. During the second landing I landed and was almost at taxi speed when the tail section simply.. detached   Must have been structural damage from the first attempt 

 

 

A good landing is one you can walk away from!

[Finkeren]

Best landing ever.. in first landing attempt I bounced and though screw that, will do a go-around. During the second landing I landed and was almost at taxi speed when the tail section simply.. detached Must have been structural damage from the first attempt

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotomy

[Quax]

I can't help feeling it's far too easy, therefore something is up with the modelling.

 

 

Lots of Luftwaffe pilots never had a landing accident during the whole war. Friend of mine flew more than 1000 sorties. I take his word instead of yours.

According to all he told me, the BOS FM is spot on. 

Edited November 29, 2013 by Rama

[6S.Manu]

IMO it feels easy just because we are expert simmers (and/or real pilots).

I've seen some video on youtube about some founders flying the BoS' 109 and most of the time they don't make a good landing.

That said, I'm quite sure the FM is not all there yet.

 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

From my understanding, at the time the German pilots were about the best trained and most experienced combat pilots. If they reported the 109 to be difficult to land and handle on the ground then I would be accepting their 'feeling' over a sim pilots who is basing their "feelings" on a alpha version of a sim.

 

I doubt the flight models and ground handling of any of the planes is anywhere near complete at this stage. It is a WIP and subject to change.

[Drum_Tastic]

Maybe it is worth remembering here that you are not flying a real 109 or a real Lagg, but a simulated version of one.

 

I am not trying to take anything away from what the developers have done here because I think it is amazing but it is very much NOT the real thing

Edited November 29, 2013 by Drum_Tastic

[Axon]

At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents. (Clash of Wings: World War II in the Air, Walter J. Boyne)

Kinda speaks for iteslf does it not? Easy to land 109 is an oxymoron, I'm sure it is only easy due to alpha stage state of physics

[6S.Manu]

Kinda speaks for iteslf does it not? Easy to land 109 is an oxymoron, I'm sure it is only easy due to alpha stage state of physics

 

I would like to have a more detailed list about those accidents. We don't know if it was a handling problem.

 

I suspect it was mostly because of the condition of the landing strips: Russia there was often mud while in Germany/France most of the airfields were heavily bombed and there are numerous accounts of airplanes lost in craters.

 

Edited November 29, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[SYN_Ricky]

I have the impression that most people expect that taking off or landing with 109 must be nearly impossible so to be real.

 

Despite a high accident ratio there were still some fresh pilots that managed to take off and land the 109 with very few hours training towards the end of the war.

[6S.Manu]

I have the impression that most people expect that taking off or landing with 109 must be nearly impossible so to be real.

 

Despite a high accident ratio there were still some fresh pilots that managed to take off and land the 109 with very few hours training towards the end of the war.

Yep... if it was really easy most of the founders' BoS videos should make perfect 3-points landings, but it's not happening.

Edited November 29, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[DD_bongodriver]

Not sure why suggesting the 109 was difficult to handle is being interpreted as impossible to handle.....

 

Anyway, there is another thread here that covers this 109 ground handling debate and all the evidence that isn't anecdotal clearly illustrate the difficulties involved which come from a serious directional instability which I have not experienced in the game.

[Axon]

Also if 109's ground handling was easy, why would germans experiment with wider undercarriage? (rhetorical question ) Nobody talks about impossible, but surely taking off and landing a 109 was a skill that was not trivial. It was really cool to hear about people's problems with Lagg's landings, but lack of such reports about 109 is probably due to alpha version of the game...

 

Edited November 29, 2013 by Axon

[6S.Manu]

Not sure why suggesting the 109 was difficult to handle is being interpreted as impossible to handle.....

 

Anyway, there is another thread here that covers this 109 ground handling debate and all the evidence that isn't anecdotal clearly illustrate the difficulties involved which come from a serious directional instability which I have not experienced in the game.

 

I agree about the directional instability Bongo. It's the part I still find weird about the current FM.

 

I only wanted to specify that the high number of losses can surely be caused by many other factors, and not only by this feature.

[SYN_Ricky]

Also if 109's ground handling was easy, why would germans experiment with wider undercarriage? (rhetorical question ) Nobody talks about impossible, but surely taking off and landing a 109 was a skill that was not trivial. It was really cool to hear about people's problems with Lagg's landings, but lack of such reports about 109 is probably due to alpha version of the game...

 

I have broken my share of 109 on landing and also have experienced a few groundloops if I wasn't careful, so it's not a piece of cake everytime either.

[Quax]

What a luck, that the FM is not based on PC-pilots feelings and opinions.

[Wombat]

 I have played flight sims for Hundreds if not thousands of hours and have still managed to write off a few new 109's and thats on a nice hard runway. In RL I may have been hurt or killed. In the latter parts of ww2 many LW pilots had less training and flying hours before flying high performance AC in less than stellar times and locations.  

Edited November 29, 2013 by Wombat

[EAF_Paf]

Compared to the LaGG-3 of last week, the 109 feels a lot easier to land with, but it seems like they also made changes to the LaGG.

 

Really? For me the LaGG was much easier. Broke the 109 all of my first few attempts.

[DD_bongodriver]

What a luck, that the FM is not based on PC-pilots feelings and opinions.

 

is there a reason why modern day pilots and PC pilots are so worthless with regards to how they interpret historical documents, modern day flight reports, real world understanding of flight physics?.......or do you just have too many 'feelings' over this?

[Sternjaeger]

let's not get over ourselves.. once you master a landing technique, things normally go right, as long as you stick to those procedures. The tricky part of a 109 is landing with just one main wheel down, as when you put the other down as well you might trigger a swing on your yaw axis which could prove hard to counteract. 

 

As you've noticed the devs have paid attention to the different response that different surfaces give, and the reason why taildragger pilots prefer grass airstrip is because the grip is not excessive, allowing the plane to gently set itself on its trajectory. The realism we're looking for is in the terrain response. Remember, the response doesn't depend solely on the aircraft FM, but above all on the ground physics. 

[Mogster]

We've had these arguments over and over on the ROF boards. How hard should planes with a "difficult" reputation be to fly? The Camel, DR1, Walfisch, RE8 etc....... If people can make a decent attempt at landing at the first attempt they're disappointed.

 

I think its worth remembering that a lot of people on these boards have levels of virtual flight experience that only test pilots would have in reality. I don't think the BOS 109 is that easy to handle and compared to the Lagg it is unstable on the gear if you miss treat it. The 109 might have been a bit tricky but it wasn't a death trap and I don't think it should be so in the sim.

 

Also we should factor in trying to handle a high powered tail dragger on a rough field strip rather than a concrete runway... 

Edited November 29, 2013 by Mogster

[Zmaj76]

My biggest fear materialized. ROF FM was and is benchmark . But in ROF a cmael can catch Albatros, Pfalz acts like heli....there were some FM fixes..and then nothing...never again....In BOS, it seems FMs will have the same treatment. It seams that the team focuses on visuals, graphics, plane models, features...lets say in the future CLOD will be the "hardocre sim" and BOS something bwetween Warthunder, il2 46 and CLOD. A sim for everyone..for your kid, for a daddy, for a grandpa, for every family. And every week there is a nice update and after few weeks there is a ww2 lookalike plane to be released. Jeeeeey!

[Axon]

Come on now, CLOD and "realistic ground handling" do not belong to the same sentence. For all its good sides, ground handling physics in CLOD are abysmal. This thread is about realistic ground handling of 109, I did not fly the BOS 109 , but was simply asking how it felt to testers. Some say it is easy, some say it is not. Like in RL, eg many Finnish pilots did not report major difficulties with 109 ground handling : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

Edited November 29, 2013 by Axon

[SYN_Ricky]

I find landing and takeoff much easier in CloD than in BOS.

[DD_bongodriver]

So basically the 109 is really easy if you are Finnish or if you are friends with Quax, but if you are a modern test pilot or someone with 1000's of hours on WWII warbirds it is difficult enough for them to comment on it, any similarity with contemporary handling reports and 50 year old myths is purely coincidental and these modern pilots need to man up a little.

[DB605]

No. What part is so hard to understand for you? It sure was trickier than some other ww2 planes, but NOT a deathtrap. ANYONE with decent (100+ hours) experience with taildraggers should not have too much problems with it, IF everything is done correctly.

[gavagai]

So basically the 109 is really easy if you are Finnish or if you are friends with Quax, but if you are a modern test pilot or someone with 1000's of hours on WWII warbirds it is difficult enough for them to comment on it, any similarity with contemporary handling reports and 50 year old myths is purely coincidental and these modern pilots need to man up a little.

 

I know a military pilot who mostly flies jets, but also has over 1000 hours flying conventional propeller driven aircraft.  He had the opportunity to try out a T-6 Texan (a WW2 trainer) and told me he nearly swung off the runway during takeoff.  Swinging off the runway and crashing is the experience of nearly everyone during their first take-off attempt in the DCS P-51, even when they have thousands of hours in prop sims like Il-2 1946 and Clod.

 

I can't comment on the handling of the 109F-4 in BoS, but I will follow this discussion closely.