the first screenshots of the FW190 in game!

[Wulf]

no it does not because there is no accurate method of measurement being used and t here's no certainty on the amount of input given on the controls. Now please refrain from insisting on this, because it will only end up with the mods locking the thread. If you want to argue this, please post it in the aviation references section. 

 

 

I'd have thought that if you found yourself in an actual air combat with Spitfires then you'd be rolling your bloody 190 just as quickly as you were able.  Nothing like the prospect of projectiles whizzing past your ear to get the adrenalin flowing I'd have thought.  Put another way, when imminent premature death is starting to look like a very real prospect, I sincerely doubt you'd be adopting a casual, measured approach to the developing crisis. 

 

As regards the ASh-82, in use in the replica 190, I think I remember reading somewhere that it develops approx 200 hp more than the older BMW power plant.

[Original_Uwe]

 

 

Good stuff Rich. The report specifically states all the data is qualitative and not quantitative. That means it is opinion and observation without measurement.

 

The RAE actually measured the roll rates and upon reading the qualitative opinion of the US Navy had some quantitative data to share!!

 

Good stuff

[CUJO_1970]

I just can't believe that EVERY single topic where we're trying to have a technical conversation has to be hijacked by your drivel Crump, it is frankly annoying. 

 

Not really sure why you are repeatedly allowed to get away with comments like this. It is frankly annoying.

[CUJO_1970]

I'd have thought that if you found yourself in an actual air combat with Spitfires then you'd be rolling your bloody 190 just as quickly as you were able.  Nothing like the prospect of projectiles whizzing past your ear to get the adrenalin flowing I'd have thought.  Put another way, when imminent premature death is starting to look like a very real prospect, I sincerely doubt you'd be adopting a casual, measured approach to the developing crisis. 

 

 

Probably because the FW190 pilots read the US Navy report that they could only roll "approximately the same as the F4U-1" and had not yet read the British report that the FW-190 was actually "far superior" in this respect. 

[Sternjaeger]

Not really sure why you are repeatedly allowed to get away with comments like this. It is frankly annoying.

 

Yeah, I wonder why...

 

I assume that, being the OP, I might have the right to express discontent for the behaviour of another forum member that is hijacking the conversation and giving misleading information because, well, that's what he always does? 

Edited May 3, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Crump]

 

 the second video is a wheeler landing and there is no bounce whatsoever,

 

 

I don't think the second video is a wheel landing either.  Looks more like a cocked up three pointer without enough flair.  He simply saved a bad three pointer by letting the tail settle.

 

Neither video has the distinctive elevator down pushing the nose down found in wheel landings. 

 

Like this one:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VCBH2LgNI

[DD_bongodriver]

it is quite clearly a wheeler landing, the aircraft was flown to the ground in the wheeler attitude with a touch of excessive ROD and it caused a slight 'skip' due to the fact a wheeler landing involves maintaining flying speed and the oleos can skip you back into the air, the attitude was maintained throughout.

 

there is nothing 'distinctive' about holding the tail up, it's simply a choice to make, if you have excess speed you will hold the tail up to prevent getting airbnorne again but use up more runway, if you get it right there is no need to do that just as the second video I linked demonstrates.

 

the main point is that in both cases it is clear that ground to prop clearance is huge in the wheeler attitude, using 3 point landings is simply a common technique for all taildraggers for rough field operations and this is what I think some people are confusing, the 190 can land in the wheeler attitude with no problems whatsoever.

Edited May 3, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[69th_chuter]

Wasn't head clearance part of the reason they moved to the bubble-style canopy on later Fw190A-8s, Fw190F-8s and Fw190D-9s?

 

 ...

 

 

Cheers,

 

Fafnir_6

 

As I understand it    the "blown canopy" was originally a development for the ground attack pilots who were having trouble tracking their ground targets, particularly to the rear.  This new canopy gave them the additional headroom you mentioned to do this.  One problem that immediately cropped up in initial testing of this canopy were the reflections in the rear part of the canopy from the area behind the armor plate.  This was cured by installing a sheetmetal glare shield over the standard armor plate upper support (I've seen this referred to as an "armored pylon").  With the way the air war was going at this time fighter pilots immediately recognized that they might benefit from this canopy as well; not that they were paranoid, of course.

[Crump]

 

when I teach students to do wheeler landings I also get them to maintain the tail wheel off for the sake of practice but the fact is there is simply no requirement to do so, checking forward on the stick is primarily to slow down the rate the tailwheel will drop due to decreasing airspeed, you effectively fly the tail down.

 

 

Stick forward pins the mains to the runway so you do not skip or bounce.

[wtornado]

I hope they model that bar in the cockpit properly.

 

I can hide my LaGG behind it.

There won't be enough room on the gaming map to hide you

long enough to live and land with the early Russian plane sets. 

[DD_bongodriver]

Stick forward pins the mains to the runway so you do not skip or bounce.

 

there is nothing 'distinctive' about holding the tail up, it's simply a choice to make, if you have excess speed you will hold the tail up to prevent getting airbnorne again but use up more runway, if you get it right there is no need to do that just as the second video I linked demonstrates.

 

 

Enough now, I'm sure people are getting bored of this.

Edited May 3, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[wtornado]

 

 

Good stuff Rich.  The report specifically states all the data is qualitative and not quantitative.   That means it is opinion and observation without measurement.

 

The RAE actually measured the roll rates and upon reading the qualitative opinion of the US Navy had some quantitative data to share!!

 

Don't even know why they compared the two to even start with the British had the Spitfire   

Edited May 3, 2014 by WTornado

[Crump]

 

 As your main wheels touch the runway add forward pressure on the stick to keep the wheels on the ground

 

 

 As the mains touch add forward pressure on the stick to insure the wheels stay in contact with the runway, reduce the power to idle and be proactive with your left foot.

 

http://advancedtailwheeltraining.com/tailwheel_basics

[69th_chuter]

I was taught that I hadn't done a three point landing unless the tailwheel landed at roughly the same time as the mains.  I didn't have to apply forward stick after touchdown to have my instructor say "let's try that again" when doing practice  three pointers - lol.  Gosh, that was a long time ago.  It's good to do some mental dredging ... occasionally.

 

Just me rambling  :D.

[DD_bongodriver]

Don't even know why they compared the two to even start with the British had the Spitfire   

 

Yep, and when they clipped the wings it could roll almost as well, also I do wonder if ever a Corsair or Hellcat ever even saw a 190 in combat?

[Crump]

 

Don't even know why they compared the two to even start with the British had the Spitfire   

 

 

Exactly....

[DD_bongodriver]

http://advancedtailwheeltraining.com/tailwheel_basics

 

Power on wheel landings by nature mean you keep excessive speed and are not very useful, very commonly used by inexperienced tailwheel pilots to prolong the time in transition to 3 point attitude because they feel it gives them more directional control before the inevitable, by the time they get the tail down they have disappeared over the horizon and you don't get to see how badly they stuffed the 3 point part.

[wtornado]

HMS Formidable maybe with JG 5 when they were after the Tirpitz I don't know. 

[Crump]

I was taught that I hadn't done a three point landing unless the tailwheel landed at roughly the same time as the mains.  I didn't have to apply forward stick after touchdown to have my instructor say "let's try that again" when doing practice  three pointers - lol.  Gosh, that was a long time ago.  It's good to do some mental dredging ... occasionally.

 

Just me rambling  :D.

 

You are right.  You made a botched 3 pointer if all do not hit at the same time!  No worries, no all landings are perfect.

 

That being said, some airplanes prefer the mains to touch just a fraction before the tail wheel, others like the tail wheel first, and others want all three at the same time.

 

You do not apply forward stick on a 3 pointer either.  It is stick back.  You only apply forward elevator in a wheel landing and once the tail settles it is stick back again.

 

That is why it is easy to look at film and distinguish the two techniques.

[DD_bongodriver]

That is why it is easy to look at film and distinguish the two techniques.

 

An odd statement considering you have already misidentified the technique in this thread.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Don't even know why they compared the two to even start with the British had the Spitfire   

I guess it was because the British were flying Corsairs off their carriers in the North Atlantic and other places. I think the Corsairs first kill was over the North Sea. I think Corsairs even flew operationally off British Carriers Before they were certified to fly from US ones.

 

Cheers!

[69th_chuter]

http://advancedtailwheeltraining.com/tailwheel_basics

 

 

This is a good site, but the "add forward pressure to the stick" part seems, to me, to be a little misleading (maybe just semantics).  My experience is that, particularly with slow wheelies, simply relaxing stick back pressure a bit is enough to plant the plane.  Faster wheelies MIGHT need a little forward pressure (depending on speed and trim) but one wouldn't want enough to bottom out the gear and point the nose down too much, obviously - lol  (seen it happen - and all prop strikes are engine and CS prop teardowns nowadays).

[DD_bongodriver]

I guess it was because the British were flying Corsairs off their carriers in the North Atlantic and other places. I think the Corsairs first kill was over the North Sea. I think Corsairs even flew operationally off British Carriers Before they were certified to fly from US ones.

 

Cheers!

 

Yes they were, I think the Americans thought it was too dangerous to operate from a carrier.

[wtornado]

Corsair was a late arrival on the British carriers somewhere around 1943 with testing and operational in 1944.

 

US ones were grounded to island hopping hehehe.

Island hopping in early 1943   

[69th_chuter]

Yes they were, I think the Americans thought it was too dangerous to operate from a carrier.

 

The Brits got their carrier quals from the US Navy.  Yes, the US Navy thought the Corsair deck handling unacceptable and relegated it to the Marines but only because it had the luxury of the Hellcat.  The Brits, having no decent naval aircraft, didn't care.  The Marines needed modern aircraft as bad as the Navy so the initial pairing of the Corsair with the Marines and the Hellcat with the Navy made perfect sense.  I'm sure that If the Hellcat hadn't existed the Navy would have taken the Corsair aboard ship as well.

[DD_bongodriver]

180 kts?  that is mighty impressively slow for a big old bird like that.

[Crump]

 

My experience is that, particularly with slow wheelies, simply relaxing stick back pressure a bit is enough to plant the plane. 

 

 

Generally, In my experience and what I teach is it is not a good idea in any tail wheel landing technique to just relax back pressure.  Simply relaxing back pressure leads to a skip or a bounce.  It requires forward pressure for a wheel landing and stick back on a 3 pointer, it also keeps the tail wheel from slamming to the ground. 

 

That downward elevator is the distinguishing feature of a wheel landing no matter what the speed. 

 

The Power Off Wheel Landingstarts out the same as the three point landing in that the same approach is used. The difference comes when you start to raise the nose to touch down (or flare). When doing a power off wheel landing you must delay the flare until you are closer to the runway than for a 3 point. If you start your flare for a 3 point landing at 15 feet wait until 5 feet to flare for a power off wheel landing and do not raise the nose as much. This is a feel maneuver in that you are trying to touch down with no rate of descent but before you stall. With a power off wheel landing you want to touch down with no rate of descent but still at some speed above stall and with the tailwheel still a couple of inches above the runway (almost a 3 point, but not quite).

The flare is the difference; when aiming for a power off wheel landing wait until closer to the ground to flare and don’t flare as much, that is reduce your rate of descent without losing all your airspeed. Play the flare very carefully to raise the nose just enough to arrive at the runway with zero rate of descent and still enough airspeed to be flying. As your main wheels touch the runway add forward pressure on the stick to keep the wheels on the ground and as the airplane decelerates allow the tail wheel to come down as soon as possible with out flying again. As in the power on wheel landing this is the critical part and should be done as soon as possible to gain the steering power of the tailwheel.

If you anticipate the wheels touching and add forward pressure to the stick before the wheels actually touch you will bounce. You must have patience and let the wheels touch before adding forward pressure.

 

http://advancedtailwheeltraining.com/tailwheel_basics

 

 

Some planes are more forgiving that others.  I would never just relax the back pressure in an O-1 Birddog but a Pawnee would not care for example (for the most part).

 

There are times when just relaxing the back pressure is the right thing to do to keep a botched landing from going really south.  Bouncing a three pointer requires momentary relaxation of back pressure and reapplication as the plane settles keeping the back pressure on until the roll out stops.  It is a judgment call and there is nothing wrong with a go around.

 

In a three pointer, momentarily relaxing back pressure after touchdown is also a good technique to stop tail wheel shimmy and is essential on pavement with tundra tires.

[DD_bongodriver]

Wow, that's an awful technique, physically pushing the stick forward in a tailwheel landing will guarantee a nose over if you get even the slightest friction on a main wheel, a bit of FOD, a momentary bind of the brakes.

[Sternjaeger]

Crump, you seriously teach people to fly?

Edited May 3, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

Ok, this thread is about to turn to a giant pile of Crump......again

[DD_bongodriver]

If you have flown for any length of time, you have probably encountered a guy like Crump. 'Nuff said.

 

Or worse, done biennial checks on people who have been taught by people like him.

[Sternjaeger]

The thing is that I'm not saying there's a "one size fits all" flying technique, different people have different styles, some are good, some are bad.. Crump's one is defo bad. Prop strike is the first thing that springs to mind, not to mention the other possible accidents listed by Bongo..

 

Besides, posting links is really your way of proving your point? Is that how you have a constructive conversation with other pilots, some of which surely have far more experience than you? I really don't get it..

 

And yes Vic205, I've met this kind of folks before, most of them end up in a smoking pile somewhere in the countryside..

[DD_bongodriver]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4oOhumKco4

[Crump]

Wow, that's an awful technique, physically pushing the stick forward in a tailwheel landing will guarantee a nose over if you get even the slightest friction on a main wheel, a bit of FOD, a momentary bind of the brakes.

 

Ok......If you say so.

 

 

 

 Once the main wheels touch, you apply a little forward pressure to the stick/yoke to stop the downward momentum of the CG so the tail does not come down, thus increasing your angle of attack and causing the airplane to fly again.

 

http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx?page=Landing

 

 

 Pilots must wait for the mains to touch before advancing the stick forward—and then, be patient while the aircraft decelerates before bringing the tail down (I lifted off after bringing the tail down too soon).

“It’s normal to sort of fear pushing the stick too far forward,” Rapp said. Performing roll-ups—landing in the three-point attitude and then lifting the tail—will help a pilot get the feel for how far forward the stick must go during wheel landings.

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/January/17/Dont-let-the-ground-loop-get-you

 

FAA Airplane Flying Handbook says:

 

These wheel landings can be best accomplished by holding the airplane in level flight attitude until the main wheels touch, then immediately but smoothly retarding the throttle, and holding sufficient forward elevator pressure to hold the main wheels on the ground.

 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-6of7.pdf

 

 

When the main gear contacts the ground you must simultaneously ease forward on the stick (down elevator) to keep the airplane on the ground (maintaining the low angle of attack of the wing) and reduce the throttle to idle.  The amount of forward stick pressure required at the point of touchdown will be small if the downward momentum (rate of descent) of the airplane was low.  Remember, the primary reason forward stick is applied at the moment of impact is to counteract the downward momentum of the C.G. of the airplane.  Continue to increase the application of forward control stick movement as the airplane slows down to keep the tail up until it descends of its own accord with the stick full forward.

 

http://www.stearman.net/index.php/wheel-landings/

[DD_bongodriver]

The airplane should never be forced onto the

ground by excessive forward pressure.

 

 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-6of7.pdf

[69th_chuter]

Wow - I remember that Stearman ... incident.  If I remember correctly the pilot landed with some brakes on (notice the constantly neutral elevator) for some reason, don't know if it was intentional.

 

Technique can be a big part of this, too.  For most aircraft I don't keep rolling in trim on final and flair, I like to feel the weight of the plane (as it were), so relaxing the stick for me might be forward pressure for others,  Even my friend's 185 is a "relaxer" for me (though I haven't flown a BirdDog, another spring gear, so I have no idea on that one). Also, bounce may have more to do with vertical speed at touchdown than with elevator use, more vertical speed would require more nose down and next to none would require (as I've experienced) sometimes no forward stick movement at all (just a long tire squeal with no discernible ground contact).

 

Unrelated, seaplanes tend to use taildragger techniques but I, for the life of me, I couldn't tell you how I land a Lake amphibian - that thing is so awfully backward in its throttle/pitch reaction I feel good just finally opening my eyes and seeing I'm on the water or a runway.  One the funnest airplanes I've ever flown, though (and the airplane most likely to bring you into contact with bikini wearing girls  :D).

 

Hi, Mom!   *waves*

 

 

 ... what was this thread about ... ?

[dburne]

 

 

 ... what was this thread about ... ?

 

IIRC, I think it had something to do with the FW190 and the first screenshots of it in the game.

 

Now however we are learning all about how to land with tundra tires and such...

[Crump]

 ... what was this thread about ... ?

 

 

Here is the roll rate info:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6207-roll-measurements-fw-190-rae-1231/

[DD_bongodriver]

Here is the roll rate info:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6207-roll-measurements-fw-190-rae-1231/

 

But this thread isn't about 190 roll rates either.

[DD_bongodriver]

^{No it is about you}

 

Thread title:

 

the first screenshots of the FW190 in game!