[DBS]TH0R

Hehe, yeah I used to do it too occasionally only realizing is importance in DCS's P-51. But that is not what I am referring to. IL21946 doesn't have a CoG that shifts on account of ordinance dropped, fuel used and tank switching (all planes use one fuel tank). Tail wheel physics are basic, no proper differential breaking, and most importantly it has very basic torque modelling (simple pull to one side and that's it). No P-factor for tail daggers and no gyroscopic swing when the tail lifts up. Prop wash is another subject of discussion. The amount of power needed for taxiing alone (with full pitch) differs a lot... On top of it all you can slam the throttle wide open on TO and land a two pointer no matter the approach. Ground feels like a cushion there. :)

You won't regret going with MFG-s. Milan has perfected the design over the year or so since they hit the market. Its not just the ergonomics and precision - CAM profile is what really makes them stand out. Speaking of this discussion, I too have been enjoying it and as midnabreu calls it, his "journey". :) I remember my first couple landings in DCS P-51D thinking "this can't be right..." - but after hours of practice and some reading how you should treat a tail dragger no other sim was the same for me since. After following what the manual recommends I wasn't able to land any other way but in 3 point attitude. DCS being what it is - I started watching YT P-51 landings and studded them before finding what works and what doesn't. It took some re-learning and letting go of the bad habits learned in IL21946. A thing worth noticing, when I was teaching a squad mate of mine how to land a two pointer he failed on several first attempts. Also coming in too low and too slow. He then tried TF-51D and nailed it from first attempt. Took a bit longer to do it with P-51D.

Nice find! What is also interesting is that in both the historical Mustang pilot notes and the training video from ZenosWarbirds they recommend heavy nose up elevator trim for take off. This is in direct contrast to our findings in DCS and what is recommended in A2A's familiarization video. Page 32 defines three different cases depending on the loadout - A, B and C. I am away from my gaming rig until next week, but I am very interested in trying TO with these trim settings. The two possible reasons for using these settings, based on my current DCS P-51D experience, would be to attempt a three point take off (useful for muddy and short runways) or to help with holding the tail down for more directional control on TO. I did try "Case A" TO once without holding the stick back and with A2A's recommended 6° nose down trim - the plane refused to taxi straight without tail wheel lock and stick fully back. :)

Please note the CAUTION on page 66, and notes about the fuselage tank and reversibility on the next page. With the mentioned fuselage tank over 50% full the plane is unusable for nothing but straight and level flight - and impossible to trim. I understood the manual always recommending 3 point approach due to shorter landing on short improvised airstrips. There is no recommended landing speed approach for a two point landing. All mentioned landing recommendations are for 3 point attitude. IIRC TF-51D will lower the nose once you gain speed on take off roll, and the nose will want to fall down after you gear up in P-51D. With all this said, I am more inclined to believe this is where A2A's recommendation for nose down trim comes from and that DCS has modeled this correctly.

Thank you for comments, I am glad to see it works for you. :) This is the video where I picked up the "hold power until wheels on the ground" technique: A couple of thoughts to this discussion: TF-51D in my experience will land a two wheeler at about 130 MPH approach speed with touch down at about 110-120 - which nicely correlates with the recommended procedure. P-51D being about ~1200lb (+573lb for combat eq. and 718lb for ammunition) heavier with ammo, armor and fuel tank in the back requires as you noted 150 MPH approach speed with a touch down at about 130-140 MPH. Seeing how Mustang can carry a lot of fuel and even with wing tanks 50% full this translates to a lot of weight (don't forget ammunition weight). I haven't yet tested the P-51D without ammo and with 10-20% fuel to see if there is a difference (as in simulating a landing after a combat mission). In the video I linked here, you can see the approach angle, together with more or less curved in or turn to short final - this enables you to keep a runway in sight much easier. As far as recommended 115-120 MPH approach speed, the way I read it - it is for a 3-point attitude landing (page 58.): https://www.scribd.com/doc/34811808/North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual Please note the comments on stick movement about "Bouncing" (page 61.), in addition to the "Forcing the tail down" section which is related to the two wheel landing. Also, page 62. says that you should always make a three point landing. EDIT: After watching your video again, I see that you are approaching shallower than I do. Thus using +30" of manifold. If you check again my track, you will see that I never use more than 10-20".

Great find! Really interested what ED has to say about this...

Good stuff, thanks! :thumbup:

Interesting find indeed. Would like to have this as an option in-game, perhaps through loadout interface.

Agreed. All other sims I've tried are very forgiving. Only in DCS I've experienced ground loops and balooning/bouncing. Once you follow said procedures and technique on how to fly tail draggers DCS is enjoyable in that regard alone. Can't think of any other sim I've had so much fun simply TO and land lol. You are welcome. One of my favorite skins btw.

How prop thickness and shape should look like when viewed from a side:

9 x [2 point] landing demonstrations HERE IS MY TRACK (right click & save as) - Rudder trim used only on initial TO. No trim on all landings / following TO. Featuring deliberate hard landings: RW 04: hard landing on usually normal approach (neutralized the stick too soon / high) RW 22: bounce and recovery (neutralized the stick too late, shallow approach) RW 04: dropped her really hard, similar to no.1 (this time >500 ft/m descent upon touchdown) RW 22: similar to no. 2, unable to recover - go around RW 22: same approach, slightly faster speed - neutralized the stick in time RW 22: again, same approach, similar to no. 4 - but this time I showed the stick forward, not just neutral RW 04: again hard landing RW 22: another hard landing and gear finally gave in, right wheel did not retract RW 22: small bounce, was more focused on the gear and making sure it locked ^^ Featuring VH-ROCK's awesome Gunfighter skin. EDIT: After some more analysis on my end, I came to the conclusion that bouncing occurs when trying to land at too low speed and at a very shallow angle. In such an approach the AoA quickly becomes too high and the tail will want to drop down thus causing the undesired "balooning" effect. This needs to be counteracted with shoving the stick forward upon or moments before touchdown to prevent the tail going down and changing AoA. With heavier loaded P-51D best approach speed is between 130-140 MPH indicated and not cutting the power until the wheels are securely on the ground. Normal or steeper approaches are more forgiving allowing you only to neutralize the stick for a two pointer.

The track just shows the first part of the Analysis video 3 - followed by a failed TO attempt.

At work now do I'll have a look when I get home. In the mean time, you can see my technique here (post #3 in this thread): (didn't even get a wheel smoke) Even though I did use 1° nose down trim in this video, it is absolutely not needed. The main difference for me was learning where the ground is, or in other words correctly anticipating contact with the ground. Even when I am off that mark, I can cut power and center the stick slightly higher causing her to drop down - struts will absorb nicely.

I stand corrected then. Wouldn't tapping the brakes help?

No offense, but am I the only one who doesn't understand what is "extremely complex" about Mig-21's realistic steering? Its not like you need rudder pedals with toe brakes to get the max out of it (e.g. DCS P-51 and Fw-190). Much like in IL21946, it comes down to press "brake" and point the rudder in the direction you wish to steer. With nose breaking disabled of course. Realistic breaking 200%.

After reading your posts I got up in the Mustang and did some 10 TO and landings, all with a different approach. Not once did it bounce on me even when I "slammed" her onto the runway. Neutralizing the stick works for me every single time. No trim needed. The only way we will know whats wrong if you post a track.

Hehe. Was about to email you that I quoted your reply. :)

As others pointed, the techniques used for landing a tricycle plane like Cessna 172 you can throw out a window when landing a tail dragger. A buddy of mine flies both, these are his comments when I asked him about comparison: On another note, I don't think P-51 was designed to carry that fuel tank in the back. Hence such a CoG shift and the reason to drain it first after take off (you take off with left wing fuel tank - always). If you think the empty fuel tank is a CoG problem, try taking off with it half or full. :)

Oh God. :doh: A glimpse of hope in one of the comments:

Agreed. Lets hope they didn't waste all that money showing unrealistic flight models, tactics and in particular bomber formations (worst example being Red Tails).

Similar thread with the discussion about landing characteristics: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=130956 Mustang due to the center fuel tank, even empty, had its CoG more back than the TF variant. Thus you need to neutralize the rudder upon touchdown, along with other tail dragger techniques that vary a lot from planes with tricycle landing gear.

IIRC every 5 minutes. That is how they did it back then.

In addition, the plane was flying low and slow (landing approach). Or in other words, no altitude to loose in order to gain speed and no where near its cruising speed.

Unless someone provides documentation that the plane can turn with rudders only (not using the brake lever), it definitely looks like a bug.

And the landing: