midnabreu

Thats interesting Thor, I actually used the power until wheels touch technique in the IL2 1946 Mustang, and it gave me much greater control in a 2 point landing (which I always do for the most part). :smartass:

You absolutely right, there is no recommended 2 point approach speed. I guess we just did what WWII pilots did and test the aircraft in the field as the POH had basic limited information. Interesting, I found these historical Mustang pilot notes, http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/p-51mustang/nzap-2025h-pn-pilots-notes-for-mustang-p51d.html.... The documents on page 38 suggests that "the touchdown should be made as gently as possible, and the throttle closed only when the aircraft is on the ground." So you were right brother! Also, historical video states that if any bounce occurs, the pilot MUST go around, period.

Excellent power on video, very nice landing. I noticed that almost every airshow P-51D approach Ive seen is a two pointer. Just seems like its much easier like MagnumHB (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2193337&postcount=39) stated with the forward visibly its much easier to approach and land. I think your right, the heavier weight corresponds to a higher approach speed, just like an F-16 or a 737, so it should be no different in the Mustang. The POH does mention a 115-120 mph approach speed, but I can imagine they would assume that an Mustang would come back in WWII with full ammo an full fuel. So at the lower weight, 120 mph may be just fine and may not produce a bounce. I do still notice that the DCS Mustang produces a significant bounce in a 3 point configuration. The POH does recommended 3 pointers for a normal approach, unless there is wind over the runway. So I still think theres something weird with down-wash, elevator neutral state, or CG. One place where this is really apparent is on take off. The nose should naturally come down on take off after significant speed is built, especially with an empty aft tank. The DCS Mustangs nose refuses to come down without deliberate and forceful nose down on take off. The higher approach speed absolutely gives us the proper elevator authority, and allows the Mustangs nose to come down, but I would still like to see this addressed officially by DCS devs. :smilewink:

Following Thors advice above, the Mustang will perform a smooth 2 point landing at the higher 150mph airspeed leading me to believe that the nose will not come down at Pilots Operating Handbook recommended approach speed of 100-120mph due to a elevator down-wash issue/maybe aft CG issue. Seems like the extra speed causes sufficient airflow to keep the nose down. Like THOR stated, a heavily loaded Mustang probably does need more speed on approach like any other aircraft to maintain the same AOA on landing. The fact that the Mustang doesn't bounce at a higher than recommended approach speed is interesting, as real world experience says that excessive speed or decent rate should in fact cause a bounce. Nonetheless, we have a workable solution until DCS looks at this phenomenon. And again I will say, this could be pilot in-experience/error. Here is my final conclusion, Appreciate Thors and everyone elses input on this journey. :smartass::thumbup:

This is the track for Analysis video 2: http://www.mediafire.com/download/1zx6dt2zuevgcka/P-51_Bounce_Test_2.trk Thor, I did check out your track video and you have some excellent landings. Thank you for taking the time to record and upload it. I still think this could be a CG/touchdown/elevator down-wash issue or my pilot in-experience, but I will keep testing and will implement this constitutive criticism. I will certainly attempt your techniques for the higher approach with a normal glide-slope, not cutting the power until wheels touch down seems like it would provide sufficient airflow over the elevator to keep the tail up. Thanks again for the feedback and analysis.

Buzzles, your right, theories usually come with an assumption, and my assumption or rather (my hypothesis) is that the A2A is correct and the DCS is wrong. However, hypotheses are proven wrong often, but sometimes they are right. I am very aware of FSX limitations which is why I fly IL2, DCS and BMS far more often because of the "feeling flight in these sims. However, A2A does incredibe work and they have created extremely realistic models tested by real pilots as well. I am open to criticism I am just pushing a challenge based on this theory and what I feel needs to be corrected. Again, I may be totally off here, but its worth exploring.

I appreciate what your saying BitMaster, there is certainly an inherent "brain laziness" in sims because although really immersive, you ultimately know its a sim. Virtual reality helmets like the Oculus Rift might change that with augmented reality immersion as documented in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xiV5Y4nhQE Because the peripheral vision is surrounded by the virtual pit, ones brain feels more like its really in an aircraft.

Thanks bro, my rational my be completely wrong, but my intuition as a (very low time PPL) pilot and long time flight simmer is usually right when it comes to judging the "feeling" of flight. Again, this may be completely pilot error and I certainly want to find out to improve my skills with the Mustang, but if there is something amiss with the flight model, I want to ultimately help the community (and my DCS Mustang of course :thumbup:). Thanks for the compliment, just trying to keep it professional for the community and not be a whining critic who is unsympathetic to the hard work DCS has put into this model. There are enough naysayers and hard core self proclaimed experts out there. :joystick: I love your signature man! 1984. Wow, I've been doing flight sims since 1996 and I thought that was a long time. :pilotfly:

Here is the track of Analysis video 3: http://www.mediafire.com/download/q1ss152hsvv1k8k/P-51_Bounce_Test_3.trk

Right rock, that is exactly what I do just like in the A2A and in IL2. I center the stick, and as long as speed and decent is reasonable, we shouldn't get a bounce. When I center the stick in the DCS Mustang, I get a bonce no matter the speed or decent rate as demonstrated in the videos. I need to use deliberate and forceful nose down to "stick"/force the aircraft on the ground .

Thanks Pman, so did they comment on the Mustangs tendency to bounce on landing? In the original WWII POH, the Manual talks about pilot induced oscillation, but does not warn about the Mustangs inherent bounce on a 2 point landing. Like I demonstrated, I can land the Mustang in a 2 point landing with immense amount of downward trim, but is this accurate according to the real Mustang pilots? (I also noticed these guys are using the Warthog HOTAS, I know hardware has alot to do with feel, and this accounts for the level of precision and sensation of weight)

The Horsemen tried stalls and loops, but did they try takeoffs and landings? (I'm not being sarcastic, this is what the topic states, just curious). Real life flying of any sort is not irrelevant. I understand a Cessna 172 is a far cry from a powerful Mustang, but the feeling of flight and intuition of what feels right is there. I am a beta tester for A2A, and I did some tests on the A2A C-172R and found that upon take off and landing the nose would continue to rise, I was told that my 172P experience had no relevance to the R model. I keep challenging that the aircraft just did'nt "feel" right. Turns out the elevator downwash was coded in reverse and it was causing the nose to rise instead of fall during the round out. My point is that your right, I am not a Mustang pilot or owner, but something doesn't "feel" right about the CG in the Mustang. If it bounced this severely during WWII, we would have alot of crashed Mustangs. I have not read or seen documentaries from WWII pilots stating that the aircraft had a severe bounce to be careful of. They did talk about the Mustangs inherent ability to snap roll during an accelerated stall, but never about this dreaded bounce. WWII pilots also mention the aft CG issues that the Mustang experienced with the aft tank full which is why they eventually took it out of the F-51D as far as I know.

Yo-Yo, I discussed this with a P-51D owner and I am almost certain like you stated its related to the dreaded CG modifications inflicted by the aft center line tank. I was aware of this phenomenon for the WWII era P-51, but apparently DCS is modeling this nightmare aft CG phenomenon, hopefully accurately. FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS (Page 101) As new equipment was added to the aircraft over the course of its development, in particular the radio equipment and the fuselage tank installed aft of the cockpit, the center of gravity (CG) has been moved back. This has resulted in decreased back pressure required to move the control stick. Instead of a force of 6 lbs. per G of acceleration, the required force in the P-51D is only 1 ½ lbs. Additionally, the stick forces begin to reverse as acceleration exceeds 4G. Great care must be taken not to black out or over-stress the airframe in sharp pulls and turns. Special Flight Conditions (Page 107) Full Fuselage Tank Special care must be taken with the control stick when the fuselage tank contains more than 25 gallons of gas. In such cases, the flying characteristics of the aircraft change considerably – increasingly so as the amount of fuel in the tank is increased. When carrying more than 40 gallons of fuel in the fuselage tank, it’s necessary to avoid any high performance maneuvers. The fuel weight shifts the CG back, making the aircraft highly unstable during maneuvering (I might add during take off and landing as well). Also note, "are NOT permitted unless the fuselage tank contains less than 40 gallons of fuel or if external fuel tanks and/or bombs are carried. An 85 gallon fuselage fuel tank is located aft of the cockpit"

Yes I understand about CG Yo-Yo, thank you for clarifying this point because its important. This is very counter-intuitive to tricycle gear pilots like myself who are taught to hold full gradual back pressure upon touch down. This make the absolute difference. I always thought to just neutralize the elevator upon touch down, and never to push/shove/force the nose down upon touchdown to "glue" it to the ground because of fear of nosing over. I noticed last night while watching the Mustang 2 point landings demonstrated that pilots would purposefully "push" "shove" the nose down past neutral upon making contact with the ground. If this is proper technique then I want to learn it :smartass: I did some testing and the P-51D Mustang requires significant nose forward on contact with the ground (the TF-51 can be neutralized with full flaps and it "sticks") There will be a final analysis video demonstrating these techniques. Yo-yo, thanks for the wise insight and critique. :thumbup: