MIG-29 drops like a rock when close to ground

Does anybody else feel as if the Mig-29(s) tends to rapidly lose vertical velocity when landing? I am able to smoothly hold the aircraft (from 290 down to 250kmph IAS at 15 degrees of aoa at higher altitudes) without a drop in vertical velocity, but near the runway the aircraft loses altitude rapidly. Is this due to some kind of ground effect?

Also I find the Mig-29 rather difficult to control at low speeds as it tends to be extremely pitch sensitive and prone to oscillations, especially during landing.

I have found that landing at 300 Km/h is actually easier, like this:

v5EmSeBk5qE

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4462766&postcount=154

Reduced taileron effectivness near ground.

I am able to smoothly hold the aircraft (from 290 down to 250kmph IAS at 15 degrees of aoa at higher altitudes) without a drop in vertical velocity, but near the runway the aircraft loses altitude rapidly. Is this due to some kind of ground effect?

I feel your pain. Some kind of negative ground effect then (as the real ground effect makes your aircraft float a little during flare). On landing approach close to the ground the MiG-29 gets literally sucked into the ground. The devs will tell you it's all realistic and a "nose-dropping tendency" in accordance with the German Airforce Dash-1 manual of the MiG-29. :sad_2:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4462766&postcount=154

Reduced taileron effectivness near ground.

That would be true if the DCS MiG-29 really dropped the nose close to the flare. I never experienced this though. Keeping the attitude, at one point it just drops very suddenly and rapidly. That's not reduced taileron effectiveness, that's sudden loss of lift.

On landing approach close to the ground the MiG-29 gets literally sucked into the ground.

Suggest that you simply watch the above video from Rudel_chw from 2:00 and you will see that the MiG-29 definitely does not get 'sucked into the ground'

The slower you are during the approach, the more aft stick during the flare you need of course to counteract the nose down pitch moment.

Suggest that you simply watch the above video from Rudel_chw from 2:00 and you will see that the MiG-29 definitely does not get 'sucked into the ground'

 

The slower you are during the approach, the more aft stick during the flare you need of course to counteract the nose down pitch moment.

The video doesn't even show any flare at all. He was too high and let the plane bump on the runway, also a little too fast on touchdown. Normally the DCS MiG would answer this with a giant bounce or burst tires. I don't know why he got away with it.

The video doesn't even show any flare at all. He was too high and let the plane bump on the runway, also a little too fast on touchdown. Normally the DCS MiG would answer this with a giant bounce or burst tires. I don't know why he got away with it.

Yes, bad landing but the famous bounce comes from nosewheels, not mains.

1.The video doesn't even show any flare at all.

 

2. Normally the DCS MiG would answer this with a giant bounce or burst tires. I don't know why he got away with it.

1. Suggest to watch the video again. If a +5deg pitch change can't be considered a flare, I don't know what you consider a flare.

2. Because this apparently it wasn't such a bad landing ;)

1. Suggest to watch the video again. If a +5deg pitch change can't be considered a flare, I don't know what you consider a flare.

 

2. Because this apparently it wasn't such a bad landing ;)

We must have watched different videos. Either this or you have no idea what is considered a flare and a good landing.

It wasn't a 'perfect' landing, but given the high ROD and the thrust setting on final it was pretty good.

Apparently he did all the necessary things for a successful landing correct. Reduce the ROD and touchdown with the nosewheel in the air. It's that simple.

No bounce, no damage to the aircraft.