Easy to land

[Voyager]

@RodBorza You might also give this a look, and see what you might be doing different: 

 

 

It's a period training video for take offs and landings in the P-47. The later D models have more power, but the landing profile did not change until the P-47N and its new wing, so this should still be valid for the versions we have in DCS. 

 

It sort of sounds like you may be starting in at to slow of an initial speed and running out of glide to soon. 

 

It's been a few years since I watched it, and I hadn't caught the bit about checking to see your flap equalizer was working. That actually explains the whole flaps debate from another topic. 

[RodBorza]

On 12/3/2020 at 5:10 PM, Voyager said:

@RodBorza You might also give this a look, and see what you might be doing different: 

 

 

It's a period training video for take offs and landings in the P-47. The later D models have more power, but the landing profile did not change until the P-47N and its new wing, so this should still be valid for the versions we have in DCS. 

 

It sort of sounds like you may be starting in at to slow of an initial speed and running out of glide to soon. 

 

It's been a few years since I watched it, and I hadn't caught the bit about checking to see your flap equalizer was working. That actually explains the whole flaps debate from another topic. 

 

Thanks man. I'll take a look at it.

 

[Stearmandriver]

Funny how subjective this is. 

 

I find the DCS Spit's ground handling to be completely ridiculous.  Nothing about it feels like an airplane to me, and I've been teaching in taildraggers for years.  The only two "warbirds" I'm familiar with are the Stearman and T-6; both trainers obviously, but the T-6 is starting to get in the ballpark of the actual warbirds.  The DCS P-47 actually feels a little like a T-6 to me, and anytime a sim plane reminds me of flying anything for real, I consider that a win ;).

 

Until free week here, the only DCS warbird I'd tried was the Spitfire, so I've been REALLY glad to try the P-47 and discover they're not all that bad haha.  The Spit is just weird; it's like there's a complete lack of inertia to me.  Just really unnatural on the ground.  

 

I really hope that the upcoming Corsair feels more like the Jug!  

[GUMAR]

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Funny how subjective this is. 

I find the DCS Spit's ground handling to be completely ridiculous.  Nothing about it feels like an airplane to me, and I've been teaching in taildraggers for years.  The only two "warbirds" I'm familiar with are the Stearman and T-6; both trainers obviously, but the T-6 is starting to get in the ballpark of the actual warbirds. 

Did you fly any acft with spitfire type brakes? 

After many time spent flying An-2, and considering Spitfires weight and narrow track, it seems to me natural and even more convenient. It's just matter of experience.

Edited December 25, 2020 by GUMAR

[Stearmandriver]

48 minutes ago, GUMAR said:

Did you fly any acft with spitfire type brakes? 

After many time spent flying An-2, and considering Spitfires weight and narrow track, it seems to me natural and even more convenient. It's just matter of experience.

 

No but I'm not talking about taxi behavior, but ground loop behavior during takeoff and landing.  Brakes aren't a factor then as you'd better not be touching them . I'm not a stranger to demanding taildraggers - the Stearman has its reputation for a reason: it was intentionally designed to be more unstable on the ground than necessary, to prepare cadets from the beginning for more demanding aircraft (and as a weeding out tool).  It's great when we've got one of the Wacos parked next to a Stearman so I can show a student the design differences, in terms of position and geometry of main gear, etc.

 

The DCS Spitfire is just weird to me.  I'm not saying anyone couldn't practice enough to get good at it, just like any other video game, but that's how it strikes me. It just doesn't resemble the behavior of an airplane to me.  It changes back and forth from stable to unstable behavior (what feels like a lack of inertia to me), and then there's too much lag in rudder response (which ironically feels like too MUCH inertia), and then all of a sudden the rudder becomes magically hyper-effective... the timing of the aircraft's response to both control inputs and general groundloop physics just seems OFF.

 

YMMV, but I've never flown anything that behaves that way.  

 

AN-2 is a great bird, btw!

Edited December 25, 2020 by Stearmandriver

[cromhunt]

Completly agreed with "stearmandriver".
The spitfire behaviour on ground his weird.
It's not the taildragger behaviour that is in cause.
It's because of brakes that are too strong and brutal.
It lacks a progressivity in the code.
Sure i had never fly a spitfire,but i never heard something also stupid about his brakes.

As a counter part a lot of stories exist about the lack of power on warbirds brakes,and their overheated,because of technology from this era.

I flew numerous taidraggers like Pilatus PC6 or Birddogs and Nord 3202....

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by cromhunt

[GUMAR]

  

5 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

No but I'm not talking about taxi behavior, but ground loop behavior during takeoff and landing.  Brakes aren't a factor then as you'd better not be touching them . I'm not a stranger to demanding taildraggers - the Stearman has its reputation for a reason: it was intentionally designed to be more unstable on the ground than necessary, to prepare cadets from the beginning for more demanding aircraft (and as a weeding out tool).  It's great when we've got one of the Wacos parked next to a Stearman so I can show a student the design differences, in terms of position and geometry of main gear, etc.

 

The DCS Spitfire is just weird to me.  I'm not saying anyone couldn't practice enough to get good at it, just like any other video game, but that's how it strikes me. It just doesn't resemble the behavior of an airplane to me.  It changes back and forth from stable to unstable behavior (what feels like a lack of inertia to me), and then there's too much lag in rudder response (which ironically feels like too MUCH inertia), and then all of a sudden the rudder becomes magically hyper-effective... the timing of the aircraft's response to both control inputs and general groundloop physics just seems OFF.

 

YMMV, but I've never flown anything that behaves that way.  

 

AN-2 is a great bird, btw!

 

Maybe something has changed from the time I flew Spit... Everything depended on how much airflow you have around the rudder. 

P.S. Yeah I miss An-2. It was such a pleasure to fly it.

5 hours ago, cromhunt said:

Completly agreed with "stearmandriver".
The spitfire behaviour on ground his weird.
It's not the taildragger behaviour that is in cause.
It's because of brakes that are too strong and brutal.
It lacks a progressivity in the code.
Sure i had never fly a spitfire,but i never heard something also stupid about his brakes.

As a counter part a lot of stories exist about the lack of power on warbirds brakes,and their overheated,because of technology from this era.

I flew numerous taidraggers like Pilatus PC6 or Birddogs and Nord 3202....

Did you read this essay? 

 

And it's better to discuss Spitfire in Spits section))

[Tiger-II]

Don't pull the power all the way off. Just pull "a bit" off so she starts to bleed speed as you cross the threshold. As the speed decays gently lift the nose up to the 3-point attitude and let it settle onto the ground. Once you have touchdown then pull off the power, add some backstick to hold the tail down and apply gentle braking.

 

I prefer flying a curved approach.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Tiger-II

[Nealius]

On 12/25/2020 at 3:15 PM, Stearmandriver said:

Funny how subjective this is. 

 

I find the DCS Spit's ground handling to be completely ridiculous.  Nothing about it feels like an airplane to me, and I've been teaching in taildraggers for years.  The only two "warbirds" I'm familiar with are the Stearman and T-6; both trainers obviously, but the T-6 is starting to get in the ballpark of the actual warbirds.  The DCS P-47 actually feels a little like a T-6 to me, and anytime a sim plane reminds me of flying anything for real, I consider that a win ;).

 

Until free week here, the only DCS warbird I'd tried was the Spitfire, so I've been REALLY glad to try the P-47 and discover they're not all that bad haha.  The Spit is just weird; it's like there's a complete lack of inertia to me.  Just really unnatural on the ground.  

 

I really hope that the upcoming Corsair feels more like the Jug!  

 

I imagine the two things that make the Spitfire seem off compared to a Stearman and a T-6 are the much narrower undercage and the engine power vs. airframe weight. Both are very different from a Stearman or T-6. That plus the British bycicle brake system. 

[Stearmandriver]

5 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

I imagine the two things that make the Spitfire seem off compared to a Stearman and a T-6 are the much narrower undercage and the engine power vs. airframe weight. Both are very different from a Stearman or T-6. That plus the British bycicle brake system. 

The wheel base difference between a Spit and Stearman is 10"; not incredibly significant.  When you factor in the fact that the Stearman is shorter-coupled and has a higher CG given the existence of a top wing holding 46 gallons of fuel, the Stearman may actually be the more unstable of the two.  It certainly has a well-earned reputation; it was intentionally designed to be more unstable than necessary, after all. 

 

But I wasn't exactly talking about degree of instability, so much as how that instability manifests and interacts with forces generated by the flight controls.  The DCS Spit rendition doesn't feel... real.  It lacks inertia at the beginning of a departure, and then seems to suddenly have too much when corrections are introduced. 

 

Brakes wouldn't be the issue as I just didn't use them during rollout when I was trying the Spit.

 

Just my perceptions, but I have been doing this for a little while. 

[Tiger-II]

I agree with the above. I tried the Spit a little while ago during the free-fly event, and only managed about 30 minutes with it, but the ground handling was definitely very strange. It seemed worse than the P-51 when it was first released (if anyone remembers the issues back then).

 

The P-47 is definitely better behaved.

 

Speaking of the P-51... I need to dig it out of the hangar.

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, Tiger-II said:

I agree with the above. I tried the Spit a little while ago during the free-fly event, and only managed about 30 minutes with it, but the ground handling was definitely very strange. It seemed worse than the P-51 when it was first released (if anyone remembers the issues back then).

 

The P-47 is definitely better behaved.

 

Speaking of the P-51... I need to dig it out of the hangar.

 

The P-51's ground handling actually feels really strange to me these days after flying the Spit and Jug. Rudder alone gives more turn than differential braking. In the Spit, Jug, Kurfurst, and Anton, the rudder is wholly ineffective at taxi speeds and I have to use differential braking.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Nealius

[Tiger-II]

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

 

The P-51's ground handling actually feels really strange to me these days after flying the Spit and Jug. Rudder alone gives more turn than differential braking. In the Spit, Jug, Kurfurst, and Anton, the rudder is wholly ineffective at taxi speeds and I have to use differential braking.

 

 

Huh! Not how I remember it previously! I really do need to fly it! It has been years...

[Stearmandriver]

The P-51 does have a steerable tailwheel, I *think* all versions of it.  I'm unsure about the versions of the others as modeled in DCS.  That could account for the difference in pedal authority on the ground.  With a castering tailwheel, rudder alone has very little effect at taxi speed, but if the aircraft has tailwheel steering, you're directly deflecting the tailwheel when you push the pedals. 

[Art-J]

2 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

The P-51's ground handling actually feels really strange to me these days after flying the Spit and Jug. Rudder alone gives more turn than differential braking. In the Spit, Jug, Kurfurst, and Anton, the rudder is wholly ineffective at taxi speeds and I have to use differential braking.

 

 

Nah, I can't quite agree with that. In tailwheel steer mode - yes, but in tailwheel loose mode, it's the same as the planes you mentioned.

[Nealius]

Steerable tailwheel? That must be it then. I haven't flown the P-51 in years and back then it taxied much like the other warbirds, i.e. without a steerable tailwheel. I guess they finally implemented that or fixed the physics between now and the last time I flew it.

[Derbysieger]

On 22.1.2021 at 8:23 AM, Nealius said:

Steerable tailwheel? That must be it then. I haven't flown the P-51 in years and back then it taxied much like the other warbirds, i.e. without a steerable tailwheel. I guess they finally implemented that or fixed the physics between now and the last time I flew it.

No, I am sure it always had a steerable tailwheel in DCS. I've been flying the Mustang since release and I distinctly remember that you could always steer it with left/right rudder while just slowly rolling along (sufficient for 'S-ing' during taxi) . Only if you want to do sharper turns you slightly push the stick forward to unlock the tailwheel and tap the brake. In the Thunderbolt on the other hand I always steer with brakes

[rayrayblues]

On 1/27/2021 at 12:50 PM, Derbysieger said:

No, I am sure it always had a steerable tailwheel in DCS. I've been flying the Mustang since release and I distinctly remember that you could always steer it with left/right rudder while just slowly rolling along (sufficient for 'S-ing' during taxi) . Only if you want to do sharper turns you slightly push the stick forward to unlock the tailwheel and tap the brake. In the Thunderbolt on the other hand I always steer with brakes

^This^

When taxiing the 51, hold stick all the way back. Steer with rudder and use differential brakes only for sharp turns.

As for landing the "Bolt," I know I'm probably still too high on final, 'cause I usually end up like this.

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by rayrayblues

[Doc3908]

On 9/15/2020 at 9:15 PM, BuzzU said:

You're right. I had enough of that plane in IL2.

No comparison! The DCS version of the I-16 is superior in every respect. And, yes, the landing requires a dance on the rudder pedals, but it's fairly easy once you get the hang of it. The Spit, on the other hand, still throws me for a loop (literally!) once in a while. It's easy to bring down smoothly, but as the speed decays, it becomes progressively harder to keep her straight. I've learned to add a bit of breaks to help her slow down and avoid the wingtip scrapes on the tarmac. 

 

And, yes, the P-47 is a pussycat by comparison.  

Edited May 4, 2021 by Doc3908

[cromhunt]

Just a little word about brakes of warbirds:)
As you certainly know there were only drum brakes fitted on that aircrafts.
If you experencied already the drum brakes on a motorbike or any old machine with that kind of stuff,you are aware that they are not progressive when cold,and when too hot completly ineffective.
Thus i don't know and don't even suppose the DCS and modules devs have integrated something like a difference of behaviour between a cold brakes and hot.?
But in real life there is a difference noticeable.
In facts with a cold brakes ,like you have when you land after a flight,the brakes could be brutal.
However after taxiing a while ( too long time)using brakes to turn it shoud be get something less effective.
It's not the case in DCS.Thus no code implemented to get difference between cold and hot brakes.I guess.
This option could be genius if existed and could be explain why sometime when you touch at the brakes your aircraft goes erratic.Unfortunatly i think it's just something too harsh that is coded.

I mean at least for the spitfire module.

 

[lmp]

I find the P-47 to be the easiest by far of all the DCS warbrids to take off and land in. It doesn't want to ground loop or nose over like the others, in fact after my first try I went back into the settings to make sure I didn't have any helpers enabled. Nope. That's how she flies. The only quirk I noticed, if you can even call it that, is that you need a bit more power to arrest the descent if you've gone too low than in the other warbirds.

 

I don't have a special landing technique for each of the warbirds. I come in at maybe 120mph or 200 - 220 km/h, making sure I'm coordinated, flare to a 3 point attitude a few feet above the runway, and once the aircraft settles down on the ground I pull the stick aft and keep it going straight with generous kicks of the rudder. Works for every one of them except maybe the I-16 which I don't own.

[Zimmerdylan]

On 11/17/2020 at 11:24 PM, grafspee said:

Check this out, p-51 bounce at touch down

Another mix of landings, second landing look how pilot recovered from bounce, if he would not add power it would end badly.

LOL....That's how I always land in DCS!!!!

[CoBlue]

IMHO prop-planes ground physics, suspension, friction, call it what you want, is off in DCS, P-47 "feels" good though, it's been many years I flew tail-d's RL, but here's a comparison video of an RL P-51 driver's opinion vs DCS:

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by CoBlue

[Mogster]

The lighter aircraft do seem “bouncy” in DCS. The runways are bumpy and on takeoff as the speed builds the lighter aircraft start bouncing, Ive been flying the CEII a bit lately and 2/3 through the takeoff run that starts bouncing also. I have no idea if this bouncing is realistic but it does feel uncomfortable.

 

But then it does feel similar to the bouncing here...

 

 

 

More

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Mogster