The spitfire is ridiculously bouncy to land and not realistic on tarmac.

[Trimble]

Definitely a case of flight simmers thinking that ridiculously temperamental physics are realistic. If spitfires were that bad to land in 1940 then the battle of Britain would have been lost. The bounce on tarmac even with the most gentle of landing approaches is far too exaggerated.

[Mr_sukebe]

6 minutes ago, Trimble said:

Definitely a case of flight simmers thinking that ridiculously temperamental physics are realistic. If spitfires were that bad to land in 1940 then the battle of Britain would have been lost. The bounce on tarmac even with the most gentle of landing approaches is far too exaggerated.

Do you have a video of your last flight in a Spitfire, I’d love to see it?

I assumed that you probably would, as I can’t imagine anyone making such an outspoken statement without something go back it up.

[nachinus]

The spitfire is indeed hard to land properly, prone to bouncing and wing dropping compared to the P-51, which is much easier and docile when touching the ground in DCS. I don't know if it's realistic or not, but the difference is substancial. I don't own any other warbirds so I can't make any other comparisons.

You have to make sure you are around 90mph on the threshold and flare REALLY close to the ground and keep it there till touch-down. I am not very good landing the spit and I'm more succesful when going somewhat fast, as she bleeds speed really fast after the flare. I found that 2-point landings are easier, but read other people here saying otherwise, so I don't know.

 

 

[Art-J]

Once the Spit and German planes get revised landing gear physics as well, we'll see how they behave. Comparison of current "old" gear in some warbirds with new one in others is moot.

That being said, I've never found Spitty to be either more or less bouncy than the others. I always go for three-pointers though.

[PawlaczGMD]

People often confuse lifting after an  improper landing with "bounciness" in tail-draggers.

The Spitfire is not "bouncy", the lift-off is not caused by some elasticity of the gear.

When you land too fast and not at 3-point attitude, the tail will immediately drop when you touch the ground, which will increase the pitch and AoA. This increases lift and you go back up.

If you don't want to bounce, learn to 3-point land correctly, or just do a wheel landing - land on 2 wheel in neutral pitch and hold the tail up as long as possible.

And actually a lot of losses in WWII were due to various accidents.

[DD_Fenrir]

4 hours ago, Trimble said:

Definitely a case of flight simmers thinking that ridiculously temperamental physics are realistic. If spitfires were that bad to land in 1940 then the battle of Britain would have been lost. The bounce on tarmac even with the most gentle of landing approaches is far too exaggerated.

Then you are doing it wrong.

Without a video or track file example it is going to be very hard to give you critiques and advice, but immediately it sounds like you are attempting to land at too high an airspeed, or alternatively, dropping in from too high an altitude with too high descent rate.

[=475FG= Dawger]

The Spitfire is my favorite DCS module to land of all of them. Definitely reminds me of my days of yesteryear flying taildraggers. 

One of the drills we always did when training a new guy in a taildragger was to shove the stick forward just before touchdown to get a big bounce going so he could learn the proper technique to use to avoid getting in a horrible PIO.

That was because, on a regular basis, you got one bouncing and it didn't really matter if it was a 320 lb experimental or 65,000 lb bomber.

[PawlaczGMD]

8 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The Spitfire is my favorite DCS module to land of all of them. Definitely reminds me of my days of yesteryear flying taildraggers. 

One of the drills we always did when training a new guy in a taildragger was to shove the stick forward just before touchdown to get a big bounce going so he could learn the proper technique to use to avoid getting in a horrible PIO.

That was because, on a regular basis, you got one bouncing and it didn't really matter if it was a 320 lb experimental or 65,000 lb bomber.

When you bounce, are you supposed to add power and go around? Trying to slam it down again never ended too well for me.

[=475FG= Dawger]

8 hours ago, PawlaczGMD said:

When you bounce, are you supposed to add power and go around? Trying to slam it down again never ended too well for me.

It depends on how bad it is. There are lots of variables.

If you bounce, have plenty of runway, and the bounce wasn't extreme, you just hold back stick in preparation for another flare and add just enough power to arrest the sink rate.

If its bad and/or you have passed your predetermined go around point on the runway, you carefully add go around power and execute the go around, drink a beer or two in the pattern to calm your nerves and try again.

Of course, in DCS, you can slam the throttle in the go around as long as you are above flying speed because there is no torque to speak of.

[Nealius]

I haven't found the Spit to be bouncy at all in 3-pointers or 2-pointers. The only time I've gotten bounces has typically been 3-pointers where I misjudged my flare.

[Baldrick33]

Boomps-a-daisy, it’s enough to make you weep…

I relived that scene from the Battle of Britain movie several times in my early Spit career, it seems relatively easy now with experience. 

[Dragon1-1]

On 8/24/2024 at 3:47 PM, Trimble said:

If spitfires were that bad to land in 1940 then the battle of Britain would have been lost. 

The pilots at the time said of the Spit that "she was a lady in the air, but a bitch on the ground". On the grass it's better than on pavement, but landing, rollout and braking in a WWII taildragger is an art. Bouncing is caused by coming in too fast, which is caused by not putting your nose up high enough on final (if you can see the runway, you're going too fast). It's not a problem with the gear. It's a problem with you trying to fly it like a tricycle. Yes, it's harder than flying a modern aircraft, that's just how fighters were back then. It's hardly an exceptionally difficult aircraft to either take off or land in, but also not the easiest one around. The 109 has bigger problems with torque, the same narrow gear issues, and the only saving graces are the toe brakes and lockable tailwheel.

There's a very good guide on the forum on taildragger landing technique. Real WWII pilots benefited from the "seat of pants feeling" that allowed them to handle the aircraft somewhat better, particularly in yaw, but it's a matter of practice, and ultimately very similar to the kind of precision you need to stick a carrier landing. I've had a ton of problems with it, until I learned how to do it. There's a great post somewhere on the forum from a real taildragger instructor that explains the idea.

[PawlaczGMD]

5 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

It depends on how bad it is. There are lots of variables.

If you bounce, have plenty of runway, and the bounce wasn't extreme, you just hold back stick in preparation for another flare and add just enough power to arrest the sink rate.

If its bad and/or you have passed your predetermined go around point on the runway, you carefully add go around power and execute the go around, drink a beer or two in the pattern to calm your nerves and try again.

Of course, in DCS, you can slam the throttle in the go around as long as you are above flying speed because there is no torque to speak of.

do you mean that you think engine torque is not modelled correctly? I definitely don't feel much torqueing when slamming power in any warbird...

[=475FG= Dawger]

21 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

do you mean that you think engine torque is not modelled correctly? I definitely don't feel much torqueing when slamming power in any warbird...

Yes. DCS does not model torque correctly. 

[PawlaczGMD]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Yes. DCS does not model torque correctly. 

sad, it made me wonder how you feel no twisting from the engine

[Nealius]

The torque is certainly there, it's particularly noticeable on lighter modules like the Spit and K4. Is it not modeled strongly enough? 

[Slippa]

You can teach Monkeys to fly better than that Trimble. 

Keep at it. Practice and in time you’ll be able to land it without so much bouncing. As Art says, if and when they roll out the suspension thing on the Spitfire we’ll see what’s what. Personally, I dread the day as I love my Spit dearly. I don’t think there’s anything that needs doing to it.

The props have torque last time I tried any (yesterday and pretty much every day). Drop a Jug or a 109 on a strip, unlock the tail-wheel and throttle up, see how you get on. Funnier, do it in a Spit or a Pony, torque’s modelled. Whether or not it could be improved on is another debate but for me it’s fine.

Too many lives were lost and a lot of aircraft wrecked leading up to and during the Battle of Britain. In the worst of it, some had less than ten hrs solo before being thrown into the fray. Coming back at all was a victory, a few bouncy pancakes the least of their worries.

Our Spit doesn’t need messing with. There are plenty of decent landings in what we have on YT etc. It does take a lot of practice but that’s a good thing to me. 

[Gunfreak]

5 hours ago, Nealius said:

The torque is certainly there, it's particularly noticeable on lighter modules like the Spit and K4. Is it not modeled strongly enough? 

Trying to take off the Spit or k4 with max power seems needlessly dangerous. Luck for the Spitfire. You bearly need power to take off. You can take off with 2400rpm and boost 4 if you feel like it and you'd still be airborne before half the short grass runway is used. The 109 doesn't have the insane light of the Spitfire. So it will eat into that runway before it takes off at lower power.

[Nealius]

The Spit has never given me too much trouble in terms of torque, but the K4 and A8 have gotten me into trouble on numerous occasions with a stall/torque-roll to the left on takeoff.

[Gunfreak]

3 hours ago, Nealius said:

The Spit has never given me too much trouble in terms of torque, but the K4 and A8 have gotten me into trouble on numerous occasions with a stall/torque-roll to the left on takeoff.

Which is a bit odd. While the K4 is very powerful and light. The A8 has no more power than the Mk IX but is a lot heavier, so should be less affected by the torque.

[Skewgear]

The Spitfire is challenging to land without bouncing. This thread is well worth reading and applying in-game.

Know your approach airspeed - 100mph in-game is about right, even though the original pilots' notes say 95mph is right for the full width wings. When you flare, know the pitch attitude you are trying to set and hold it there once reached.

If you're bouncing, typically you're approaching too slowly and making large control inputs right before touchdown.

Set it up a couple of miles out, gear as you pass 160mph while slowing down, flaps once you've re trimmed, re trim again, pitch to maintain 100mph and use throttle to adjust rate of descent. Start to flare as you see the runway threshold flash past in your peripheral vision, pitch up to select the landing attitude and hold it there for a three-pointer.

Landing attitude is tail low, tailwheel about a foot off the runway if both mains are down.

[Davee]

For me, I manage the approach and landing just fine after years of working to perfect it in DCS. However, the one issue that bugs me the most is that after a nice smooth landing, on the run out, sure as heck a wing will dip and hit the ground. Even after being level for quite some time. I do know the technique of dancing on the rudders, but after watching many cockpit vids and landing views available at airshows, I don't see the pilots having to fight the yaw as much as in DCS. And yes, my aircraft is trimmed before final and no excessive engine throttle changes that might increase yaw when applying or reducing power power. 

I just am of the opinion that the Spit needs further evaluation by the developers. Just my two cents.

Cheers,   

Cats . . . 

[=475FG= Dawger]

15 hours ago, Nealius said:

The torque is certainly there, it's particularly noticeable on lighter modules like the Spit and K4. Is it not modeled strongly enough? 

There might be some. Certainly it is at least noticeable in the DCS 109 in some circumstances. The others have lesser degrees of torque to completely absent when above stall speed.

There is some sort of canned post stall torque twist in the DCS Warbirds that many assume is all there should be.

Torque should affect every moment of every flight in a high powered single engine prop fighter. You should always know its there because you would need to be correcting for it in some fashion with every power and/or speed change.

It just isn't there or is so mild as to be a non-factor.

I don't really want this to turn into yet another re-hash of how "Nick says the torque is perfect" so please don't bother.

I have come to accept that torque will never be realistically modelled in any WWII title. It isn't a crowd pleaser because it makes flying Warbirds in simulated combat a lot of work. Its just one of those "gameplay compromises" I have learned to live with.

I am happy for anyone who truly believes the flight models are perfect in this regard. I sure wish I did.

Cheers!

 

[Baldrick33]

Whilst hardly by the book, I prefer to turn for the runway very short, never bother with trimming and put it down by the seat of the pants. This is an aircraft that feels alive in a sim and feels like an extension of your hands. Somehow breaking it down into numbers and angles seems somewhat cold but maybe that is just me and my romantic notion of flying warbirds.

[Nealius]

4 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Torque should affect every moment of every flight in a high powered single engine prop fighter. You should always know its there because you would need to be correcting for it in some fashion with every power and/or speed change.

That's true in DCS, though. Are you sure you don't have game mode or something turned on? Every power change I make in the warbirds requires rudder and aileron adjustment to deal with the change in torque. Formation flying in particular.