su-25t landing realism

[wilsonov]

The DCS Su-25t is a very realistic flying simulation experience. However, I question the simulation realism regarding undercarriage structural strength for this particular aircraft; it's is very unforgiving - compared to other flyables; one must execute a near perfect landing every time, otherwise the result will be a blown tire, broken gear structure, or worse.

 

This seems especially inconsistent recognizing that Russian military aircraft are noted for rugged landing gear/tires to allow for unimproved field operation.

[Fishbreath]

I dunno—I'm a notoriously hard lander, and the only time I've broken the landing gear on either the Su-25 or the -25T is on landings after big parts of the plane have been blown off.

 

They're tough, but they aren't carrier-strength undercarriage, I've found. You can't just slam them into the ground sans flare.

[karambiatos]

When landing the Su-25T one must consider that they are not landing an aircraft, but a brick with wings duck taped on the side.

 

but in all seriousness you should look at your decent rate when landing, it can look like your going down slow while you are actually above 5m/s decent rate, 5m/s i think was the maximum the gear can take.

[GGTharos]

They can operate from fields in disrepair, but there are significant limits to what that means, and it immediately reduces the aircraft's available sortie rate due to the abuse such a runway will deal to the aircraft. Doesn't really matter what 'ruggerdizing' is done, these aircraft aren't carrying magical tyres nor aircraft-carrier grade landing gear.

 

Perhaps your impression of what is a hard landing or aircraft mishandling is a bit off?

 

The DCS Su-25t is a very realistic flying simulation experience. However, I question the simulation realism regarding undercarriage structural strength for this particular aircraft; it's is very unforgiving - compared to other flyables; one must execute a near perfect landing every time, otherwise the result will be a blown tire, broken gear structure, or worse.

 

This seems especially inconsistent recognizing that Russian military aircraft are noted for rugged landing gear/tires to allow for unimproved field operation.

[NineLine]

If you get damage from a landing you feel wasnt hard enough to do damage, submit a track that we can look at.

[kontiuka]

Your descent rate shouldn't be more than 1 or 2 m/s right before touch down.

[eurofor]

It would be interesting to see a track of this. My guess is that your landings are not as soft as you think.

 

And you can definitely land the real thing too hard.

 

 

[wilsonov]

how did you get that screen shot of my landing ! ha, ha

[OneFatBird]

Well, my reason for posting on this thread is not exactly on topic, but I will quickly add my two cents on topic, for whatever it is worth, then get to what I want to ask. In addition to the other comments, I hope it helps.

 

Landing; don't ever forget, a good landing is the result of a good, stabilized approach. Know the right approach speeds for the weight you are currently operating at. Be properly configured and trimmed, so it flies practically "hands off" down the approach. That is, assuming no damage! :) Lastly, avoid large power changes during approach. Something between 60% to 70% works fine for me, full flaps. Chop the power crossing the threshold and gently flare. Speeds I use, for reference;

 

No ordnance, full fuel (15,531 Kg), Full Flaps - 280 Kmh IAS.

No ordnance, 800 Kg fuel (12, 541 Kg), Full Flaps - 240 Kmh IAS.

You can figure the rest out yourself...

 

You also have a wonderful tool at your disposal in this aircraft; the AoA indicator. During approach, keep it around 11º to 13º. You can land quite successfully without the ASI like this.

 

About tire blowouts. Over on another forum a couple of us DCS enthusiasts on the site posted each other about this issue. Apart from bursting on hard landing, I find the use of the drag chute in a stiff crosswind will cause the aircraft to weathercock severely, and the nose wheel steering input required to correct may well burst the nose tire - ie; the side-load may run it off the rim. I try not to use the chute in crosswinds anymore, because of this.

 

Enough prattle, onto why I am here;

 

I have a 1/48 scale model of the SU-25 I got a few weeks ago (yeah, DCS inspired and a bit of luck finding it). I wanted to make something a little different to the stock. The pictures above are perfect. Can someone please point me in the direction of some more views? Color 3 views, detailed close-ups, other angles, unit insignia? I would be most grateful.

[Netsk]

I have a 1/48 scale model of the SU-25 I got a few weeks ago (yeah, DCS inspired and a bit of luck finding it). I wanted to make something a little different to the stock. The pictures above are perfect. Can someone please point me in the direction of some more views? Color 3 views, detailed close-ups, other angles, unit insignia? I would be most grateful.

 

That Ukrainian skin exists in DCS, just have a look your self and take screenshots?

[HiJack]

Also make a habit of dumping some of your fuel before landing! Press and hold the "R" key to activate fuel dump.

 

EDIT: I also jettison some of my weapons (LCTRL + W) if I'm coming in heavy or got damaged. Find a nearby lake and dump them there if you got time.

Edited January 2, 2014 by HiJack

[leafer]

Are you landing the T fully loaded with weapons, and don't forget to dump fuel as mentioned by HiJack.

 

You should try the A model from the winter sale for 5.99USD. I bought it yesterday, and compared to the T, the A is what a jet should be: nimble. I don't think I'm ever going back to the T model. It's just a joy to fly and fight in.

Edited January 2, 2014 by leafer

[theGozr]

Well in RL it is easier to see the ground distance on so you do have much more feelings on approach and fleure the ground in time, in DCS we have a tendency to over land hard due to the lack of feeling and distance ratio sight.

[xentxo]

Su-25 lands with airbrakes off

 

Do you the land the Su-25T with airbrakes on or off?

[GGTharos]

You can land any configuration you like, it depends on what you're trying to achieve and what procedure you're applying.

 

Standard procedures have you calculate your roll out distance with no brakes, with brakes, with parachute, with aerobraking, no aerobraking ... so you know how to land at a given airfield with given weather conditions and a given useable length.

[leafer]

 

Standard procedures have you calculate your roll out distance with no brakes, with brakes, with parachute, with aerobraking, no aerobraking ... so you know how to land at a given airfield with given weather conditions and a given useable length.

 

Yeah, that, easy as pie. :P