me-109g6 3P Landing.....

[blowpipe]

Hi,

Is it me, but after 4.11 I can,t make a decent 3 pointer anymore.
Made them regular but now bouncing all the time.What is your opinion?:(

[jermin]

Yes, I'd like to concur that there is something wrong with the landing of 109s. If your descending speed is too slow at the touch-down, the plane will bounce up. But if you raise your descending speed, it will stop bouncing, which is very weird.

[K_Freddie]

To get a 3P on any high performance prop fighter is supposed to be a miracle, AFAIK.. and an indication of a/c expertise.
Maybe the patch is correct ?

[rga]

To get a 3P on any high performance prop fighter is supposed to be a miracle, AFAIK.. and an indication of a/c expertise.
Maybe the patch is correct ?

3-point landing is highly recommended for the Mustang and it's written in its lovely coloured printed manual.

[Luno13]

Hey blowpipe, you posted this question in another thread, mate. ;)

In case you didn't catch it:

http://www.mediafire.com/?8dw6bmm7t95z0t2

Here's a little 3-pointer demo in the G-6. Simply add the track to your "records" folder. If you play the track you can see the approach angle, power settings, etc.

Hope it helps, cheers.

[blowpipe]

Nice landing Luno13 ,but looks like the throttle setting changed afte 4.11.

[jameson]

This makes all of us look good! 109g10 landing @1'06"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc

[blowpipe]

I knew it, but still SUPER!

[Luno13]

This makes all of us look good! 109g10 landing @1'06"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc

In fairness, the landing field isn't level, and the pilot had to deal with a crosswind! It's a great landing actually.

[blowpipe]

How to download?

[jameson]

Luno, the landing was indeed execellent, and I suspect historically accurate. I quite often boot full rudder and lift the nose a tad to burn off speed, coming in to land. You can see the runway as well when you're low on the final approach. The video also highlights how tough the landing gear was/is, not surprising as it was originally intended to operate from rough grass strips. Not like ingame where it loses it's gear and turns over if the wheels leave the runway! TD please take note.

[swiss]

3-point landing is highly recommended for the Mustang and it's written in its lovely coloured printed manual.

Paper is patient.
Do you think the Germans told their 109 pilots to flip over after touchdown?

[WTE_Galway]

landing a 109

http://youtu.be/zG_EIaOzoXg

[swiss]

How many people died in it because they screwed up?


I didn't say it's impossible, it just said its far from easy.

[Luno13]

Luno, the landing was indeed execellent, and I suspect historically accurate. I quite often boot full rudder and lift the nose a tad to burn off speed, coming in to land. You can see the runway as well when you're low on the final approach. The video also highlights how tough the landing gear was/is, not surprising as it was originally intended to operate from rough grass strips. Not like ingame where it loses it's gear and turns over if the wheels leave the runway! TD please take note.

It's important to note however, that what you see in Il-2 is not necessarily what the game is modeling. The green rectangular strip in Il-2 represents the mowed field that you see in the Bf-109 G-10 video. The areas outside of the airfield are bumpy and full of tall grasses that comprise a lot of the steppe.

Il-2 doesn't render landscape that precisely, but it does simulate the texture with bumpiness.

In fact, pilots were instructed to land wheels up if they couldn't make it to the base in order to avoid flipping over and potentially crushing themselves.

TD have already addressed the situation and you can set "friction" values for the home base (within a certain radius).

[WTE_Galway]

How many people died in it because they screwed up?


I didn't say it's impossible, it just said its far from easy.

The narrow track was intentional, providing a stronger undercarriage and the ability to remove the wings while the aircraft stood on its main wheels.

Of the 36,000 total bf109 built around 5 to 6% were lost in ground accidents of all types over a 10 year period operating in very difficult conditions. Probably about 2000 in all. Not all those accidents were landings and clearly most were not fatal.

That record is actually not too bad, far better than the bf109s bad rep would suggest. Its possible the "horribly dangerous landing" rep is more a case of post war propaganda.

[jameson]

I think more of them died forgeting to lock the tail wheel on take off than when landing.

[Crumpp]

How many people died in it because they screwed up?

About as many as any other Air Force trying to fly a high performance aircraft with poorly trained and inexperienced pilots.

A very good analogy to represent 95% of the Luftwaffe pilots from late '43 would be the equivalent of a pilot with 100 hours in a Cessna 172 hopping into a P51 Mustang to fly a mission.

Under those conditions, the P51 would have a very bad reputation for its high rate of landing accidents.

Today, Insurance companies count "Hours in Type" as the major criteria for determining the probability of an accident in a pilot. The Luftwaffe was only giving its pilots ~20 hours in type before throwing them into combat.