Landing & Taking off incredibly easy

[Viper2000]

CoD aeroplanes on average have a somewhat lower wing loading than the aeroplanes in IL2 1946, which makes them inherently easier to land.

It's also easier to feel your way down because the graphics are much better.

I'm slightly surprised by how docile the ground handling is (you can let your feet pretty much go to sleep during both the takeoff and landing rolls, which certainly hasn't been my experience in the three types of tail wheel aeroplanes I've flown IRL).

OTOH, this sort of stuff isn't exactly easy to get data on.

Hopefully the Su26 will be especially helpful in this department when/if it arrives, since they have extremely good data on its landing gear design, and can probably arrange some test flying for one of the devs in a 2 seater quite easily.

[MikkOwl]

I can relate to it being a bit easy. I intentionally put a H-111 into a flatspin, with both engines running fully. Then I sat there as it descended straight down turning violently along the horizon for perhaps 30-60 seconds. Instead of being flattened and exploding as I expected, it touched down safely without any injuries or destruction. EDIT: Yes, vulnerability was on. This was the original steam version before any beta patches.

[ElAurens]

One thing to remember, most of us have far more hours of stick time than real WW2 pilots would ever dream of logging.

Put a n00b at the controls and see what happens...



I don't think the control manipulations in CoD are any "easier" than IL2, in fact I seem to be "dancing" on the rudder pedals a lot more on takeoff in Cod than IL2. I have to agree that the improved visual/sensory environment of CoD is the main factor in making it seem "easier" to take off and land.

[unreasonable]

I am certainly finding landing the 109 easier than in IL21946 - actually managed to land one in The Mall so I could pay my respects to the King at Buck House.

T/O requires lots of right rudder and a forward stick push from neutral trim, which is just as the RL accounts I have seen would suggest.

In IL2 the most difficult landings were the grass strips on the older design maps as these were very narrow making lining up harder: the newer maps (eg Slovakia) had open grass airfields which were much easier. The cut grass strip area in the CoD maps seems to be a little wider.

Also agree about the grapics quality issue - much easier to estimate height.

I suspect the gear is too strong though.

[Buchon]

I did manage to damage my landing gear several times, even punched my tires.

The new physics and the landing gear model is a lot better, and the grip of differents surfaces has improved alot too, that is more realistic now.

In IL-2 1946 is just wrong, its not full modeled :

The lack of the mentioned improvements, and the crazy and unrealistic bouncing, makes the landings frustrating, impossible to do outside of landing tracks, very unreal for a plane with a landing gear of a WWII.

I like how is in ClOD, has improved a lot, very satisfactory now.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Buchon

I like how is in ClOD, has improved a lot, very satisfactory now.

+1

[Trumper]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

OTOH, this sort of stuff isn't exactly easy to get data on.

Actually it wouldn't be that hard.Alot of the restorations that fly now have data recorders fitted to them to measure the stresses and strains.
http://www.uk-warbirds.net/operators_hfl.html
There are more warbirds from both allied and axis side flying now than since the war and pilots from both ww2 and todays pilots flying them are still around.
Where there's a will there's a way.
This is something i can't understand about the audio,realistic engine sounds,they say they can't sent anyone to record them,mmmmm.

[Blackdog_kt]

What they actually said is that they couldn't afford to send one to record them, not that they couldn't ( cost of shipping the equipment but most of all, paying for the cost of running an antique engine with massive servicing costs for a few hours).

[ElAurens]

Exactly.

People just don't understand that running a Spit/Hurri/109/P51/whateverwarbird costs about $2000 US per hour.

And add to that the fact that most war bird owners consider us flight simmers merely as pests, and you start to see the reality of the issue.

[Sauf]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

And add to that the fact that most war bird owners consider us flight simmers merely as pests, and you start to see the reality of the issue.

Prolly cause we'd point at their a/c and tell em the gunsight/cockpit/paintscheme/.50 cal/seat position/ is PORKED!