Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SC-Sp00k on November 21, 1999, 07:14:00 PM
-
Dont get me wrong. I love this plane. I love its guns, I love its views. I love its grunt.
But I hate its landing gear.
My fav topic when ever I have finished attempting to land is the gear. Much to the annoyance of all and sundry who are unfortunate enough to be listening on Rook Ch 2 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
One bounce and your history. Yes I have landed it successfully and know others have also. But the percentages are against it less you have a flat tradjectory landing at walking pace.
I believe the gear on the real one was traditionally weak, but doubt it was this weak.
Request a little more strength when time permits (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Also anyone think that the compression is right for that plane and why is it so hard to keep the nose down in a dive. Even a long shallow one.
Understand lift etc. Just think it effects the 109 more than the others. Correct me if im wrong (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
-
when you're landing watch your VSI (vert speed indicator) and your altimeter. Just before touchdown (~20ft) flare the bird to almost a 3 point touchdown so your vert speed is preferably in the double digits.
------------------
Air power is a thunderbolt launched from an egg shell invisibly tethered to a base. - Hoffman Nickerson
-
I hate also landings in 109, one error and youre gone.
Made also landing testings with all planes, I made only once succesful belly landing in 109, and that WAS real lucky.
Other planes... is there difference without gears? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I did also roll planes with 300mph speed, all did that, but 109 didn't take much bounce and pilot died or crashed, other planes didn't have problems even though I literally SMASHED them on the runway with speed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If just gears touched and not some part of the plane, no matter, only if flying 109, then theres a matter.
-
well landings in AH aren't overly realistic... if you'd land a real high performance taildragger like that you'll swerve bounce, groundloop ad have all sort of problems... and as far as i've read about the 109 landing gear is that it wasn't a really sturdy design... Please bear in mind that the LW generly used remote fields which were more or less big areas of more or less short grass .. holding your direction was not such a problem than it is on on a paved runway..
I've landed the 109 quite often with not breaking it .. but you realy have to get a nice and steady setup for your landing with either a smooth 3 pointer or a REALLY smooth wheeler.. (low Framerates do impose a real handicap there !)
SC-Duckwing6
-
I can touchdown with the 109 OK, ussually less than 140knots and -.2 vsi. Seems more a matter of keeping it landed, the thing wants to bounce and keep flying.
I have most of my troubles with the bounce.
The 109 seems more snakey than the other planes to land, but I do not fly it a whole bunch.
Mino
-
It was quite dangerous to land in real life. Many pilots were killed this way.
-
Hey Spook...
RE: Landing:
I do ok most times unless I'm damaged. Only problem is trying to get the thing to come to a stop on the runway! Unlike the NIK2, the 109 just keeps rolling and rolling and rolling...etc (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Flat trajectory and below 200mph speed is what I use.
RE: Compression and nose down in a dive:
You have to use trim to hold the dive. If you don't use manual trim on the dive, try the auto-trim (SHIFT-X). Ie point the nose where you want to go and auto-trim it. I usually use manual trim though. Aileron trim also helps to control the rolls to the right in a dive.
Ex
-
Something I have found that makes all aircraft "stick" is the use of the main brakes when landing. I always use them regardless of type. The 109 is no different, but it does require a little lower sink rate than the rest. I have only had a problem twice with the 109 when landing, once because the sink rate was too high (surprised me) and another time when one of the mains folded (or seemed to).
MarkAT
-
Extreme;
Try pulling back on the stick fully after landing while applying wheel brakes. I believe the makes the plane act like a big air brake. I can get the "Rolly Polly" P-51 to stop in half the distance using this method. Just be careful not to do it at too fast a speed, and become airborne again.
Mino
-
Beware beware!
Some planes have weak tail wheels. The .205 or the Geaorge will break in two of you did this.
------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.
-
Funked: I Have read whole history of all 109s used in FAF (Finnish Air Force) and there weren't cases where pilot would had died because of landing gear broke or belly landing.
Only times there might have died, has been when plane has collided with something during landing.
In Aces High, you can't even belly land 109 without getting killed as it touches the ground. Only managed once to make succesful belly landing in 109 when I made little test rounds.
Seems to need quite alot to kill pilot whos belly landing or failing landing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It seems to need few trees, house or another plane before you can wish for casualties.
-
I agree you shouldn't die every time, but you have to remember that approximately HALF of the recorded Bf-109 losses we due to landing and take-off accidents! No doubt ground looping in a fragile aircraft at 80 knots is not a healthy activity. You can bet your boots MANY Bf-109 pilots were seriously injured or killed trying to establish a relationship with the ground.
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
Fishu & Funked:
From what i have read the 109 problems were more on takeoffs than landing. I read when the LW started trying out night fighting they prefered the Bf109 over the Fw190 because if they came in land too hard in the 190 wheels would dig in and flip over on its back killing the pilot, where as the 109 the gear would be ripped from the plane leaving the pilot to walk away from a rough belly landing... ouch !!
-
the 109 was the first fighter with shock-absorber at itīs wheels. The 109 should definitly not behave like a rubber ball while landing!
Itīs true that many 109 crashed during the landing, but that has another reason. They often had to land on airfields they never had seen before, due to low fuel. I read a story about a runway in Belgium, that only had a short way of concrete- enough for the pilots in winter to think- wow, wonderful runway. After 100 or 200m or so the concrete ended and they rushed into the mud with a lot of speed...