Landing the BF-109

[Romanator21]

Quick question: Why do you unlock your tail wheel prior to landing? I have always kept it locked in every sim to minimize the chance of a sideways skid on the ground. I unlock it when I need to turn off onto the taxi way.

For some reason, the "float" over the runway seems better than X-Plane. In X-Plane you can float forever in seems.

I also notice none of you seem to raise flaps on touch down. I was taught to raise flaps to reduce lift and put more weight on the wheels for breaking and steering. Does leaving them down give an advantage in reducing speed by drag?

I lock the tail-wheel for take-off (as everyone should do). Whether you unlock it for landing is up to you. Il-2 doesn't model cross-winds to the degree that you will need it.

I kept the flaps down because I had ample runway, and I didn't feel bothered to raise them at that time. If it was a short field landing, I would have raised them and started braking sooner. I should mention that I had full back pressure on the stick once I touched down. Relaxing after touchdown may cause your tail to rise even without the use of brakes.

Landing with a nose-wheel is similar in a sense, but for a different reason. You keep back pressure to prevent the nose gear from coming down too hard, or from sticking in the mud.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

I lock the tail-wheel for take-off (as everyone should do). Whether you unlock it for landing is up to you. Il-2 doesn't model cross-winds to the degree that you will need it.

I kept the flaps down because I had ample runway, and I didn't feel bothered to raise them at that time. If it was a short field landing, I would have raised them and started braking sooner. I should mention that I had full back pressure on the stick once I touched down. Relaxing after touchdown may cause your tail to rise even without the use of brakes.

Landing with a nose-wheel is similar in a sense, but for a different reason. You keep back pressure to prevent the nose gear from coming down too hard, or from sticking in the mud.

If things like cross winds, thermals, turbulence, and the like get modeled into SoW my wife is not going to be happy. She'll never see me...ok, maybe she will be happy depends on where we are in the month.

Things like that may tick off a lot of old timers, but it will certainly bring out the real virtual pilots (is "real virtual pilots" an oxymoron?). There is a lot more to flying a plane than most of us realize. Just learning to cross control or crab in a crosswind is going to drive some people nuts at first.

Landing a 109 in a cross wind might lead me to drastic measures.....but I'll go there with a smile.

Splitter

[Romanator21]

My sentiments exactly. I can't wait to have some "real" pilot workload!

I get a greater high from making a good landing than making a kill in this game. But I can see that I'm not the only crazy one

[bf-110]

Bf-109 landing gear was very fragile.It was said that was common to belly land them.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Splitter

(is "real virtual pilots" an oxymoron?).

Splitter

It is... and it isn't, so it is..or is it? I think you've inadvertantly created some wierd oxymoronic loop..

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by winny

It is... and it isn't, so it is..or is it? I think you've inadvertantly created some wierd oxymoronic loop..

lol, Just wait until I divide by zero....

Yes, BF-110, I would like to know what prompted the Germans to design the plane with that landing gear. In that they are rooted in/near the fuselage but fold outward into the wing, I don't see it as a space saving measure. It would seem that because landing gear mounted on the wings folds into toward the fuselage it is six of one, half dozen of the other.

Or were the wings too weak?

Seems like I should know the answer but I don't lol.

Splitter

[robtek]

The reason was that this way the wings could be easily removed and changed in the field.
Also the fuselage could be easily moved without the wings.
Btw, the spitfire gear is much narrower.

[Romanator21]

The design of the Bf-109 was pure genius in that, besides being a great plane, first flying in 1935, and carrying Germany through the war until 1945, it was easy to maintain and cheap to build.

The landing gear arrangement was chose for simplicity - The gears are attached to the firewall, which also supports the unique "A" shaped engine bearing, and which also supports the wing spars. Essentially, the focus of the plane is a single firewall plate, everything else being cantilevered off of that. A Spitfire for instance, looks "messier" in this regard.

The wings were designed to be able to be removed in the field in a few minutes without extra equipment to support the plane. After the E, Bf-109s stopped carrying wing guns, and this un-complicated the wings further. The engine plumbing was well organized, and the cowling had quick-release latches and could be completely removed in a a few minutes as well.

The 109 was almost no compound curves and very few components, so production is fast, cheap, and easy. The controls are well thought out on later variants, with throttle, flap control, trim control, landing gear control all on the left side so the pilot doesn't have to take his right hand off the stick - ever. In the Spitfire, the pilot has to switch hands to do work.

Btw, the spitfire gear is much narrower.

Very true, but the Bf-109 had the wheels canted in a weird way that gave them the tendency to swing unless both were planted firmly on the ground. Landing on one wheel (which is normal in a crosswind) would cause it to go out from under you, and result in a ground-loop.

Why were the wheels mounted this way? I'm not sure. But, I assume it was to save space.

[Romanator21]

[WTE_Galway]

Video of the EADS 109 gear collapse and ground loop a few years back ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...la-berlin.html