PDA

View Full Version : What's the most difficult aircraft to land in IL2??



aukieboy
01-26-2006, 05:08 AM
For me it's the Spitfire... though it works well after 1000 plus landings it still a different story to make a decent smooth landing without a slight bounce... other aircraft are a walk in the park, after a nice flare cut throttle and let it gently float untill it touches the RWY near stallspeed.

aukieboy
01-26-2006, 05:08 AM
For me it's the Spitfire... though it works well after 1000 plus landings it still a different story to make a decent smooth landing without a slight bounce... other aircraft are a walk in the park, after a nice flare cut throttle and let it gently float untill it touches the RWY near stallspeed.

sparty7200
01-26-2006, 05:15 AM
I find the TA 152..just doesnt wanna settle onto runway..but thats my flyin probably

sparty

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 05:17 AM
betties can be tricky too

nakamura_kenji
01-26-2006, 05:18 AM
F2A on carrier yay torque >_<

p-11.cAce
01-26-2006, 05:22 AM
For me its the I-153. If I turn off the cockpit I can grease it in everytime but I like to fly full switch and there is just such poor fwd visibility I usually end up drifting off the runway or taking a hard bounce and end up on my back! The BL-1 is a pain too but I've got the Me-163 wired (just like landing my Blanik in RL - only faster)

cawimmer430
01-26-2006, 05:33 AM
For me, it's the Messerschmift Me-163 Komet. **** that thing requires high speed precision landing! All too often, after a successful mission, I find myself blowing up because I landed "too hard". In reality, the T-Stoff fuel the Komet's used was so sensitive, that it blew up the entire aircraft upon touchdown in some cases. They weren't kidding when they said "pilots had to be experts in high speed glider landings!"

In second place is the Go-229. Quite hard to land but a hell lot of fun to fly! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The Messerschmift BF-109 is actually quite easy to land, so I find. I even manage to land the plane with gear down on rough terrain: most of the time! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Max.Power
01-26-2006, 05:44 AM
I find the Focke Wulfs easy to fly, and easy to land, but nearly impossible to nail a three point landing. Those things touching down even at a nearly perfect airspeed will look like someone chucked a shopping cart down a driving range. Thanks for the suspension, Kurt Tank.

dbillo
01-26-2006, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
The BL-1 is a pain too but I've got the Me-163 wired (just like landing my Blanik in RL - only faster) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have your own Blanik! Cool! Post a picture, please!

georgeo76
01-26-2006, 06:30 AM
For me it's a carrier landing with a Hellcat. I like to come in shallow and the carrier is out of sight unless you come in on the curve. This technique makes the whole business quite simpler for all carrier aircraft.

I suppose the comet would be a PIA too, but I've not flown it much.

cawimmer430
01-26-2006, 07:34 AM
Oh, and the BF-110 and Zero are quite easy to land. As a matter of fact, I find all Japanese planes (in Pacific Fighters) easy to land. I just wish we could fly more of them like the J2M!

Anyone know if we can download these aircraft anywhere for IL-2 / Pacific Fighters? I would really love to fly a "Betty" or an "Emily" seaplane! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Cippacometa
01-26-2006, 07:48 AM
The Komet is the worst for sure.

WOLFMondo
01-26-2006, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Max.Power:
I find the Focke Wulfs easy to fly, and easy to land, but nearly impossible to nail a three point landing. Those things touching down even at a nearly perfect airspeed will look like someone chucked a shopping cart down a driving range. Thanks for the suspension, Kurt Tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can 3 point 9 out of 10 times in an FW190, I can land Ta's on a carrier every time but an P39, I can't land that at all and that plane should be easy to land. Spitfires are another one. I always bounce them badly.

P38 is by far the most easy and the most graceful when landing, perfect every time.

rnzoli
01-26-2006, 08:09 AM
Actually any type, when I carry home some hard-earned points, or watched closely by my friends. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P39 was a specific trouble for me, because I underestimated the lenght of the nose gear. It's longer than I thought, resulting in big bouncing all the time. But thanks to experts advice, now I can land that little bird too -except when coming home with points.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

RAF74_Poker
01-26-2006, 08:34 AM
Hah !
Agreed ... any plane that is carrying a kill is impossible for me to land ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif


Easiest way for me to land for a Spit Vb. maintain 100% pitch for landing
Downwind - Boost 5 = 50% power
Base - Boost 4 =40% power
Final - Boost 3 = guess !, yep 30% power , dirty up, then maintain about 95 mph.
Cross the threshold just above the runway, maintain boost 2 and let it settle in.
Don't chop throttle all the way or it will drop too fast (bounce) or you'll stall too fast (bounce and crater).

Once you're used to it, you can land at 85mph, but 90 - 95 makes for a smoother, but longer landing.

F19_Orheim
01-26-2006, 08:35 AM
all with small gearwidth, the Brewster for example...

Unknown-Pilot
01-26-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
For me it's a carrier landing with a Hellcat. I like to come in shallow and the carrier is out of sight unless you come in on the curve. This technique makes the whole business quite simpler for all carrier aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof of a serious problem. Thank you.

Since it's not nearly as popular as the UFOrsair though, I doubt it'll ever change. Instead, we can see far better over the mile long nose of the ensign eliminator, and have NO nasty habits or slow speed issues (or any acutal issues at ALL) with that damn thing, while barely being able to see over the short, downward angled nose of the Hellcat.

Totally opposite reality, but totally inline with the fanboi's wet dreams.


Oh, to respond to the thread question - I don't find any aircraft to be difficult to land under normal circumstances, but all of them difficult to land with extreme weather conditions.

(in previous patches, I have landed just about everything without a v-stab, and once even landed a 109 without elevator control (they were shot out))

GT182
01-26-2006, 08:41 AM
As Orheim says about the Brewster, it includes the 109 too. New patch has made them trickier, as a hard landing or hard bounce will collapse the gear.

But, any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy52
01-26-2006, 08:44 AM
I find all planes easy to land (if trimmed correctly), from planes I fly regularily I thik Focke is the hardest to land "perfectly", always a slight bounce. Nothing big, but only a few times did I manage a truelly perfect landing where you don't even realize you made a touchdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hardest to land at all? I'd say Hellcat/Wildcat on a carrier. Short hook and terrible visibility. Corsair on the other hand is far easier then I have expected.

Things have changed in 4.02 with the adition of ground effect. I usually flare too early http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PikeBishop
01-26-2006, 09:10 AM
Dear All,
Seafire on a carrier, or perhaps a 109e
regards,
SLP

MLudner
01-26-2006, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
For me, it's the Messerschmift Me-163 Komet. **** that thing requires high speed precision landing! All too often, after a successful mission, I find myself blowing up because I landed "too hard". In reality, the T-Stoff fuel the Komet's used was so sensitive, that it blew up the entire aircraft upon touchdown in some cases. They weren't kidding when they said "pilots had to be experts in high speed glider landings!"

In second place is the Go-229. Quite hard to land but a hell lot of fun to fly! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The Messerschmift BF-109 is actually quite easy to land, so I find. I even manage to land the plane with gear down on rough terrain: most of the time! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 229 is the worst to taxi in, as well. You cannot see a d@mn thing, especially to the front. You're just looking up into the sky the whole time praying there is nothing in front of you with nary an idea as to where you are going.

I have problems landing Me-262's due to the throttle sensitivity.

LameDuck.
01-26-2006, 10:00 AM
P.11: visibility
(I'm getting better at it, though).

The Komet is OK for me with a steep approach and long flare.

MLudner
01-26-2006, 10:01 AM
I did have problems with the F2A on carrier landings early after the patch. For me the main problem was that I could not see the carrier during approach and I was crashing during about half of my landings.

The solution I found was to approach the carrier at a slight diagonal sort of like this / = (with the = being the carrier, the / an approximation of the flight path). This allows me to keep the carrier next to the gunsight on approach until I can see the deck around the gunsight after turning in to actually line up.

georgeo76
01-26-2006, 10:17 AM
Right, this is what I mean by landing on the curve. I started this way to land the hellcat. I found it so much easier (w/ practice) that I started using it for all carrier aproches. Then I figure why not use it for regular airstrips as well? Now I do.

The problem is that most of these AC are tail dragers w/ 300 yards of engine out in front. If you come in stright and shallow, you can't see where your going.

I notice most ppl will dive toward airfields and carriers and pull a white-knuckle flare at the end in order to keep the strip/carrier in sight all the way in.

I prefer the sane, 3-point, shallow approach method the real pilots use.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
The solution I found was to approach the carrier at a slight diagonal sort of like this / = (with the = being the carrier, the / an approximation of the flight path). This allows me to keep the carrier next to the gunsight on approach until I can see the deck around the gunsight after turning in to actually line up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MrBlueSky1960
01-26-2006, 10:18 AM
For me... Any that are more than 1' foot above the earth and travelling more than 3 good paces a second... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MLudner
01-26-2006, 10:47 AM
Another point about the F2A-2 is that the torque is caused by sudden throttle movements at low speed. To avoid this learn to keep your Air Speed at a steady 90 knots indicated during approach, then just before touch down slowly reduce throttle to reach 80 knots indicated on touch down. As you reduce throttle you may need to apply some left rudder to prevent a right roll and bad bounce. If you are still at 90 on touch down it will not be a disaster, though, as that is within safe landing speed. If you bounce, don't panic: use gentle rudder inputs to keep it level until it comes down on the deck, but try to avoid bouncing if you can. Bouncing is much more likely at 90 knots than at 80.

On land I try to use a gradual descent that keeps the runway in view until I'm over it.

tjaika1910
01-26-2006, 11:08 AM
I am so used to bumpy landings that when I do a perfect three pointer with no bump at all, I feel something is wrong.

Stackhouse25th
01-26-2006, 11:15 AM
join a squadron that knows how to land and get kills in the sky.

www.vfa25.com (http://www.vfa25.com) &lt;---

anarchy52
01-26-2006, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
I have problems landing Me-262's due to the throttle sensitivity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

262 is easy to land. I see no reason to work the throttle that much on landing. The trick is to make a good long "by the book" approach. Difficult if you have bandits waiting around your field waiting for you to get low & slow.

BSS_AIJO
01-26-2006, 11:56 AM
hmmm,


yes, the Komet is a pain to land and not blow up. The hardest landings for me are all carrier. But, that mostly just applies to f4u's The others are not so bad, including the seafire. The trick is to actually fly the pattern. When you follow an established woking procedure then its simply a matter of sticking to it. As for the f4u's I just plain old suck at landing them. Zero's on the other hand I can land on a carrier on my sleep. I have landed them with loads of damadge no problem. Even on regular landings on ground I prefer to fly a carrier style landing pattern it is very helpful in the 109's and bad visibility 109's as you get to see where your are supposed to be going righ up to the turn into final. Landing the 109's and 109's with alot of damadge that way can be dangerous as one wing will have a nasty habit of wanting to drop when it has some basketball sized holes in it. Still, I manage to land them pretty regularly. Ohh usually I raise flaps as soon as I touch down, it seems to help reduce the bounce glide bounce that you can get especially with the spitfire.

Ohh the brewsters with the narrow gear, no biggie there, again raise the flaps when you hit the dirt and get the tailwheel down asap then its just a matter of staying steady till the plane stops.

BSS_AIJO

UberPickle
01-26-2006, 12:05 PM
I've had problems landing the Me-163.

No wonder they called it a "spine-busta".

Unknown-Pilot
01-26-2006, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
The problem is that most of these AC are tail dragers w/ 300 yards of engine out in front. If you come in stright and shallow, you can't see where your going.

I notice most ppl will dive toward airfields and carriers and pull a white-knuckle flare at the end in order to keep the strip/carrier in sight all the way in.

I prefer the sane, 3-point, shallow approach method the real pilots use.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
The solution I found was to approach the carrier at a slight diagonal sort of like this / = (with the = being the carrier, the / an approximation of the flight path). This allows me to keep the carrier next to the gunsight on approach until I can see the deck around the gunsight after turning in to actually line up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat was designed with this in mind. The real world over the nose visibility was unsurpassed. The pilot sat high, and the cowl actually sloped down away from the base of the windshield. The cowl was also rather short as well.

This, combined with it's MASSIVE wings, meant not only was it an excellent combat craft (for turning and leading), but it could fly very slowly, without needing off angle approaches, and still let the pilot see the LSO - without even needing a seat jack.

This is something that is completely screwed up. Purely because of popularity.

Hell, it's worse than the 190 bar issue. (and don't even get me started about the cockpit being a fictional creation) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

p-11.cAce
01-26-2006, 12:33 PM
dbillo here ya go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Seriously the -163 lands like it only a bit faster! The key is to slip slip slip your way down final (rudder hard over one way and opposite aileron to maintain flight path direction) straighten it out as you cross the threshold and as you pull level just keep pressure on the stick - don't try to flare it! Just float it out in ground effect and it will settle nicely onto the skid as speed bleeds off - then slam on the brakes (they work in game though obviously a bug - though a helpful one!) Honestly the -163 and the He-162 are the only planes I can land everytime; anything with a prop messes me up! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/l23.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
01-26-2006, 12:34 PM
I don't know what all the hubbub is about the Komet. I think it is a breeze to land. I nail it everytime. Are you all running the tank empty first? Do that! Skid down, flaps just before landing. Fly it a meter above the ground with the beak a little high and let her settle on in. Piece of cake!

The plane I find hard to land is the HE-111. I get deceived about the height off the ground and either bounce it or think I have a few more meters to go when I really don't! (Ouch on the gear!) I rarely fly it so that must be it. Some say it is a pain to taxi too, but I can manage it ok. Just have to fly it until it is tied down that's all.

RAF74_Poker
01-26-2006, 12:56 PM
Pffft .... the Hellcat is easy ... just skim the deck w/ the hook down. Don't be going too fast or you'll bungee right over the bow. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-26-2006, 04:19 PM
For me it's still the J8a/Gladdie....I'm getting fed up with seeing the really well done damage modelling. Seriously.

Max.Power
01-27-2006, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I can 3 point 9 out of 10 times in an FW190, I can land Ta's on a carrier every time but an P39, I can't land that at all and that plane should be easy to land. Spitfires are another one. I always bounce them badly.

P38 is by far the most easy and the most graceful when landing, perfect every time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I can touch down on 3 wheels, but it bounces and addles around like it's ballerina walking on it's tip-toes. Left, right, tail, wiggle, bounce. Very subtle gyrations.

I've busted the tail off of a p-39 once. Coming in a might slow, I think. Still had control, too, it was floating nice... until the tail came off.

Iron-Works
01-27-2006, 08:19 AM
P-39 D2 is a MUTHA....

Hurricane_320
01-27-2006, 08:52 AM
I dont know, since i never return alive to the base. . .