Hi guys,

Just a small topic to inform you that since a few days, the latest plane by Flight Replicas has hit the market. If I understood correctly, it's the last variant that was available for the Me-109 during the war, the K version. One of the most obvious differences with the previous variants is the shape of the canopy, for example.

I bought it as soon as I could and I have to say that I'm very satisfied by this purchase. Sure it's not an Accusim warbird, but it's very interesting nevertheless, because it has a very good 3D model as well as a very challenging (and quite realistic) flight model. This in fact, may be the most difficult-to-land plane that currently seats in my FSX hangar. The virtual cockpit is nicely detailled and interactive, the custom sounds are pleasant and the default textures included in the package are crisp and clear. I did a first test flight from Concrete Mun, but after 4 failed attempts to land there (including a crash), I decided to switch to the longer runway of Bowerman 

Here are a few screenshots showing the beast

Of course you can drop it. I did it by mistake, by the way

Indeed my ego took quite a slap in the face 
But I learned to be cautious with these German birds. The FW-190 from Classic Hangar already gave me some trouble in the past, but this 109 is one level above.

The main problem is not really the gears. That plane "glides" so much just before touchdown, like ground effect. Because of this, at Concrete Mun I was always touching the runway too late, I could never manage to touch it near the threshold. Instead, the plane was always doing a long glide, and my attempt to force the contact with the ground (by lowering the nose) would always result in a terrible bump, and thus an even more distant touchdown...

But the fact is also that I didn't take the time to set my fuel payload correctly.

In any case, because of the lack of visibility + the tendency to stall without notice, I now land this plane only on average length runways like Bowerman, where I can take my time for a smooth 2-points landing.

Hi Stephane...

Perhaps this will help...


Aviators who have difficulty floating during the flare are typically approaching at too fast an airspeed. If you’re using a sideslip during crosswind landings (as I suspect you are), this increases drag which helps counteract the floating caused by excessive airspeed. Under calm conditions, without the benefit of drag from the sideslip, the airplane floats as a result of your faster approach speed.

Unless the airplane’s manual suggests otherwise, try a final approach speed of 1.3Vs (that’s 30% above the stall speed for the flap configuration used). Now the airplane’s operating close to the bottom of its drag curve. Increasing the angle of attack for the roundout and flare results in an increase in induced drag, which minimizes your chance of floating.

Additionally, if the airplane isn’t properly trimmed on final approach, it’s very easy to over control during the flare. When I make an approach, the airplane is typically trimmed for a speed of 1.3Vs. I maintain that speed with a light touch until I’m ready to begin the roundout, which normally occurs about 20 feet above the runway. At that point I raise the nose slightly and the descent rate decreases, but the airplane continues to descend because of the increasing drag. If the airplane is trimmed, it usually takes no more than two distinct attitude changes to land the airplane: the roundout and the flare.

There are a lot of good articles to be found on Ground Effect and Flare...the above information is from one of those...

Thanks for the commentary and wonderful shots on that model...

Quote:

This is a common problem with high performance taildragger fighters with long noses like the Bf 109 & Spitfire. The curved "fighter approach" was developed to overcome it. Have a look at this video of a typical fighter approach & landing. http://youtu.be/eppf4VYAz68

It's worth remembering that most WWII fighters were originally intended to take off & land directly into wind from grass airfields without defined runways.

Hagar wrote on Jul 13^th, 2012 at 6:47am:


Yes the curved approach is one of the solutions, althout technicaly sometimes it's not possible, due to local terrain for example. Also, the Spitfire is a special example: its landing speed is so low, and its flaps create so much drag, that most of the times I prefer to "dive" on the threshold after approaching in line with the runway but with a bit too much altitude. I drop the flaps and the gears in level flight ar 200 or 300 feet above the runway, and I dive toward the threshold to maintain 90-100 knots.

This method suits most of the warbirds, especially the P-47. It works well for the Mustang and the P-40 as well. I would use is in a jet, though.