What do your landings look like ?

[carrick58 23]

Most of mine in off look like this.

 

http://youtu.be/OmaQhyezbD4

[Olham 164]

Well, we don't have brakes, so it is less likely to happen like this.

Seems he pushed the stick forward, to keep her down, and also the brakes. Not a good idea.

 

I just read another bit from "No Parachute!", where Arthur Gould Lee describes the landing of two wingmates

after a patrol and a scrap with the Germans. The wind direction had turned 180° since their takeoff, and now

the first pilot lands with the wind in his back. He rolls to the end of the runway, where he noses over on his back.

The second guy performs the same comedy. Arthur was lucky - the ground crew now waved to him like mad,

assigning him to watch the windsock.

If you land a light craft in a sidewind, you best come in fast and flat. Be prepared to use rudder for correction.

At touchdown, reduce throttle to half and roll to your hangar. I know - sounds easier than it is.

[Slartibartfast 153]

Normally land mine and find myself parked next to the beer tent... I find it saves shoe leather...

[DonL 0]

One of my best pilots had survived multiple mid-air collisions and had survived being shot down a couple of times, had an especially good mission where he shot down 2 Alb D3's. On landing he was rolling down the field on his main gear and at about 10 mph tipped over on his nose and was killed. After all he had been through, to die in a low speed landing accident! I was broken hearted but yeah a few of my landings look like that.

[Wayfarer 5]

My last two pilots died after forced landings due to engine damage. Both of them had touched the ground nicely and were gently slowing down. One, however, was between the lines, and the other was just too near a wood at the end of a field. I even managed to steer between two of the trees in the wood, but both were 'tripped up' in the end.

On airfields, I seem more prone to collapse the gear!

[JFM 18]

You find most airfields have a Row of trees, at the end of the runway.

 

I find that most annoying. Were I in charge of those aerodromes I'd have PoW's out there cutting them down. I can clear them and I have no problems at all with landing but seeing straggler trees at the ends of the field makes me yearn for a saw.

[tranquillo 10]

Don't know what all the fuss is about . I've never had any trouble and, Uncleal, I can land the SE5a no problem - no bounces at all .

Seriously, though, I think it depends a lot on the crate and what you fly often. In RL you wouldn't be changing aircraft every 5 minutes - fly a plane often enough and you get used to it. Keep your eye on speed, height, and look over the side too - that'll help with the flare-out for landing.

 

JFM. I heartily agree with you regarding the trees. I frequently curse nature for putting a tree in the way. Surely they were cut down .

[JFM 18]

Artillery spotting was accurately conducted via aerial photography and aerial arty spotting. A couple scraggler trees wouldn't hide an aerodrome.

[Creaghorn 10]

Please explain why the trees existed in a straight row as if they were planted planted there on purpose, and only on the one side facing the enemy. And not past the range of artillery

 

Surely they served no purpose if artillery strikes were directed by aircraft

 

Aircraft were used for Artillery Spotting, but not over aerodromes, lest they be shot down

 

Everybody knew the general location of the aerodrome, but the exact coordinantes were a highly gaurded secret

 

 

 

 

i have trees on both sides. and on both sides there aren't too many. just a few. and the reason why the trees are there in the first place is because they have been there before there was an airfield or a war. in those days airfields, especially smaller ones, are chosen because there was a relatively flat meadow with enough space to handle some aircraft. the same criteria like we when we look for a place for picnick or BBQ. just a bit larger scale.

in BHAH the airfields are rather human and big anyway. in real every most airfield had it's quirks. short runways, holes to avoid, random trees or stumps in the way, small ridges, bumpy field etc. not every airfield had a castle or mansion next to it and a perfect pitch. just quickly chosen, relatively flat meadows with all it's quirks. that's it. no tactical trees or whatever.

 

p.s.

julius buckler wrote in his book that it is astonishing, how many tress are always surrounding the airfields, and more astonishing why those tress always have some magnetical force to aeroplanes.

[Olham 164]

... but seeing straggler trees at the ends of the field makes me yearn for a saw.

JFM, I have tried this once: coming in to land at my field, I brought a lot of ammo back;

so I shot down the trees at the end of the runway. It works - they really fall!

I wonder, if they remain downed though - I don't think so.

[JFM 18]

Please explain why the trees existed in a straight row as if they were planted planted there on purpose, and only on the one side facing the enemy. And not past the range of artillery

 

Surely they served no purpose if artillery strikes were directed by aircraft

 

Aircraft were used for Artillery Spotting, but not over aerodromes, lest they be shot down

 

Everybody knew the general location of the aerodrome, but the exact coordinantes were a highly gaurded secret

 

 

Are you asking why trees are "planted" in a straight line in OFF? On the pretend aerodromes? That don't resemble their historical counterparts? (That latter is not intended as OFF criticism.)

 

Aerodromes in range of artillery moved out of range; case in point, Jasta 2's move from Bertincourt to Lagnicourt in September 1916.

 

"Surely they served..." Statement of speculation, although I agree with it. Trees like that would serve no pupose but to hamper flight operations. Of course there were trees around; these guys were operating out of literal fields. But planted in a row across the end of a the field in which planes operated routinely? Never might be too strong but it certainly wasn't an operational norm.

 

No, aircraft was used for artillery spotting AND observation. The latter pinpointed locations and thus everybody knew where the airfields were; they often knew which units flew from them. Briefly after relocation a new field would enjoy momentary anonymity but the aerial photography never stopped and they would be located--and not before populars magically grew 30 feet in a month and "hid" them. Airfield locations were well known. There are only thousands of aerial photographs of them--proof that airplanes DID operate over aerodromes and were NOT shot down--and I have reams of British reports discussing the locations of everything from ammo dumps to troops to aerodromes; the British even knew when MvR had taken leave, and he wasn't reporting to Trenchard. Much of this information--such as aerodrome locations--was gleaned from interrogating PoWs, the reports of which are also in the British records.

 

It's all in the NA in London, go look for yourself: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

 

EDIT: Here's a German recon photo high above the British aerodrome Lechelle, taken 22 September 1917, six months before the Germans arrived.

 

 

Note that the photo was taken by an airplane directly over an enemy field. Note that this plane was not shot down. Note the absence of scraggedy trees around the aerodrome's periphery; photos taken when the Germans occupied the field show no recently-planted rows of extremly fast growing poplars--which would be ridiculous to do if they were to hide an aerodrome from artillery, since the British were just run out of there and could probably remember where the field was. Anybody think this was the only aerodrome the Germans 1) knew about, 2) photographed?

 

Beyond these fun discussions I want to be clear that I'm not impuning OFF. I think historically accurate airfields in OFF would be a great immersion boost to a sim already brimming with it, and seeing a few trees immediately adjacent and perpindicular to the common landing grounds in OFF does make me yearn for a saw, but hey I can deal with it without problem. I have for years. Getting over those trees in a sim environment is easy since we don't have to worry about density altitude, old engines, carb ice, wet grass, tall grass, dense haze or fog, so if/since the trees are there, c'est le vie.

Edited April 13, 2011 by JFM

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I agree Jim, historically accurate airfields would be wonderful, but as has been mentioned in past discussions, they would be a hugh resource hog and thus we have the dozen or so generic fields, trees and all, (hate those trees...want to have at 'em with an axe).

 

Now then, as to that landing shown at the start of this thread, I had one of those once in a pusher UL. It was NOT one of my favorite moments, and it caused me to ruin a perfectly good pair of Dockers.

 

.

[JFM 18]

Hello,

 

The movements of Jasta 2 are so well known and documented that I need not say any more about it.

 

From the JGI logbook, 31 May 1918: "Advance landing field near Beugneux could not be occupied yet on account of artillery fire." They should have just planted some trees then to hide it. ;)

 

 

UncleAl wrote: "Accurate Photos of airfields are taken all the time by aircraft being utilized as Recon Birds that can accomplish their mission in a single pass, not on an Artillery Spotting Mission were they would need to circle the field, constantly relaying information back to the guns" [JFM emphasis]

 

 

Really? Read on. Herman Becker, describing the French artillery bombardment of Balatre aerodrome on the night of 12/13 April:

 

"Because it had brightened up towards the end of the day, we had already reckoned we might be greeted by a nightly bombing. We had hardly gone to bed at 1030 hrs, when outside the flak fire began, and you could hear the noise of an aircraft. Some cautious men got up in order to go to the shelters (the trenches), but most of us--me included--stayed in bed, for most likely the fellow wouldn't drop his 'eggs' exactly on our barracks. It did not take long until the first explosion. The thing could not have been far off, for the whole building shook and pieces of dirt clattered on the roof. One simply crawled a bit deeper under the covers and waited for the second 'egg'. But that one took a long time coming, although the machine was right over our heads [JFM emphasis].

 

Perhaps five minutes had passed, then we heard another crash, this time a bit more to the side, but also between our sheds and the airfield. Strange, that whining sound, which had already struck us as odd the first time, for bombs usually announce their arrival with a rush, especially such big ones as these seemed to be according to the noise of their explosions. However, we trusted to our fate, until it dawned on us that the sound of the aircraft was no longer audible, and that the explosions followed each other faster and faster. Then someone rushed into our shed and yelled, "The field is being shelled with heavy artillery with aerial observation!" [JFM emphasis]

 

Later:

 

"The bastards systematically worked over the entire airfield. The fire didn't lessen until 0500 hrs. We once left our trench, after midnight, because a shell had ignited a shed between our barracks in which 500 litres of fuel had been stored and also our two pigs and fifteen hens. There was nothing to be saved. The fuel was lost and only a few carbonised hunks of our hens remained."

 

And:

 

"In spite of the continuous rain of shells, our main concern was to save the horses and cattle in the next shed, as well as equipment and luggage. This work went well, although we constantly had to lay down in the mud as soon as the shells roared over. When we had finished the salvage of everything, and were again crouching in our trench, a shell exploded right in the hangar of another Staffel, which was immediately set ablaze. Exploding ammunition and signal-lights produced a crackling bonfire. There was no chance of saving the machines, which had been filled with fuel. Six valuable Albatros were burnt there."

 

The field was hit by ca. 200 shells. The results were many hangars were damaged (photos show them with huge holes in the roofs, etc), fuel lost, and JGII lost 25 airplanes. In Greg VanWyngarden's book Jagdgeschwader NrII, page 32, he writes: "The Geschwader was largely out of action for the next three weeks, claiming only two victories during the rest of the month. An airfield relocation was of obvious necessity, and the group moved to Bonneuil Ferme on the 13th..."

 

"What would you accomplish?" That's what they did accomplish with artillery. The virtual shutdown of an entire Jagdgeschwader.

 

Your debate is circular. On one hand you say they used trees to "hide" aerodromes from artillery, then on the other hand you say little would be accomplished with artillery and that there was a more productive use for the cannon than attacking aerodromes. If so, why "hide" them with trees then?

 

Since all the aerdorome locations were known precisely, an even greater and more frequent problem was aerial bombing because it far outranged artillery. And, like with artillery, a few scraggedy trees supposedly planted adjacent and across the width of a landing ground wasn't going to conceal anything. These airfields were bombed regularly and damage varied. I might be wrong and please correct me--I'm sure you will try--but I get the impression that you believe airfield attacks in WW1 presented the same near-suicide risk as does an airfield attack in OFF. It didn't. Many attacks came at night for obvious reasons and were met unopposed, such as No. 100 Squadron's first attack on LaBrayelle in early April 1917. The JG1 logbook is full of entries regarding aerial bombing and the overwhelming majority of attackers got away. By the late war the British had perfected it to an art with what the Germans called Lukas. For instance, in the early morning hours of 17 August 60 planes dropped 104 25-lb and two 40-lb bombs on Lomme aerodrome from an average height of 200 feet. One plane was shot down. Germans lost hangars and workshops and mechanics and German PoWs revealed 17 planes were destroyed. Carl Degelow was there and described the event; it was coordinated perfection. He wrote that "following the devastating Lukas, Jasta 40 went into a temporary quiet period while we waited for replacement aircraft and the various repairs needed to make us operational again."

[Olham 164]

Another bit I didn't know yet - that airfields had been so effectively shelled.

 

I always had thought, they were out of the reach of artillery. Thanks, Jim.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Olham

[Lewie 7]

I find that most annoying. Were I in charge of those aerodromes I'd have PoW's out there cutting them down. I can clear them and I have no problems at all with landing but seeing straggler trees at the ends of the field makes me yearn for a saw.

 

If you read some the accounts of those stationed at airfields, there was a distinct lack of heating fuel in some parts and firewood was always in demand, Trees on the borders of the airfield would have been the first to go.

[JohnnyG 0]

...I just read another bit from "No Parachute!", where Arthur Gould Lee describes the landing of two wingmates

after a patrol and a scrap with the Germans...

 

Does anyone know what the best place to find this book is?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

JohnnyG, eBay and AbeBooks are good places to start.

 

Lou

 

.

[Lewie 7]

Good Point . . . unless those trees served a purpose, and poplar though extremely fast growing provided very little heat, when compared with oak or any of the hardwoods

 

 

 

 

I've used Poplar as firewood, it's not Maple or Myrtle but it's no worse than many softwoods, and a similar deciduous tree here in Oregon, Red Alder, grows about as fast as Normandy Poplar. Before the War there were some fair forests in Northern France, and they weren't all Normandy Poplars. Quite a few of those forest were destroyed by shelling, there was a fair amount of firewood to be harvested from these shattered woods. Although you see a lot of Poplars along roads in France, they aren't the bulk of trees being grown.