Todt Von Oben

P.S. But after taking the time to write and post the above, flying a game, and coming back, it just occurred to me that when I'm flying OFF, I ALWAYS go for the three point touchdown. Oh well! As Emily Latella (Gilda Radner) used to say: "Nevermind!" Prost! TvO

ARGH! I didn't catch the pricetag! Suddenly, my little ol' PC monitor is looking better and better all the time.

Hi WF2! :yes: While I agree that a well-executed flair and three point touchdown are the fastest way to stop just about any taildragger, under many circumstances that's not the best way to go. In the real world, the safest landing method is the best landing method. Things like wind gusts, crosswinds, rough runways, windshear, irregular thermals generated by varied terrain materials in the approach and runway environments, unfamiliar airports, any conditions affecting depth perception, pilot fatigue, and more, can play hob with any landing. Accordingly, in most circumstances, it is more-often-than-not safer to fly a taildragger onto the wheels at a speed where the control surfaces still have authority, and the transition back into flight (either to salvage a botched touchdown a bit further down the runway, or to do an emergency go-around) is more quickly, easily, and safely accomplished, than it is from the slower, fully-flaired (and more committed) three-point landing configuration. My reference to the axe handles in crosswinds had to do with the Youtube video at the start of this thread; sorry if I didn't make that clear. I agree: there are many reasons why taildraggers groundloop. I think you're right about the Dr.1 being "tall" as planes of that general size go; and clearly the axehandles are there to protect in any condition that might drag a wingtip. But generally speaking, I wouldn't try to three point a taildragger in a crosswind; that's asking for a groundloop. What worked for me was to transition with a crab-kick and land the wheels in this order: upwind main, tailwheel, downwind main; using the control surfaces to counter the crosswind effect while decelerating aerodynamically. That said: I don't think the crab-kick method described in the paragraph above would be advisable for a Dr.1. As you pointed out: those aircraft were designed for pasture pilots. In a flat open field with enough available room, a pilot can usually land pretty much into the wind. Under those conditions, a flair to three point touchdown followed by controlled back pressure on the stick would aerodynamically decelerate the aircraft while digging the skid into the ground, thereby stopping the plane in the shortest distance. No doubt about that. But again, the safest method is the best method. And factoring in all the other "gremlins" that might make my perfect three point landing less than perfect, if I were landing a Dr.1 (or a J-3 Cub) into the wind right now, all things considered, I'd be safer over a broader range of landing conditions and possibilities if I were to wheel land it: keeping the control surfaces up in the wind where they retain maximum available control authority, before letting them fall into the burble where their effectiveness is diminished. I respect your opinion and experience. I find your statement regarding the three-point method essentially correct as far as it goes; but not in the greater context of it being the "best" method, especially when contrasted against the broad range of flight conditions and circumstances existing in the real world. Of course, methods of landing taildraggers is a subject pilots have debated for ages; and I know from experience we'll find others to agree with either of us. But that's part of the fun of forums like this one. :yes: Prost! TvO

Olham, I totally agree. The Dr.1 and D VII are my two favorites, even though the majority of my campaign kills in RB, RBII, RB3D, and OFF have been scored in an Albatros. The Albatros is a dependable mount, but the Dr.1 and D VII have "special characteristics" that make them a bit more fun to fly and fight in. Prost! TvO

What do you think of how well this would adapt itself to use with OFF? Would it work well with the screen views and image quality we have in this game? Howsabout with TRackIR? Prost! TvO

Yeah, it's a dirty job...but somebody's got to do it.

About the D-VII: agreed. Maybe not beautiful in appearance, but she flies beautifully.

Here! Here! (Where's that smiley of the two guys clicking their beer mugs?)

Olham, Not surprised that you've been doing it this way all along. I think most of us do. Just felt like documenting it for posterity. And I believe you are absolutely right about what makes us "smear away" sideways in the Albatros, and the way to correct it. The exact same thing happens to me if I use too much rudder in that plane. Sure makes getting into the D-VII a joy! That beautiful birdie makes even hacks like myself feel like Ernst Udet.

The Dr1 rudder loses authority when landing in the three point position because it is in air disturbed by the fuselage. (I've only flown it a few times in OFF, but I noticed that tendancy more in RB3D than in this game.) In real life, it's better to wheel-land it, hold the tail up as long as you can while maintaining directional control with lively feet; let the aircraft decelerate, and then drop the tail skid as late as possible. So they say, anyway. Crosswinds are why they put the axe-handles under the wingtips. Do any of our aerodromes have windsocks? And Voss could have most certainly escaped by outclimbing his adversaries. He stayed to fight because he wanted to. Prost! TvO

Olham, To what I wrote above, let me add: The rudder inputs vary with aircraft. In a D-VII, I can pretty much crank in full top rudder and the plane doesn't mind at all. With the Albatros D-III, it is very easy to add too much top rudder, and that can cause me to lose altitude control. Exerimenting with the twist-stick, I find I only need about 1/2 top rudder with the 'Tros. Flying is a continual process of responding to ever-changing circumstances. Moment to moment, there is a definite balance between the amount of rudder and elevator applied in any given tight turning situation that requires constant adjustment as the turn progresses. That's something we must be able to sense and adjust instinctively in all aspects of the maneuver. It comes with practice. Hope this helps to answer your question. Prost! TvO

Ditto S&R. It's the long-established dicta on the subject of how to stay "on the ball". But I sense your question has more to do with rudder inputs during combat maneuvers. Personally, I find the Albatros (especially the D-III) to be quite nimble. It's all in the control applications. In a tail-chase, I maneuver at full power in an extremely steep bank angle. In this regime the contols swap purposes: the ELEVATOR becomes the rudder and provides huge amounts of control in tightening the turn. The RUDDER (top rudder) is used to keep the nose up. For example: after using normal control inputs to establish a steep right turn, left rudder is applied to keep the nose up, while the rate and radius of turn are dependent primarily on elevator back-pressure. (In a left turn, use the opposite inputs.) Here's an example of a Tros versus a Nieuport. This is in QC: meeting in the merge at 5,000 feet. I've allowed the Nieuport to pass me and gain the advantage. Then I establish a steep right turn with reversed rudder / elevator inputs as described above. Here's how it looks from the pilot's seat: Here's a view of the same moment showing my plane from behind so you can see the elevator and rudder input: And again from above for a better look at the rudder angle. This is about half of the twist stick in top rudder. A view to the rear at that same moment shows the advantaged position I've allowed the Nieuport to gain. Now I'm going to out-turn him. In only a few seconds, by controlling altitude with the rudder, and adjusting the rate and radius of turn with the elevator, I've out-turned him and am bringing my guns to bear. The AI Ace pilot has either lost his altitude authority in the turn, or is deliberately seeking to escape by entering a dive. I followed him and went to guns, scoring hits on his aircraft in this same descending right turn a few moments later. He rolled left as we maneuvered; I continued to follow him down as his aircraft entered an inverted spin from which he never recovered. Impact. I've used these methods in real aircraft simulating dogfights (with the radio replacing the guns) and also in sim with a twiststick. I've yet to buy rudder pedals, but if they work as they should, I see no reason why these same principles won't apply. Fly it that way and we might be surprised how many AI aircraft we once thought we couldn't turn with, soon find themselves within our sights. :yes: Prost! TvO P.S. I have no idea why that extra screen shot shows up below. It's not in my panel and I don't know how to delete it. Please disregard.

Yeah! Love that "going right through him" thing the game has going on there! I was wondering what would happen if I deliberately flew into the wire cables tethering a balloon. Tried it a few times and I'm pretty sure I hit the wire but nothing happened. So I decided to fly into the balloon itself to examine the results. First, check out this "amoeba effect" as the balloon just sort of "absorbs" my D7: And then, after the bag blew up, check the engine-ejection action going on here (like Jammer's sequence). Very cool! I really like the detail shown on the engine, and in the damaged sections of the airframe. Looks like a lot of work went into making it look realistic. Great job! Prost! TvO

I'm not sure what wording the claim should have. What information needs to be supplied, and what doesn't? Somebody want to post a simple claim that is proven effective?

Thanks for the reply. Budget...say around two grand more or less. Will look up ASUS gaming laptops. Any other suggestions?