Warbirds difficulty to land
 

I'm having a difficult time landing my GS warbirds. I presently own a CARF Spitfire and TF GS P-51 & P-47. I'm really having a time getting these down without either scraping the wing tips or nosing over after bouncing a couple of times resulting in the scraping of prop tips. I appear not to be the only one either as I seen this a lot at warbirds meets that I've been to. I'm not a beginner with 35 years experience, own many jets and IMAC 40%ers. Never a problem with those. People say, "you've got to land that plane on its mains or you have to land it on all three wheels at once". Five minutes later, someone else will say the direct opposite. Seems the P-47 is the easier to land. Of course, our winds, both cross and velocity, here in West Texas aren't helping either...

Is is it just the nature of the beast? Any tips. Any set up that helps? I have a JR 370A on the rudder of the larger Spit but don't even notice it helping. Would really appreciate any help as I'm not wanting to keep Xoar in the big $$!

You're bouncing because you are coming in too hot. It's natural to have an aversion to letting warbirds slow down too much. I struggled with this for a long time. You need to come in with power applied but not too much. There's a balance that takes a while to master and is particular to the airframe. Here's what I use as a general procedure. Drop flaps on your downwind leg. Make the turn to your base leg at about 1/4 throttle and begin your descent. I try to use about 10 degrees of down pitch. Try to maintain this pitch angle throughout your approach. Use power to maintain it and as little elevator as possible. Turn to final (watch your speed, add power if necessary to maintain your pitch angle) and try to be at about 6 feet above the ground when you reach the runway threshold. Bring power back to idle or slightly above and start to gently pull the nose up and let the speed bleed off as you level out and slow the descent rate. If you're descending too fast, bring in a bit of power to slow the descent rate. When you're about 1 foot above the ground, pull out any power you might have left and let her land on the mains. Three point landings are for Stinsons and Citabrias, not warbirds. Let the ground speed bleed off and gently use elevator to drop the tail. Be gentle though because you don't want the plane to balloon off the runway. Good luck and keep practicing.

Also, if you want to stop giving Xoar all your money, try an APC 22 X 10 prop on your 55cc engines until you get better managing nose overs. They are much tougher and don't break nearly as easily.

We are flying the TF 1/5 P-51s at our club (Mattoon IL). What we have learned is if your landing approach is not just the way you want it GO AROUND and try again. Once you start making adjustments during the landing approach you are going to have a tough time landing without bouncing. Use the throttle to control the descent and air speed, not the elevator. Also, if you get a bad bounce on the first contact with the ground, GO AROUND (add about 1/2 power gently). What happens is after the first bounce the plane losses a little air speed and the second and third bounce just keeps getting worse until a nose over accrues. I don't recommend a three point landing with the TF P-51 as they bounce very easily.
Ralph

Agreed. The third bounce will also tend to tear the gear out since it is usually pretty violent. As was stated, if you bounce, add power, lower the nose level, and go around if you don't have a long airstrip where you can recover landing airspeed and pitch with enough room to set down safely again. If you bounce more than a couple of feet, always go around. Feed in power immediately, be aware that right rudder will be required, and climb back into the pattern.

It could also be a "wrong" CG.

It doesn't help much giving advice on how to land a Warbird, if CG is "wrong".

Or if it's too Heavy...

I was bouncing too, because a club mate who flew size AT-6's in the airforce said these things (warbirds) have to be three pointed, and I bounced and bounced hard trying to three point the landings.
One year at Oshkosh Airventure I spent a afternoon watching the AT6's and P-51's land, and they were wheel landing on the mains, no three pointers. I tried this and have not badly pooched and landing in 4 years on my Ziroli Harvard, Yellow Spit, TF P-51s and Skyshark P-40. I used 45 degree flap max, I have some up trim mixed in when the flap comes down, the mixed uptrim keeps my approach descent gradual with out holding to holding much up on the stick, I flying a circular 360 landing pattern after the mid field break, cross the threshold at 1/4 power, a slight up flare to level the nose when I cross the number and put to idle when the mains touch the ground. Hope this helps, Good luck! ken k.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eUnDbesxio
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z729ii4BUiU


ps at the 2.00 minute mark this is me landing the Harvard on it's first flight, being patient - and we know how AT6's (Harvards) like to kangaroo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv5EUzKIE-E

I couldn't have said it better myself. +1

No two planes land the same but the all land on the mains. Stay off the elevator and always have a tab of down trim set in. Fly the airframe to the ground using throttle management with wings' level and the plane will land itself.

+1

The only thing I can add is, I make my planes a tad nose heavy. They seem to settle better. Flap; no wind..full flaps, 10-15 mph 1/2 flaps. +15 no flaps.
Of course that is a personal preference. No matter you stil have to get it down.

Agree on making the P-51s and other warbirds a tad bit nose heavy. The saying goes: Nose heavy, they may land a little faster - Tail heavy, they crash

I'll add that you need to learn to fly slow with all of your planes. Play in the wind with flaps get a sense for the stall and characteristics of each plane. The more you play with it the more it will teach you.
Use flaps as needed and use power to set the decent rate. Don't dive bomb the field. You want the plane to be loaded meaning some drag with gear and flaps and some power to maintain speed and rate of decent. If you come in at idle then there is the chance of the engine coughing and not coming up smoothly. If it's already above idle it's ready to respond the reeds are open and it has positive pressure.
Get the plane settled and low over the first 20% of the runway then you can touchdown and cut power at the right time. The plane will be in ground effect for a little bit as it bleeds off speed. Just hold and allow it to settle and stall through it. As soon as it's on the mains you want to release back pressure on the stick. That's usually what causes the bounce. Your holding up then the wheels hit and together it causes the plane to pitch up and so on and so forth. Just back off as it touches. Also use rudder more than ailerons as you approach. Ailerons are just for keeping the wings level on approach for the most part. Emphasis on rudder, power and elevator.
Weather conditions will ultimately dictate your settings but knowing ahead of time how that plane handles at all speeds and settings is key.

By the way three pointers are doable but risky. You must know the planes stall and you must time it with touching down, it's tricky. I've practiced this with a Corsair and it caught me out once. That's assuming you have not modified the CG to favor this kind of landing with an Aft CG position. So again you must be very comfortable with slow flight and know the stall.

Balanced at the most rearward point as indicated by the assembly manual. Recommended low-rates, per the manual for every aspect of flight with maximum available elevator on high-rates to plant the tail when taxi-ing. Skip to the last minute to watch the landing tecnique previously described:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzPiCEolZ8s

The P-47 is about as close to a warbird trainer as you can get. Wide stance, lots of wing, big fowler flaps, it's pretty ideal actually.

Nice flight!

The P-47 is about as close to a warbird trainer as you can get. Wide stance, lots of wing, big fowler flaps, it's pretty ideal actually.

Nice flight!

Flycatch +2

G´day all,
just my 2 cents worth, balance your model on the nose heavy side, I think it helps a lot, I also have my low Idle a bit on the fast side, War Birds are my thing, my T/F GS P-47 is the easiest to land, my ESM 85in Corsair is next, with heaps of flap on both, the T/F GS P-51, speed has to be pretty close to do a nice landing, the 51 is the one that has improved most with more weight up the front. I also have the 6ft ESM, Spitfire, P-51B and P-47, both P-47´s are nice to land, the Spitfire is nice with a forward CofG, the ESM P-51B, I am way in front of the dangerous book CofG, it is still the hardest to land, but the faster low idle helps a lot. I found I was coming in OK, then getting too slow.
Oldtimer

On the landing approach, elevator controls airspeed and throttle controls altitude. When I am 3 pointing my Spitfire it touches down when I have full up elevator. I mainly do this with the Spitfire because of the tendency for it to nose over. On my Top Flite P-51 wheel landings are easy, slow the plane down and adjust the elevator and keep it there, then when small bursts of power are applied you can adjust the altitude and actually flair with throttle. Slowing the plane down and the use of throttle are extremely important, good luck!

Luke

I DO think it is the nature of the beast. I fly it all as well....WW1, WW2, jets, helis etc, and I have always thought the most challenging "to fly well" airplane category is WW2. They all land different and you have to land in a matter that best fits the airplane. My Vailly FW190 was a perfect 2 wheel lander but would nearly snap if you tried to 3 point her. My Y/A spit would land 2 point but it would always nose over. I ended up 3 point landing the spit for the best results. My Byron Texan would land crappy in either a 2 or 3 point. IMO it comes down to practice and knowing your airplane... and not treating them the same.

Where is GC on your p51? Mine is 115mm. I flew 25 lbs one and now I fly 21 lbs one. I actually liked landing heavier one little more. I do approach with full flaps, come down at maybe 20 degrees towards runway with 10-20 percent throttle applied. Flatten it at 4-5 ft over runway. Control descend with throttle, trying to keep it coming down slowly. Land on mains with tail already down. When mains touch down and plane is rolling I bring flaps up. That reduces chance of ballooning up when I bring tail down on ground.
I thing p51 lands very easy. Only plane that sends easier is TF p47. I think my giant 47 landed slower than my 60 size one.

Thats me bellying TF 47 after gear stuck in up position

http://youtu.be/6P_Qdc4_Ze0

My CG's are dead on. Thanks for your advice. Nobody mentioned killing the flaps when wheels touch down? It's a no no on my full scale plane so you don't get confused and retract the gear but does anybody do it as part of their landing sequence?

2 things to remember, elevator controls airspeed, throttle controls rate of decent or accent.

I'm thinking it could be your landing set up

I have no problem landing my heavy metal warbird
all I have to do is replace two props, repair the wheel doors, fix the air leak
and I am ready for another flight

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2101054

I edited my original post to correct spelling and some things. It was late when I posted. Sorry.
I do see where one can switch gear instead of flaps. My flaps are on slider, not switch. (JR11x) that makes it easier to differentiate.

Now. Two more things: are you using expo on your controls? Maybe not enough? P51 and Jug both have factory throws and 35% expo with full throws. Than 30 and 25% respectively for lower throws

Two: is your gear set with toe in, out or neutral? I try to set it neutral. Too much toe in can cause drag and nose overs.

I hate that when it "that" happens.................:cool:

Actually perfect landing plane
Zirolli 101 inch
When you have tricycle gear almost like cheating
makes me look good

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2101071

My preference is to always mix a little down elevator to flap mix. When at idle, I want the plane to descend on its own. If not, an unexpected stall can sneak in and really ruin your day. It usually works out to about 1/16th to 3/32nds of in inch of throw.

FWIW

It depends on the plane. All require a stabilized approach and judicious use of throttle. Most are best landed on the mains. The easiest landing are my CMP Zero and Kyosho Corsair. Either of these can be landed on the mains or three point. (Is it because both or models of carrier planes?). The most difficult is my CMP Bf 109. It combines narrow gear, long nose and relatively heavy weight. On the 109, I moved the gear forward to the scale location to help prevent nose overs. This makes it very difficult to land on the mains as any rate of decent on touch down will cause a bounce. Three point was difficult because it got too slow in three point attitude and will drop a wing on or just before touchdown. After a ground loop broke off the tail wheel strut I replaced it with a longer strut, use only half flaps and three points became easier.

When I am ready to land I throttle back to about 1/3 throttle, then drop the retracts and then drop to full flaps. I do all those things before getting into the landing approach. On my TF P-51 the only thing the plane does when I drop to flaps is the attitude of the plane is a little more nose down while flying level (maybe 2 or 3 degrees) and the plane slows down a little quicker when throttle is lowered. With the flaps full down on landing the plane seems to stick better on touchdown. To answer patrnflyr's question, I leave the flaps full down after touchdown and taxi back to pit area. Here is a picture of the amount of flaps my P-51C has. Note the top surface of the flaps is about the same angle as the joint between the scoop and fuselage.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2101109

Yes depending on the plane. The Corsair with full flaps can blank out the effectiveness of the tail. Ive had this happen once and it caused it to veer off into a fence even with full opposite controls. Adding power would have been unsafe and more disastrous.

Disclaimer: the biggest scale RC model I've flown is my 40-size GP Cub. :)

Just a thought....in the full-scale Decathlon, I was taught (and discovered firsthand....) that for a wheels-landing, you really need to dip a bit of down-elevator as soon as the mains touch and weight is transferred to the wheels. This is because the gear are in front of the CG.....upward force at the gear will tend to stop the nose while the tail continues to drop. NOT doing this increased the likelihood of a bounce. It seemed to be especially pronounced on grass vs asphalt (I was told it was because the gear were able to spring out more in the soft grass, then rebound of course). For near-stall landings (three-points, or at least nose-high), it's not as critical.

As I recall, I may have actually tried this landing method with my 40 Cub (several years ago, before I stripped it down for a restoration). Seems like it made landings more consistent....I shall have to experiment again when it's finished, especially now that it has scale bouncy-bouncy gear. :)

I would also be very careful about pulling power right before touchdown. Think about it: if you are nose-high at all, then your prop is contributing to lift. Pulling power will instantly kill some lift, and possibly result in a rough touchdown. Of course, if you are almost completely level in a wheels-landing, then maybe it won't be such an issue. But my experience is that most aircraft, if they are in slow-flight (as they are during landing), the nose is pointing up quite a bit. This is something that is not discussed enough even in real flight training, IMO. We are taught (rather rigidly) that wings are for lift and prop is for thrust, rather than shown a vector-based approach.

Matt

My experience in full scale was flying a PA-18 for 20hrs and T-6 for 120hrs in USAF pilot training. The Air Force taught only 3 point landings. When I got a TF P-47 I was sure I wanted to 3 point land it. After varying results I settled on wheel landings in the model P-47. A 3 point landing requires touch down at the correct air speed every time and without that feedback I found consistent 3 point landing hard to achieve.

I now have air speed telemetry and will try the 3 point landing again.

Many of the landing issues I have seen with warbirds is related to airspeed/ energy. Too much of it. Most are too scared to get their model slow enough. It is good to test stall characteristics up high, to get familiar.

================================================== ===========================
Verticle,
I am in full agreement. With heavy wing loaded models (warbirds & jets) you don't dare stall on final approach so most guys make sure they are too fast and then it is hard not to overshoot. I have flown my 1/4 scale Cub and my Shoestring with telemetry air speed and my approaches are much more consistent. I plan on getting air speed now on my jets and warbird. My airspeed is announced on the Tx speaker and the screen read out.

Which radio are you using? I just got a Jeti DS14 and it has all of these capabilities. It will be a while before I implement many of them. If the speed readings can be consistent enough, you could get close to the perfect speed every time before touch down. If you are off, you can go around.

What I am seeing, is that many of the newer ARF offerings are really light. The Top flite FW 190 for example. So you have to get it even slower.

Practice, Practice,Practice!! I fly the TF GS 51 and 47, the 47 will 3 point and wheel land easly. The 51 likes wheeling landing. I too have spent many hours watching arivals at Oshkosh, every one was a wheel landing in a 51. the only 3 point I have ever seen was Jeff Effel on grass in NY and it was textbook. Did i say Practice??

================================================== =================================================
First I purchased a Weatronic Tx module and 2ea Micro 12Ch receivers. The air speed sensors were hard to get and very expensive so I purchased a Taranis 16Ch with 3ea 8Ch receivers. I intend to test putting the Weatronic Tx module in the Taranis external slot and using Weatronic for the primary controlls and the Taranis Tx with the 8Ch receiver for additional controls and for telemetry. I have an air speed sensor, an altitude sensor, a GPS and a secondary voltage sensor. The Taranis has built in telemetry for receiver/servo voltage and RSSI.

I didn't like the soft stick centering on the Taranis so I made metal centering arms and worked out very good. I still feel the Weatronic RF link is better so that is why I want to use it for the primary controls. I think the Jeti is a comparable RF link to the Weatronic.

My Taranis air speed reads in Knots. On my Shoestring I did a stall test at altitude and it stalled at 31 knots. On landing the Shoestring I can hold it off touch down to approx. 27 knots. My conclusion is the difference in stall at altitude and the 27 knot touch down is ground affect.

If the price of air speed for the Jeti is reasonable I would get it right away.

You mean I can't pull it out once or twice a year for a warbirds meet and so ok? Haha