The A2A Simulations Community

With regard to landing and flying the A2A P-47 w/Accusim, if a pilot is used to the semi-arcade type of behavior and performance which so many (too many) other simulated warbirds exhibit, he or she will surely find the A2A P-47 w/Accusim to be challenging. If a pilot is having trouble landing the A2A P-47 w/Accusim, it’s not because there is anything substantially wrong with the airplane; it just may be that he or she may be coming from, and is used to flying unrealistically easy and simplified simulated aircraft. It’s not that the A2A P-47 is modeled to fly unrealistically hard; but that the other, less accurate aircraft that it may be compared with, are modeled to fly unrealistically easily.

This is not to say that the A2A P-47 is difficult to fly or to land. It’s just that an accurate simulation such as this is, requires that it be flown according to the same established procedures, flap, and engine power settings as pilots of the real aircraft used. That is what “Absolute Realism” is all about; and what makes the A2A P-47 w/Accusim and other A2A aircraft unique among simulator aircraft-- and so exciting to fly.

The A2A P-47 flight manual (extract below) shows the procedure and airspeeds to be used. If it is followed, success is assured (with a little practice, of course). Just as the AAF pilots were warned, do not try to fly the P-47 at, or even near its full gross weight until you have become fully familiar with it loaded lightly. These airplanes historically came back from missions with little fuel left in the tanks in many cases, and they landed fairly light. For most military training purposes, 50 - 70% in the main tank only was all that was loaded. Civilian pilots who fly warbirds such as the P-47 at airshows, etc., do not fill them up. Usually, no more than 50% fuel in the main tank, more –or-less, is loaded, depending upon the length of the show.

Landing
1. Check tanks and select the fullest interior tank for landing.
2. Reduce airspeed to 150-200 mph.
3. Check the mixture control and set to AUTO-RICH.
4. Set the engine to about 2550 RPM and 30" of boost.
5. Close cowl flaps.
6. Open canopy.
7. Check gear is down and locked.
8. Do not make turns below 150 mph IAS.
9. Begin lowering flaps about halfway around your turn to final approach.
10. After your flaps are down and you roll out of the turn onto the landing (approach) leg, your speed should be about 125-135 mph IAS.
Don't keep so much power on that you'll be making a power approach. However, keep enough power on to keep your engine clean.
11. Just before getting to the runway, break your glide, make a smooth roundout and approach the runway in a 3-point attitude.
12. Hold the plane off in the 3-point attitude just barely above the runway until you lose flying speed and the plane sets down. The P-47 has no tendency to drop a wing but settles rather quickly when you lose flying speed. So have your plane close to the runway at this point.

Note #4. This is the minimum required power on approach, and it is accurate with regard to the real airplane. Any less power, and your chances of making a successful approach and landing will be diminished. Use another 5” or more if it makes you more comfortable with the increased airspeed and/or reduced rate of descent. The power is there, you can use it as you wish. Is this accurate to the real airplane? Every source I have seen and read, and the latest word which Dudley Henriques recently posted on this site says, yes.

Also, note at #9 that the flaps should not be fully lowered until you are almost established on final approach, and fairly close to the field. I lower 25 degrees of flap on base, the rest on mid-short final, and it works for me.

Closing the cowl flaps (#5) is important as they add considerable drag when opened. Also, if the temperature permits, put the intercooler and oil cooler doors in the “neutral” position. This position, not “closed”, is where they produce the least drag.

Here are some tips I have picked up over the years which I gladly pass on to you:

1. I understand that the technique used by experienced P-47 pilots when landing, was to fly a high pattern. That is, enter the pattern at the published altitude, but do not begin to lose altitude until just before turning final, or even on final. Throttle back, and/or raise the nose a little if the airspeed rises too far on approach, and be ready to add a little throttle to help ease the sink rate at the flair. If the wind is strong or gusty, use the throttle to keep the runway where it needs to be in relation to your height. Don’t get low and slow. If you do, go around and try again.

2. A slightly steeper approach (but not dive-bombing) keeps the runway in sight longer. You only have to see the far end of the runway to know where you are in relation to it. It's alright to raise your seat if that helps. It's not cheating if done within reason.

3. Taxiways and other things to the side of the runway are excellent clues to help you orient yourself when landing.

4. A building, tower, landmark, or a slow moving cloud overhead that you may be able to see even when the nose blanks out the field ahead may help.

5. Looking out from the side of the cockpit when landing is common practice in these airplanes, as well.

6. Curved approaches were the norm for many WWII aircraft, and the P-47 is no exception.

7. S-turning on approach clears the way ahead, just like it does when you are taxiing.

8. A crabbed approach (side slip) clears the way ahead, and some very expert pilots liked to approach this way.

9. This one is tricky and takes a lot of practice and familiarity with the airplane; but it was common practice among hot fighter jocks in WWII (it’s similar to a curved, pylon-turn carrier approach): Approach the runway with full flaps, slightly high, at a slightly higher than normal approach airspeed, 90 degrees to it, aiming at a place just a hundred yards or so before the threshold. When you are fairly close in, dive and turn hard with lots of power to line up with the center of the runway, chopping power and leveling off an instant before the main wheels touch down. Whew. I’ve seen films of pilots coming back to England from missions over Europe doing this in P-47s, P-51s, and P-38s; it’s amazing.

10. Much less exciting (but safer), wheel landings were often the means to keep the field in sight until the tail came down.

Experiment with what works for you. You are the Captain of your aircraft, and of your soul. Take charge of it and master it.

In the forthcoming P-47 patch, I understand that the open canopy will add more drag than it does now, making it more realistic. This should not be a problem with the approach and landing, however. It was standard procedure in the AAF (and in the Navy and MC as well) to land with the canopy open, so that in the event of a crash, the pilot could get out of the airplane in a hurry, or be taken out if it more quickly and easily.

These are numbers I got flying the A2A P-47 w/Accusim:

Standard day, 0 wind, 0 turbulence, below 2000’, 738 lbs. (123 U.S. Gal.) of fuel on board, no ammunition, gear down, canopy open --

@30 in. Hg, 2,550 rpm
Level flight
Flaps up -- 130 mph
20 degrees flap -- 115 mph
25 degrees flap -- 110 mph

Final approach descent
40 degrees flap -- 100 mph -500 fpm
40 degrees flap -- 110 mph -750 fpm
40 degrees flap -- 120 mph -1000 fpm

@35 in. Hg, 2,550 rpm
Level Flight
Flaps up -- 145 mph
20 degrees flap -- 120 mph
25 degrees flap -- 115 mph

Final Approach descent
40 degrees flap -- 110 mph -500 fpm
40 degrees flap -- 115 mph -750 fpm
40 degrees flap -- 125 mph -1000 fpm

Fly the approach with power essentially unreduced until the flare. Flare at about 25’. Only reduce power completely when about two feet above the ground and flying level.

The extreme numbers on approach that I read in a post on this site, if true, could be the result of high density altitude, heavier weight or greater airspeed. If flown correctly, the A2A P-47w/Accusim is enjoyable and very satisfying to fly, and performs predictably at all times.

Mitchell

Very good guide!

_________________

Excellent guide... thanks a lot!!!

_________________

Perhaps this could be stickied? Nice guide!

_________________

Excellent guide Mitchell, much appreciated.

In your flap/speed numbers near the end you made no mention of AOA or pitch angle. For me this has been my primary issue with the FM. The P47 as well as many other big R2800 equipped birds were well known to be very agreeable when trimmed for landing in terms of visibility over the nose, no matter the gross landing weight. During my initial testing of the A2A P47 I reduced gross landing weight as low as possible and this had little effect on the AOA.

Primarily gross weight changes v speeds but would not change center of gravity overtly. I know of only one plane, the P51 with its rear centerline tank, was infamous for severe changes in temperment due to CG shift. There probably were more examples but none I have "read" about. I have no qualms admitting that I am an armchair warbird jockey, a few hours in GA aircraft provides no experience in this department.

I would also like to add that unorthodox methods were certainly in practice by experienced pilots but these techniques were not on the minds of engineers and test pilots when the established procedures and documentation were written. These seat of the pants methods were only possible when the pilot knew explicitly the behavior and capabilities of his machine.

The one beauty of the radial equiped birds llike the F4U, Hellcat, P47, SBD, Avenger was that they were predictable and docile in various flight regimes. So much so that very young and inexperienced pilots needed very little stick time before they were flying missions.

Your guide still stands as excellent and helpful. I have been enjoying the A2A P47 simply by adapting to its current characteristics. I come in steep and with a little more power than what is recommended by procedure. So from my perspective, I like the fact that the A2A is complex and takes some thought and preparation to fly well. I also like to think that most here on these boards appreciate the complexity of the sim and are not just making assumptions about the FM because it doesnt feel like the stock 172 or the Playstation Ace Combat series.

Thank you, MJolner for your comments.

I read your comment about there being no “mention of AOA or pitch angle”. I take it that your concern is with the pilot’s ability to see the runway ahead when on approach.

As you know, there is no AOA indicator in the P-47. It was not until fairly modern times that military jets began to have a numerical AOA readout on their HUDS, and/or a simple three symbol AOA indicator to aid the pilot in controlling the landing approach. Accordingly, the ‘47 pilot has no way of precisely knowing what the actual AOA is at any given time.

In any event, I don’t think that AOA (the angle of the mean chord to the relative wind) is the main issue with regard to your concern about vision over the nose. As you know, the performance of an airplane at any given moment is determined by many factors: density altitude, airspeed, power, and rate of altitude change. In my cadet days, a hundred years or so ago, I was taught that: Performance = power + attitude.

Pitch angle (the angle of the aircraft’s mean chord line to the horizon) seems to be what you are talking about. The aircraft’s pitch angle can be measured to an approximate degree of accuracy with the simple gyro horizon the P-47. More modern, ball-type attitude indicators and glass cockpits have exact pitch-degree readouts; but, of course, these were not yet invented in the ’47’s day. The basic gyro horizon in the ’47 can be interpreted with reference to needle widths: 1 needle width = approximately 5 degrees of pitch. I went back (I was about to say “up”, it seems so real to me to fly the A2A ’47), and flew an approach routine, but this time with one eye on the gyro horizon and the other on the real horizon.

While pilot’s performance reports of aircraft from the era of the ’47 do not traditionally include the pitch angle as part of the data; because this is sim flying, we can make our own rules. I measured the gyro horizon readout by needle widths. The pitch angle relative to the actual horizon is my best visual estimate. This is what I found:

Standard day, 0 wind, 0 turbulence, below 2000’, 738 lbs. (123 U.S. Gal.) of fuel on board, no ammunition, gear down, canopy open –

@30 in. Hg, 2,550 rpm
Level Flight -
Flaps up, 130 mph
Pitch Angle - Gyro Horizon: +1 needle, Actual Horizon: +5 degrees

25 degrees flap, 120 mph
Pitch Angle - Gyro Horizon: +2 needles, Actual Horizon: +10 degress

Final approach descent-
25 degrees flap, 125 mph,-500 fpm
Pitch Angle -Gyro Horizon:+½ needle. Actual Horizon: +2 degrees

40 degrees flap, 125 mph,-1,200 fpm
Pitch Angle -Gyro Horizon: -1/2 needle, Actual Horizon: -2 degrees

@35 in. Hg, 2,550 rpm
Level Flight-
Flaps up, 145 mph
Pitch Angle - Gyro Horizon: +1 needle, Actual Horizon: + 5 degrees

25 degrees flap, 120 mph
Pitch Angle-Gyro Horizon:+1-1/2 needles, Actual Horizon +7 degrees

Final Approach descent -
25 degrees flap, 125 mph, -250 fpm
Pitch Angle - Gyro Horizon: +1 needle, Actual Horizon: +5 degrees

40 degrees flap, 125 mph, -1000 fpm
Pitch Angle - Gyro Horizon: level, Actual Horizon: level

I agree that the ’47 is very “agreeable” regarding visibility on landing approach. However, not all R-2800 powered aircraft had good over-the-nose visibility on approach. The F4U was notoriously poor in this department. The type of engine used is not a factor regarding forward visibility, except that an inline engine is narrower, of course, and you can usually see around it a bit better than a massive radial. Still, most of the taildragger fighters of that era, whether in-line or radial engined, had poor forward vision on the landing approach. That is why so many inventive landing approach methods, some of which I mentioned, were used by pilots of all types of fighters.

I don’t know what it may be that some pilots are doing that is causing them grief. They may not be following the prescribed procedures, and using the correct power, flaps and airspeeds. To anyone out there who is having trouble landing the ’47, I’d appreciate it it if you would let me know what the problem is. Be sure to note and tell me the altitude of the field, the weather conditions (wind, temperature and pressure), your fuel and any ordinance on board, what the power settings, airspeeds, altitudes, and flap settings are that you are using on approach, and anything else that will help me to understand your situation.

I prefer using 35 in. Hg, and 2550 rpm in the pattern and approach. I fly base at 1000’ AGL turning final and dropping flaps to 25 degrees; then, descending at 125 mph, with flaps at 25 degrees, -250 fpm, I have a very good view of the runway. At mid-final, descending with flaps at 40 degrees, - 1,000 fpm and maintaining 125 mph, a good portion of the runway remains in view all the way down. I flair high and I like wheel landings, either level or slightly tail low, as I can see the runway until the tail finally comes down.

You’re absolutely right about the unorthodox landing methods which many fighter pilots adopted. Lots of things that pilots in the combat theatres did with their aircraft were not contemplated by the engineers and test plots who went by, and in many cases wrote the book on these aircraft. The exuberance of youth is often at odds with, and tests the limits (and patience) of orthodoxy. If we’re lucky, someday we can look way back and laugh at what we did when we were indestructible and immortal.

While it's true that many of the aircraft used in WWII were purposely designed so that relatively inexperienced pilots of average skill could fly them successfully, there were still many training accidents, often fatal; and there were many tragic losses due to pilot error, even after assignment.

As flying the A2A P-47 informs us, some of the fighters of that era were fairly complex to operate, and challenging to fly properly. The American aviation cadets of the WWII era, some of whom had never even been a passenger in an airplane before entering the service, had hundreds of hours of stick time in various aircraft of increasing complexity, performance, weight and size before they were permitted to fly combat aircraft. The washout rate for pilot cadets was very high (I don’t know the exact figures, if someone does, please let me know), a practice which saved many lives.

In the era of the P-47, if you were a cadet fresh out of training who was assigned to fly a single-seat fighter, your first flight in it was solo. You may have seen a training film, gotten a cockpit check on the ground, and few tips from an experienced hand; but that was all. You read the Dash -1, got in the bird, fired it up, and flew it.

The Hellcat, SBD and Avenger were, reportedly fairly docile; but the ’47 took its fair toll of cadets, as did the F4U, which was particularly unforgiving and vicious at slow speeds, even for skilled and experienced pilots. They were all predictable; it’s just that in some aircraft, what was predicted was not always pleasant.

These extremely fast, heavy and powerful (for those days) single- seat airplanes of WWII were something new, and they were the equivalent to the pilots of those days to the latest stealth, Mach 2+ jet fighters of today. We have the benefit of decades of experience with high performance aircraft, and how to train pilots to fly them that no one yet had in the ’40s. The first military, all-metal monoplanes with retractable gear and closed canopies did not come into being until the middle of the 30’s. It was only a few years later that the advent of the 2,000+ hp airplane which flew at 35,000’ and over 400 mph, began.

Your approach method seems sound; and if it’s working for you, great.

Amen to your observation about people who compare Cessna 172s and Playstation airplanes to the A2A P-47 and A2A’s other aircraft. We’ll just have to patiently help them along, and help them learn how to fly high-performance airplanes that fly realistically. Once they've experienced the joy and satisfaction of it, they’ll never go back.

Mitchell

Thanks again for the informative post Mitchell. Sorry for my mingling of AOA and pitch angle, you squared me away.

How much elevator trim do you need in the landing configuration.
I'm finding it very difficult to control descent rate and pitch on landing with the correct RMP and MP.
Or do I have to come in high and descend all the way in using a curved approach?
With other aircraft I can trim for level flight with gear and flaps down and use power to control descent.

Question from: DogTailRed2

“How much elevator trim do you need in the landing configuration.
I'm finding it very difficult to control descent rate and pitch on landing with the correct RMP (sic) and MP.
Or do I have to come in high and descend all the way in using a curved approach?
With other aircraft I can trim for level flight with gear and flaps down and use power to control descent.”

Hi DogTailRed2,

To answer your questions best, I think we have to first discuss a few basics so we are both on the same page.

First, let me say that I’m not one who is generally or usually dogmatic about things. I like to experiment and test the rules about just about everything. However, when it comes to some things, such as operating heavy and powerful machines at rapid speeds, I tend to stick to the known and proven methods and those things that, from personal experience, I have found work best, unless I discover or hear about a better way. With regard to flying the P-47 and other airplanes, I think we should stay pretty close to what has been found to be the most safe and effective ways to fly them.

As you know, except when on an instrument approach and referring to the glide-slope/localizer indicator, airspeed is controlled by the stick or yoke with reference to the airspeed indicator, and the rate of climb/descent by the throttle with reference to the altimeter and the climb/descent indicator.

The elevator trim control is used to reduce forces on the stick or yoke when flying at a particular airspeed; or in some circumstances such as steep dives, to maintain extreme negative pitch. On approach, we select the airspeed(s) that we will fly the airplane at, based upon many variable and factors, such as, gross weight, density altitude, wind speed, flap setting, power setting, etc.

In the P-47 the range of airspeeds used on approach are; around 150 mph downwind, 140-130 mph on base, and 125-120 mph on final. Flaps should start to come down on base turning final, I like to let 25 degrees of flap down at that point. Once established on final, and depending on the prevailing wind and the distance from the runway, I lower the rest of the flaps at a point where the landing is assured in the event of an engine failure. Because the P-47 and other airplanes similar to it do not glide well with power off, gear and flaps down, this point is usually fairly close to the threshold.

I fly a high pattern; that is, I do not begin to lose altitude until on final, or on base if I’m doing a curved approach. This is so I can establish a slightly steeper pitch angle on final to keep at least the far end of the runway in sight for orientation. Once the landing gear is down on downwind, I set 30”-35” Hg and 2,550 rpm, and only vary it in accordance with how the prevailing wind may be affecting the airplane on approach.

Based on the prevailing weather conditions and various factors mentioned before, I choose the airspeeds I will use at various points in the approach. In accordance with standard practice, I set the airspeed with my stick or yoke, and trim out any forces on the stick or yoke so that the airplane will fly at the chosen airspeed essentially hands-off. Like you, I use the power to control rate of descent. However, with the airspeeds and flaps as I have described them, I find that I don’t have to move the throttle very much or at all during the approach until the flair.

If you are trimming for pitch attitude (“level flight”, as you said) and/or the rate of change of altitude, and not for airspeed, you will surely have more trouble landing the P-47 or any other airplane than you need to. If you trim for airspeed, I think you will have a more satisfactory experience.

You may have been getting away with trimming for attitude or rate of change of altitude when flying airplanes other than those from A2A, which may be less than accurate with regard to their flight models; and accordingly, feel and respond less like real airplanes. It’s not uncommon for this to occur, and it does not reflect on your skill or ability to fly an airplane as much as it reflects upon those airplanes that are not properly set-up to fly like real airplanes do.

So, the answers to your questions are:

1. Use as much trim as you need to maintain the chosen airspeed.
2. You should commence the pattern at the published altitude ASL. and descend so as to maintain a good view of the runway at all times until the flair.
3. A curved approach is a good way to keep the runway in view. You can use it any time as long as it comports with safe separation from other aircraft in the landing pattern.

I hope this has been of some help. If there is anything else you would like to discuss, or if I haven’t been clear enough in answering you, please let me know.

Mitchell

Hi,

thanks for the help.
I've been practicing circuits. The answer to my problems seems to be not to lower gear or flaps too early.
If I come in about 1000 - 1500 feet in a curve approach and just before I turn finals I drop gear, then on finals drop flaps it makes landing much easier.
I find pulling back power on downwind to reduce MP to 25 allows power to drop below 200 knots for gear deployment, powering back up to 30-35MP afterwards.
At 30MP and 2500RPM I'm finding it hard to reduce speed below 200 knots in level flight. I don't tend to fly with much fuel. I'll typically have 80% or less in the main tank only for landing. So I guess I'm quite light.

Regards,

Ted.

I follow this discussion with quite some interest. there's nothing wrong with all the hints and tips but I'm missing one important conclusion:

DON'T FORGET TO FLY THE AIRPLANE

It's all fantastic to know every MP and RPM value at every point of the pattern but don't forget that these are only guiding values which alter quite a bit all the time as flying will still take place in the outside environment....

You might have a look at the pattern as proposed in the P47 manual (although this one is from a -N model it's not much of a difference):



Note one important thing: flaps are set on final only and after that maintaining a speed of 130-140 MPH. This is to still keep a lookout over the nose and aiming for a specific touchdown point. Once a stable final is achieved, throttle will be reduced to slow down. Even if it is possible to do a 3-point landing (the P47 has no ground loop tendency like others with much more narrow wheelbase like a Spit or a Me109) better aim for a 'wheely' landing as it makes things much easier. With increasied practice and skills of course 3-pointers are also easily possible.

Oskar

DogTAilRed2 (Ted) comments:

“Hi,

thanks for the help.
I've been practicing circuits. The answer to my problems seems to be not to lower gear or flaps too early.
If I come in about 1000 - 1500 feet in a curve approach and just before I turn finals I drop gear, then on finals drop flaps it makes landing much easier.
I find pulling back power on downwind to reduce MP to 25 allows power to drop below 200 knots for gear deployment, powering back up to 30-35MP afterwards.
At 30MP and 2500RPM I'm finding it hard to reduce speed below 200 knots in level flight. I don't tend to fly with much fuel. I'll typically have 80% or less in the main tank only for landing. So I guess I'm quite light.

Regards,

Ted”

Ted,

I must admit that I really like your avatar name; but, it’s good to know your real one, too.

With regard to lowering gear and flaps too early, it depends upon how much flaps are down and what your power settings are. Not that you would want to, but you could fly around all day with both the gear and at least some flaps down. Of course, you would be throttled up pretty high to maintain altitude; and you would soon overheat and stress the engine given that your airspeed would be necessarily fairly low.

On approach this is not a problem as the goal is to only hold altitude for a short while and then to descend with the power at around 50%. The landing gear should be extended downwind. Not only is this a universally prescribed and approved practice, but it makes sense.

If there is going to be a problem with the gear coming down, you will want to know about it as soon as is practicable, and have plenty of time to either remedy the situation or decide what to do. Lowering the gear on final is not good practice, as it leaves you with little time to make decisions in the event of a problem.

Of course, you must throttle back to almost idle to slow the ’47 down to a speed where you can extend the gear. This should be accomplished a few miles out, before you enter he pattern. An easy method for getting rid of excess airspeed in a hurry when you need to, is to make a steep, level 360 degree turn at low or idle throttle. You should not enter the pattern at an airspeed faster than the airspeed prescribed for extending the gear or lower. In fact, FAR 91 states that for tower controlled airports aircraft in the traffic pattern shall not fly at indicated airspeeds of more than 156 knots (180 mph) for reciprocating engine aircraft, or more than 200 knots (230 mph) for turbine powered airplanes. It is recommended that these airspeed restrictions be applied when at uncontrolled airports as well.

The extended gear will act as a brake and help you to keep the airspeed where it should be for the rest of the approach. After the gear is extended, you are correct to raise the throttle to 30’’-35” Hg. The AAF P-47 manual says that flaps should not be lowered until on final. I lower the flaps just 25 degrees while turning onto final, but that’s really the same thing. At 25 degrees of flap or less, lift is increased more than drag; and, at this setting the flaps “lift” the airplane around the turn. You don’t have to do this; it’s just a technique that I picked up a while ago, and it works for me.

Read Oskar’s (lonewulf 47) post following your latest one. From what I have read in his previous posts, he is very knowledgeable and experienced in these matters. In aviation (and many other things as well), we should always be good enough to share what useful knowledge we may have accumulated, and wise enough to take heed of what knowledge experienced people have to share with us. What Oskar says about “FLYING THE AIRPLANE” is absolutely correct and fundamental. You may recall in my first post on this subject that I said: “Experiment with what works for you. You are the Captain of your aircraft, and of your soul. Take charge of it and master it.” That is another way of saying what Oskar said – you must always fly the airplane and not let it fly you.

There is sometimes a tendency when operating complex airplanes, particularly when doing so is new to us, to lose sight of the basic and obvious goal; which is, first and foremost, to fly them. All the rest of the details, the turbo, intercooler doors, throttle, propeller, flaps, etc, are only means to that end. I assume that we all understand that; but, perhaps it bears mentioning more often; and I am grateful to Oskar for reminding us of it.

You may recall that I said in previous posts here: “On approach, we select the airspeed(s) that we will fly the airplane at, based upon many variable and factors, such as, gross weight, density altitude, wind speed, flap setting, power setting, etc.”, also, “As you know, the performance of an airplane at any given moment is determined by many factors: density altitude, airspeed, power, and rate of altitude change.” and, “Based on the prevailing weather conditions and various factors mentioned before, I choose the airspeeds I will use at various points in the approach.”

All of that was to say that there are variables in what airspeed and power setting we use and how we fly the airplane at different times; depending upon the weather, the weight of the airplane, etc., and at no time is this truer than when in a landing approach. The diagram that Oskar posted is from a P-47N manual. It shows an airspeed of 130- 140 mph on final. This higher airspeed, and the steeper approach angle that produces it, is flown so that the view over the nose will be improved. Oskar’s remarks about this are excellent, good advice and should be heeded. Once the final approach is stabilized, and you have established where you will touch down, you can then proceed to slow the airplane up a bit to 120- 125 mph for the landing.

Compared to what the ’47 can carry, 80% in the main tank is indeed fairly light; but pilots returned from missions over Europe with far less fuel than that on board.

So long for now, Ted.


Oskar,

Thank you for your comments. I’m sure that everyone here would be glad at any time to hear what you and others of your experience have to say on the subject of flying airplanes.

With regard to landing styles, as I said previously, I also like the wheel landing best for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the visibility factor. As you know, it’s also best in strong winds and in crosswinds, or when heavily loaded. The wheel landing does take up a bit more runway, so you must be sure that the field you are landing at is of sufficient length when choosing to make this kind of landing. IMHO, if the difference between a wheel landing and a three-pointer is the difference between going through the fence or not, I wouldn’t land at that field to begin with.

Mitchell

I have found that the most important thing in landing is to keep the flaps up until on final as the manual above states. This way I can get a nice easy glide path with around low to mid 20s of MP. Practicing landings is one of my favorite things to do in FSX and the more practice you can get in doing them the better!

Hi Test Pilot,

Amen to that. Doing circuits is one of the best ways to keep yourself sharp, since you fly the airplane at virtually every usable airspeed (except high cruise) and attitude. In addition, setting up strong cross winds, precip. , and low visibility gives you an extra challenge that really pays off when you are at the end of a flight and your destination is in bad weather. It's good to practice both left and right patterns for those times when you’re given instructions to make right traffic, or the active at an uncontrolled field is right traffic

Yeah, late flaps is good practice in the ’47. If that power setting is working for you, fine. Most ’47 pilots carry at least 30” most of the way in. There’s no extra points for using less power, you know; you don’t have to pay for the gasoline. LOL

Mitchell

It has come to my attention that some ’47 pilots are still having trouble in the landing phase of flying this aircraft. Specifically, some are having a problem judging when to turn onto base. Just how far out should you fly from the threshold on downwind before turning, anyway?

Before giving a quick answer, let’s go over some basics. Just as with every other aspect of flying an airplane, whether it is a J-3, P-47 or an F-15, the answer to this question depends upon many factors. Some of these factors are the condition of the airplane itself.

What is the gross weight at the time of the landing? If it is on the lighter side, you can fly the approach at lower airspeeds within the acceptable range for the type, and vice versa if you are heavy. Consult your manual and the charts in it to see how gross weight affects your aircraft’s performance, and which airspeeds are appropriate.

What is the density altitude at the time and location of your destination? If you don’t know what I mean by “density altitude”, find out, and do not pass go or collect $200 -- do it now. Pilots in the real world are aware of this very crucial, perhaps most crucial of factors relating to the performance of an airplane. Here, in the cyber world, we can get away with murder (literally); but, if you are flying an A2A airplane, you are most likely interested in having a flying experience which is as close to that of real world aviation as possible. Fortunately, you can have such an experience with the A2A stable of aircraft, the Accusim A/C in particular. Accordingly, you will want to be aware of everything that affects your craft; and density altitude is at the top of the list.

If the local density altitude is on the high side, you will need to keep the indicated airspeeds up a bit on approach. Again, consult your manual and charts in it to see how density altitude affects your aircraft’s performance.

What are the prevailing winds at the time and location of your destination? If they are strong (at or over 15 knots), the next thing to consider is the direction that the wind is coming from relative to the active runway. If the local crosswind component is higher than the published maximum crosswind component for your airplane, you must choose or request a different runway, or go to another airport with a runway closer to the prevailing wind there, if possible. Gusty conditions exacerbate even moderate winds. You will always approach at higher indicated airspeeds in gusty winds. Wind shear, while difficult to predict, is always a concern, and is more likely to occur in gusty conditions. Approach at higher approach airspeeds, and sometimes with less flaps when the wind is gusty. Never try three-point landings in strong, gusty winds.

What is the reported visibility and ceiling? Depending upon the airspace class you are in, if it is marginal VFR, that is, generally, approaching 3 miles and 1000’ AGL, you must factor this into your approach as well, and slow down.

What is the length of the runway you intend to land upon? If it is of marginal length for your A/C’s gross weight at landing, you must factor this into your approach and slow down your final approach airspeed, touching down as close to the threshold, and as slowly, as you safely can.

What is the local terrain like at your destination? Is it full of steep mountain peaks and rough country? This, too, must be factored into your approach. You may need a steeper approach to the runway if the airport is in a valley, or below a high hill.

Is there any traffic which might mean an extended final? At tower operated airports you can ask the tower for traffic advisories if you need them while in the pattern. At uncontrolled airports, you are more or less on your own. Not everyone in the pattern reports their position as they should. Your Standard Issue, A-1 “Eyeballs” are all that you have to be sure you don’t run into a friend in the pattern.

Once you have all of these things in mind, have considered them, and you have decided at what approach airspeeds you will fly, you can decide where to turn on base. I know. It sounds like a lot of things to juggle, and all in a short period of time; however, you should know some of these factors before you are anywhere near your destination, and you should know some of them even before you take off.

Obviously, heavy gross weight, high density altitude, strong gusty crosswinds, low visibility, mountainous terrain, a short runway and lots of student traffic, make for an unpleasant, and possibly dangerous set of conditions for landing.

So, now for the “answer” -- The general rule of thumb for turning base is to look back at threshold after you have passed it when on downwind. When the threshold is at a 45 degree angle to your airplane you can turn base. This will put you in a reasonably good position, and far out enough to lower flaps, make power and airspeed changes, etc. when on final, but not so far as cause you to log your final approach as a cross-country leg -- most of the time.

However, at least in the real world, where we have no control over our immediate environment, and there is no do-over button, there will be many times when some or all of the aforementioned conditions are on the wrong side of good. It is those times, when the conditions I mentioned before are less–than-good, that you must use that most uncommon commodity, common sense. That, and good judgment, are what makes not only great pilots, but great, old pilots. I once heard a great, old pilot say that the secret to his long and safe career was that he exercised his superior judgment in order to avoid having to use his extraordinary skills.

If the conditions at your destination are such that you will choose to use higher airspeeds in the pattern, give yourself a little more room, appropriate to those chosen airspeeds, so that you will have a reasonable amount of time to adjust your final approach. In these situations, turn base after a slightly longer downwind.

In marginal visibility and ceiling conditions, the opposite is the way to go. Slow down as much as you reasonably can; and turn base sooner than usual to keep the field in sight. Curved approaches are good in low-visibility situations.

I always fly with the idea in mind that I might like to be able do it again sometime. I heartily recommend this to all.

Mitchell