Dudley Henriques wrote:
Sorry to see that the question posed offends you so much. I thought it would be possible to have a respectful discussion about the relative robustness of the P-40's landing gear, and how durable or fragile it would be.
I'm not offended. I simply find your constant baiting, sarcasm, and innuendo a bit taxing. I'm not interested in engaging in a contest with you on aviation matters. In fact, this just might be part of the problem.
I suggest you read your posts to me one by one and it should become apparent that you seem to have a bit of an attitude that might use some correcting, but that's not my concern. I simply have to deal with it.
I admit I find you annoying but nothing I can't deal with.
You keep posting and I'll deal with you as I see your choice of manner dictates. If you find you're having issues with me personally, I suggest you simply refrain from posting in threads where I'm involved with other people.
No big deal here my friend; trust me!
You have already read my comprehensive response to this mean-spirited, condescending post, and now that you've read it and we mutually understand each other, I'm going to take the high ground here and remove it from the A2A forums. I'm real sorry you feel that way, but I guess its pretty much mutual, so we'll leave it at that.
To OP, rc flyer: Killratio's observation of the limits of landing a tail dragger in a 2d environment lacking depth perception, peripheral vision, or seat-of-the-pant is something I very much agree with. Ideally you want to arrest your flare about 6 inches off the ground, and then ease it down so that the tail doesn't snap down, right, but that can be difficult to do within the confines of a computer monitor. In order to not bounce you need your vertical speed around 50 fpm, and you definitely need to stick your mains. That is the ideal.When landing on the mains
, because I'm rather mediocre, my landings are typically a bit harder than that, ranging from 100 to 200 fpm (I've kept track), and that obviously will cause a baby bounce. Not exactly the world's best landing, but not something that I would think would damage the gear even over many iterations, yet its my experience that those kind of numbers are causing a pretty high failure rate. Seems pretty fragile to me when all is said and done. So I think the question here is not whether you can do 100 greaser landings at 50 fpm, and get no damage, but whether or not the plane is correctly robust when doing "firm" or even "hard" landings in the vicinity of the numbers we are talking about. I don't know how they went about certifying airplanes back in the old days, but it would be interesting if somebody had some firm data on just how weak or strong the P-40s gear really was. Anybody have any data like that???
For what little its worth, and I don't know what other people's experience it with it, but I've taken to just doing 3 point landings now. For whatever reason, unlike the Wheel landings we are talking about above, I find it much easier to get a nice, really gentle, picturesque touchdown when going 3 point. It seems like it would be the other way around, but I guess that is just related to style. As I think the discussion indicates, if you are under about 100 fpm consistently I don't think you will have gear damage problems, or at least I don't. It is what is happening above that threshold that really raises the questions for me though, and I can't say that I share some of the other posters' conviction that all is well.