Are you trying to land with a flat approach? If you are, don’t. Stick back on landing, tail down, tap brakes.
1 Like
Yet the other video above says wheel landing and keep the tail up. Who to believe? But I’ve tried both ways tbh.
I just retested at Dawson and it’s totally doable, just takes practice.
Full flaps, float in ~95 kts, stick back when you’re on the ground, short taps of the brakes to slow down.
It’s like that old joke, how do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.
It’ll click eventually. Don’t worry about crashing or ground looping, you can’t die (like a lot of those poor buggers did) and it’s actually great practice for understanding the limits of the plane. Get comfortable with it going crazy, then dial it back. Try different things, but best to just change one thing at a time so easy to see the difference.
Are your trims configured?
| ○ 6 degrees right rudder trim ww2 F4U training film | ||
|---|---|---|
| ○ 6 degrees right aileron trim - right wing down ww2 F4U training film | ||
| ○ Elevator tab 1 degree nose up ww2 F4U training film |
If you hot start on the runway your aileron and rudder trims will already be set to this, you can try adding 5 on the nose up trim display in external view. (= 1 degree as above)
You can leave them like this to do TO/Landing circuits, just put the gear/flaps up when you TO and do a pattern to land again, drop them out on the downwind leg.
Stick with it, you’ll get it.
1 Like
It’s the only plane I seem to struggle with. I feel like it shouldn’t be this hard. Even when I feel like I’ve got a great landing, the rollout just turns to sh*t. I will try full flaps @ 95kts and pulling back on the stick. I almost question whether there is something wrong with my sim or controller lol.
I’ve been centering trims after take off. I will try with keeping them @ TO settings for landing.
1 Like
You can also try modding the flight_model.cfg a little (take a copy first as backup).
Change to the following:
[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]
max_gross_weight=15300
reference_datum_position= 0, 0, 0
empty_weight_CG_position= 0.15, 0, -2.0
[FUEL]
LeftMain = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
RightMain = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Center1= -1.19, 0, 0, 230, 1
Center2= 0, 0, -4, 172, 1
Center3 = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
LeftAux = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
LeftTip= 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
RightAux = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
RightTip = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
External1 = 0, 0, -4, 150, 1
External2 = 0, 0, -4, 150, 1
You can also spread the external L/R tanks a little to the outside (With full external tanks at 4 feet below the datum and spread 2.5 feet to the left and right, she really plants!) if you want, I left them at 0 above (The lateral positions of the left and right tanks probably should be corrected to move them off the center line as well, but this isn’t crucial because they drain together so they are never imbalanced and on the Corsair they are clustered pretty close to the center, unlike many fighters where they are outboard of the landing gear and can have a meaningful impact on the rolling moment.)
I forgot I modded mine a little while back with this, does make it a little more controllable while using the same technique. I’d keep the aileron/rudder trims set to TO configuration for these tests, even with the mod. Don’t forget to lock the tailwheel, unless your reactions are realllllllly good!
@Krazycolin Maybe you guys should take a look at that thread too, seeing as you’re in the process of doing an update?
CG is really important (duh! 
), and this video is great too.
I’ve started applying it to all my STOL planes now, and definitely makes them more stable on approach.
2 Likes
Bit of a bounce here but this is how every landing goes for me (sorry for low quality, YT takes ages to make it HD):
2 Likes
Oh the truth will out! I will have to try this. High centre of gravity would explain a lot.
1 Like
I think your approach is too nose down (you look like you’re diving at the aiming point), and a long way out.
Try the mod above, but also try switching to a circular landing approach closer in and float it in nose up.
Harder to see, but that’s why all those long nosed monsters did the circular approach (also safer in a combat zone, to get down faster rather than be a target).
Should be a camera view off to the side if you need it, but also use external view to nail the right attitude, then try it from cockpit. It’s a sim, it’s about learning, use every tool.
PS: Mod may help, but you also need to still have the right technique. It’s still totally landable without the mod, just need more finesse.
Yeah I was a bit high on final. I was rushing cus dinner was ready lol. I will try a circular approach, but I don’t see why she won’t land straight. I did pull her nose up at the end there. I’ll also try with the CG modifications.
You don’t need a big flare in this beast, just float it in on the right attitude and plant it, but not so it bounces. Go crazy, find the limits.
fyi a lot of people died trying to learn to fly these things, don’t feel too bad you can’t master it in a couple of hours. Even top aces made mistakes sometimes too.
“The accident rate for the Corsair was deplorable. Only 189 F4Us were lost in air-to-air combat, while 349 fell to ground fire, but 692 were lost in nonoperational accidents. Operational losses (accidents during combat) claimed 230 of the bent-wing birds.”
"From 1940 through 1945, according to statistics gathered by Anthony J. Mireles, the U.S. Army Air Corps/Air Force suffered 6,351 fatal accidents, with more than 13,600 fatalities and the loss of more than 7,000 aircraft. Most of the fatal accidents (2,101) occurred in primary, basic, and advanced trainers, while 2,796 aviators died in the 490 fatal B-24 accidents, followed by 1,757 who died in 284 B-17 crashes.
Of the fighter plane accidents, 455 pilots died in 404 crashes involving P-47 Thunderbolts, while 369 and 337 lost their lives in P-39 and P-38 accidents, respectively.
The U.S. Eighth Air Force in Europe suffered more than 26,000 men killed due to enemy action, mechanical problems, and accidents during the war. But training, as we have seen, was just as hazardous, with more than 15,500 losing their lives in service to their country before they were ever able to face the enemy."
See also Corsair loses explained | Aircraft of World War II - WW2Aircraft.net Forums
4 Likes
You’ve been a wealth of information. Thank you very much!
2 Likes
With your CG changes I landed it first try!
3 Likes
How the Navy Tamed the “Killer Corsair” | Air & Space Magazine| Smithsonian Magazine
sounds familiar 
?
I realize you have probably solved a lot of issues with the CG corrections, but just thought I would comment. What you did in this video was somewhere between a wheel landing and a stall landing without power, which is somewhat of a no-no for tailwheel aircraft or at least “controversial.” The problem mainly is that if you land on two wheels with not enough airspeed for control authority, you’ll be subject to effects of crosswind, p-factor, etc. and little ability to counteract them. On three points, you’re in a much better situation.
If you’re going to do a stall landing with the pronounced flare, just commit to it. Pull the stick back and let it happen, getting to three points as quickly as possible. For the wheel landing, keep power on and fly it onto the runway - tail high vs. tail low doesn’t matter all that much with the Corsair as long as you are stabilized and not stalling at that AOA. I do not pull the tail onto the ground after a wheel landing until it has already fallen about halfway down on its own, but I understand people have different opinions about that.
3 Likes
Yay!!!
I was gonna say trying to control rudder with twist-stick I’ve found is nearly impossible. It’s way too easy to introduce aileron and elevator variation at the same time when you’re trying only to control the rudder and hold the others steady.
Another support note for how hard the Corsair was to operate, it was known as the “Ensign Eliminator” for all the pilots she killed in training. Glad to see you’re finally getting the hang of it (and I can’t wait to try those @Sonicviz mods myself, though I hadn’t previously had huge issues landing it, though I haven’t flown the plane since probably SU9, I do like to correct details like that).
1 Like
Apparently the more recent SU’s have made it a more difficult beast to land. The CG differences have been night and day. Every landing since I made the change has been fine.
2 Likes
FYI: we’ve touched on the flight profile in the upcoming update.
10 Likes
According to the posts on that link, the CG is 9.94" below the thrust line. The thrust line is .3’ above the reference datum position on this addon, so CG would be about .53’ below the reference datum position. 2’ may make the plane much more stable on the ground, but it is way too low. Even the -.53 figure makes a positive difference though.
Wells has some interesting information that relates to the AOA topic discussed above:
“The lift slope of the wing is much too high, at ~7.5, which is much higher than the max theoretical of 6.28 for 2D flow. A wing of aspect ratio 5.35 would be around 4.5. Basically, there’s too much lift per degree AoA. The Clmax needs to occur at a higher AoA.”
1 Like