If someone does find it rather difficult to land, which is understandable if you lack flightsim taildragger experience, then I think it's more mature to admit you're having trouble and accept other people's assistance gracefully, rather than ranting on about how the aircraft is terrible and must be flawed etc.I have to say that before purchasing the Spit I've usually performed landings with full forward visibility (no cockpit). With the Spit I don't think I've even once landed the thing without the VC, it is that good!I hope that other commercial add-on developers take on board the design philosophies adopted by RealAir :)James

Hi all,It's nice to see that all you guys and girls are having so much fun with the landing characteristics of the Spitfire. I see Rob has posted above and I can't add much to what he said except to say that many people have got the right technique together or in parts. A trickle of power kept on during approach is important as is having the stick back so far that it hurts on touchdown. It's also true that the visual cues needed to land a taildragger properly are missing to some extent in FS and it's also true to say that it doesn't matter how many perfect three pointers you make, the famous "Spitfire bounce" will catch you out now and again! Happy landingsTim (Currently resting in Queensland,Australia)http://members.chello.nl/t.westnutt/realair1.gif

>Another instructor showed me how to be precise and consistent with full use of power throughout the approach and I mentioned to him the possibility of engine failure and wouldn't the power-off technique be safer, ect. He look at me and said, "Dianne, what if the wings fell off when you turned base?"

To be honest, I don't strictly use "pitch for speed, power for descent" on any aircraft. I will sometimes use pitch to control descent and power to control speed, or use pitch to control speed and power to control descent, depending on what's happening in the approach.Like most pilots, pitch and power inputs are done more on a subconcious level where optimal pitch and power is maintained during the approach, and varied accordingly. With experience you learn to mix those two for the best result.In other words, I'm not a fanatic of either camp, I believe the sweet spot is achieved when mixing the two.James

JamesDont worry I am not starting up the arguement of Pitch for speed again :-) We had about a 100 plus posting on the subject in the flight school forum.Best wishesPeter

Beats me why the grief about landing the RAS Spit. OK, so it is extremely realistic and therefore not as easy as a 172. But there are many much more difficult planes to land. Try the CS F-104! DH has just posted a great tutorial on the subject on the other side. Now this is HARD to land!Cheers,N.