[Who needs a level runway anyway?]

Lol, so you don't understand how planes work and that makes it "Klingon avionics".   I'm sorry but you clearly don't want to learn, so I'm done with you.  Enjoy your unstable planes.

[Who needs a level runway anyway?]

Yes. It is a danger to the tail, and yes you do need to reduce lift and have aerodynamic grip to land.  If your wings are angled back too far as a result of touchdown of the rear wheels being too high, lift will be your enemy and you will have to force the plane's nose down after setting down the rear wheels.  Even your tail draggers land level and then set the rear wheel down only after they have slowed down enough to not create lift that would make them unstable.  Of course that is assuming you don't destroy your tail in the process. 

Watch a plane land

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrfjJ3f8KI4

Now, if the rear wheels had been higher mounted than the front, those pilots would have to pull the nose even higher just to get the rear wheels on the ground before the front wheel.  That would cause a tail strike or at best make it hard to get the nose down.

[Who needs a level runway anyway?]

4 hours ago, Rybikson said:

here, look at my oldtimer and try to repeat your oppinion about wheel position being bad this plane uses like 80m runway to takeoff and never got problems with landing - it just follows the line its angled

http://imgur.com/a/OeLpJ

That's a taildragger, of course it's angled back... it sits on it's tail and becomes level as it gains speed and lifts forward on the runway.  It's a completely different scenario from either the image you posted or the one MailletC posted, which are a tricycle configuration.  You don't want a tricycle configuration with the rear wheels 'shorter' than the front, it both takes off and lands completely different from a taildragger.

[Who needs a level runway anyway?]

6 minutes ago, Rybikson said:

1. contradictory? wrongo

http://imgur.com/a/VB1Bj
Just try and dont argue...

2.Most planes sit level? wrongo

Every small sport plane is initially raised by the nose

3. Big planes

a) got enough aero-force generated by the wing profile to takeoff

b) are also raised - just the angle is smaller

c) use flaps, slats or other oversized control surfaces (small planes usually dont have enough place and need to reduce weight much more)

d) lower their rear wheels during takeoff, we just see them usually in the passenger-comfy-leveled position

4. U dont need extra downforce on landing - gravity makes it for you - just use the front-slip (u travel in same direction just increase drag by raising the nose while your speed is not enough to make all plane turn up)

* this last bit of lift only decreases the wheel stress so its useful as well

5. Its always safer to land the rear wheels first with raised nose - u still got the front wheels and u greatly reduce speed in this raised-nose position

 

1. Yes, contradictory.   Both of those designs in that image are a danger of impacting the tail while trying to land.  Remember, you land with the nose lifted.  That tail will impact.

2. First, small sport planes do not qualify as "most planes".  Second, not every sport plane has a lifted nose.  Taildraggers do, but that's another design and landing profile entirely.  Most tricycle landing gear will sit level.

[Who needs a level runway anyway?]

11 hours ago, Rybikson said:

so u got to use some science stored in your head to put the rear wheels in such line with front wheels so any other tail part stick out of the "landing line" - and we mean the smooth 5 degree angle not 30degres - even the stock straight tail can handle this if u position the wheels far enough (preferrably on the plane/tail curve)

moreover - if u position your wheels straight and got bad designed tail you will crash this tail at the starting takeoff when ur nose goes up, so ... protecting the tail is a separate plan, and wheel positioning for nice takeoff is another

That would be contradictory to what you said about putting the nose up while it sits on the runway.  Most real world planes sit level on the runway for very good reasons, and the tail isn't the only reason either.  Landing with the nose pointed up is going to create lift when you want downforce.

[Who needs a level runway anyway?]

On 2/23/2017 at 7:42 AM, Rybikson said:

Tip: position (shift+position for nice precision without losing snap) the wheels in the way so that your planes are initially angled with nose up. Just make front wheels a bit lower and rear heels higher placed. That way upor plane starts with the nose slightly raised over horizon. If u dont screw the rest it should start on its own after 60-100 m/s speed.

That's all great until you want to land and slam the tail of your plane into the ground because the rear wheels are so low.

[Who needs a level runway anyway?]

The problems are not that they aren't level, it's that the game doesn't emulate behavior on those un-level runways. (Well the models being detached is a problem of course)  The T1 runway wouldn't be an issue if the planes didn't behave so unrealistically on them.  But they do and it is unlikely the planes will be fixed, so the runway must be changed.

[Kerbal Space Program to hit XBox One and PlayStation 4 in July!]

20 hours ago, kenbobo said:

What happened to the Wii U version?

They may have decided it isn't worth it, the NX is coming next year (supposedly) so why not wait for that?  Even Nintendo has pretty much abandoned the Wii U now.