# Most Pilot friendly fighter?



## Hermie (Mar 29, 2007)

I am new to the site and this may have been discussed before, but what was the most pilot friendly fighter of WW2. Given that the vast majority of WW2 fighter pilots were felatively low time pilots it would seem that some aircraft were better suited for them. I have read that the P-47 was a solid gun platform, had good ground handling characteristics and was very rugged. Traits that would have been valuable for low time pilots. Any other thoughts?


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 29, 2007)

Restricting the choice to high performance types, the scenario is not very bright in terms of user friendliness for rookies...

P47 was not that easy for a rookie pilot, easy for newbies to pick up too much speed and dive in the ground etc.
Twin engine P38 was complex to manage, P51 was nasty at stall and unbalanced when fully loaded with gas

Also the German types (Bf 109 and Fw190) were not so forgiving, especially the 190. Apparently the 109F was a delight to fly, but it was still tricky in takeoff and landings.

I think that the most user friendly/forgiving high performance fighter was the Spit, at least until the MK IX/XVI types. According to several books MK XIV was heavy and MK 21 was quite tricky.

This, in general, is pretty normal: the more you push on performances, the more demanding is the machine.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 29, 2007)

Have heard the same thing about the Spit. Early ones were easy to fly, a real joy. Heard the same about the Hurricane, Zero and F6F. But the Hellcat was the last of the easy flyers. As Parmigiano noted, the bigger the engine, the bigger the bitch. By the end of WW2, they were tucking 2-3000Hp in those things. 

Yeah, I'd go with something from the late 30s to early 40s. Before that, the designers really didn't have it all together and after that, the engines got too big.


----------



## twoeagles (Mar 29, 2007)

Probably the easiset and safest fighter to fly was the F6F Hellcat. It had
no bad habits to speak of and was tough and forgiving of green pilot error...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2007)

Actually folks you're all wrong - For a low time pilot gaining high performance experience, the easiest aircraft to fly out of US fighters would have been the P-39, or for that matter any single engine aircraft with a nose landing gear. An aircraft with a nose landing gear which is so much more simpler to take off and land than ANY tail dragger, especially when you're talking about aircraft with over 1000 hp. Although the P-39 was temperamental during aerobatic maneuvers, for basic flying it doesn't get much simpler. 

Most low time pilots are going to have mishaps during take offs and landings, throw in a crosswind, tail wheel aircraft and green pilot and it's an accident waiting to happen.

BTW for what its worth, Chuck Yeager loved the P-39.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 29, 2007)

And the F4U Corsair??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> And the F4U Corsair??


Tail dragger - once called the "Ensign Eliminator." Years ago I saw a guy torque roll one out of Chino airport during take off. He survived but banged up the aircraft pretty bad.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 29, 2007)

I never read the Russians saying that the P-39 was easier to fly than their own fighters - which doesn't mean it wasn't - so I might just throw in the Yakovlev fighters as easiest to fly...

And what about the Zero? I can imagine that being fun to fly for a rookie.
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2007)

It doesn't matter - there is no argument - a Tri-cycle landing gear aircraft is easier to fly (take off and land) than a tail wheel. Once in the air you're going to have performance and control situations where one aircraft is more "flyable" than another, but you still have a take off and land and back to a tri-cycle landing gear aircraft, hence the P-39.


----------



## twoeagles (Mar 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually folks you're all wrong - For a low time pilot gaining high performance experience, the easiest aircraft to fly out of US fighters would have been the P-39, or for that matter any single engine aircraft with a nose landing gear.




Point well taken, FBJ. It is my own problem that I have never taken the P-39
seriously as a fighter, although I have always admired its lines...I wanted to
say that all real fighters are carrier qualified, but didn't want to open up that
Pandora's Box!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> Point well taken, FBJ. It is my own problem that I have never taken the P-39
> seriously as a fighter, although I have always admired its lines...I wanted to
> say that all real fighters are carrier qualified, but didn't want to open up that
> Pandora's Box!!!


 Point well taken, but remeber the motto of the carrier pilot - "It's better to die than look bad."


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 29, 2007)

... well, I limited my choice to 'high performance' things, otherwise we should add the Gladiator and the CR42...

Good point for the tricycle, but let's remember that all pilots of that times were trained on taildragger trainers before climbing the cockpit of a fighter, so they should have been able to master a taidragger landing.
The taxiing remains incomparably easier on a tricycle anyway.

So, let's throw in the Meteor, the P80 and the 262 maybe..  just kidding, but once learned how to start the engines there was no torque problems


----------



## timshatz (Mar 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually folks you're all wrong - For a low time pilot gaining high performance experience, the easiest aircraft to fly out of US fighters would have been the P-39.



Flyboy J, I'll give you the point of a tri-cycle being an easier landing aircraft. Takeoff too. As well as taxi. Too many points to even get into the details. 

But most of the posts were focused on after you get up or before you get down. Yeager like the '39 but other pilots called it the "Iron Dog". Nasty habit of flat spinning because of the engine and the center of gravity being way back. Also ran out of breath at 15K. I know it was a lack of a supercharger, but there it is. Pretty airplane? Yeah, especially the prototype. 

The P39 might've been the easiest to land, but it wasn't that great of a fighter when compared with the other aircraft named. And easiest to fly has to translate into survivable when up there. 

If you're flying a fighter, in combat and you are a young pilot, which one is going to give you the best chance of coming home again so you get the chance to screw up the landing?

My money is still on the early Spitfires and the F6F.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Good point for the tricycle, but let's remember that all pilots of that times were trained on taildragger trainers before climbing the cockpit of a fighter, so they should have been able to master a taidragger landing.
> The taxiing remains incomparably easier on a tricycle anyway.



Remember - Should of!   

Also remember that many of the tail wheel trainers were relatively benign and some even underpowered. Even going from a T-6 (600 hp) to any WW2 fighter could be a big jump, especially to the marginal pilot.

Agree about the Gladiator and CR 42. I think in the air you had two good well balanced machines based on their construction, power plant output and power to weight ratio. Good aircraft for a rookie fighter pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2007)

timshatz said:


> The P39 might've been the easiest to land, but it wasn't that great of a fighter when compared with the other aircraft named. And easiest to fly has to translate into survivable when up there.


Agree....


----------



## Hermie (Mar 29, 2007)

Well as I said I am new to your forum and I guess I didn't quite make myself clear. The essence of what I was trying to get at is which plane would be the best for a typical, if there is such a thing, WW2 pilot to fly in a combat arena and not only survive but contribute to the mission. Taking off and landing while obviously necessary is not an indicator of how well you could fight the palne. As an example early model P-38's had such poor cockpit heaters that pilot performance, at least in the ETO, suffered.


----------



## renrich (Mar 29, 2007)

The Fw 190 was reputed be very pilot friendly. One control for prop pitch, throttle and mixture. Wide track main gear. Landing stall supposed to be gentle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2007)

renrich said:


> The Fw 190 was reputed be very pilot friendly. One control for prop pitch, throttle and mixture. Wide track main gear. Landing stall supposed to be gentle.


The "one does all" power lever was one of the most innovative recip devices developed during WW2. I'm surprised it wasn't further developed and used in more post war aircraft. I believe Beech or Mooney incorporated it into one of their high-end singles.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The "one does all" power lever was one of the most innovative recip devices developed during WW2. I'm surprised it wasn't further developed and used in more post war aircraft. I believe Beech or Mooney incorporated it into one of their high-end singles.



I don't mind multiple levers. I guess maybe I'm used to them. Only takes a jiff to adjust your props, and the majority of the time you're just utilizing the power lever anyway.


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2007)

I believe the question was about "high-performance fighters."

The P-39 doesn't qualify.

I'll stick with the Hellcat. For a taildragger, it is simplicity itself.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2007)

GregP said:


> I believe the question was about "high-performance fighters."
> 
> The P-39 doesn't qualify.



Why not if we're talking low altitude..


GregP said:


> I'll stick with the Hellcat. For a taildragger, it is simplicity itself.


It will still do all the nasty things a taildragger would do in a crosswind or if a low time pilot gets slow on the rudders...


----------



## BAGTIC (Mar 30, 2007)

The P-39 [P-400] still achieved a 2:1 kill ratio in US hands even against the Zero. In Russian US it was much more successful against both German bombers and fighters especially the Me109.

At low altitudes it was the fastest fighter of its day and outclimbed early P-51's. It was short on range and lighter armed than later fighters but its armament was comparable to other fighters at the time of its introduction.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

Was there any operational US fighter which carried a heavier armament than the P-39 with its 37mm cannon?


Kris


----------



## timshatz (Mar 30, 2007)

I think the Russians put a 45mm cannon into a limited production run of the Yak-9. Strictly for test. Did not become standard issue. 

Beyond that, dunno.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

The only *US* fighter with a heavier armament has to be that pre-war Bell FM-1 Airacuda with two 37mm guns. But that didn't enter production.

Btw, was the P-47 easy to fly?? It's a monster but I can imagine a rookie feeling quite safe in one.

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2007)

From what I understand once a rookie pilot got used to a P-47 they really liked it.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 30, 2007)

Wasn't the Mustang a rookie pilot killer? 

Lets start talking about the WORST fighter planes for rookies.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Lets start talking about the WORST fighter planes for rookies.



the Corsair and Helldiver


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

I recall someone mentioning the Fw 190 but I have my doubts about that. It had a higher landing speed and worse stall characteristics than the Bf 109. The Bf 109 did have a narrow undercarriage and the bizarre problem of ground looping. 

I was reading a thread at LEMB about non-combat losses of the Bf 109 and Fw 190, and there was no clear difference in numbers. So I think the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were either just as easy or just as difficult to handle.
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

The Bf 109 was a terror to land though for a rookie pilot. The landing gear was too narrow and atleast on earlier varients was not very sturdy. The aircraft was very hard to take off and land, atleast for a rookie pilot.


----------



## renrich (Mar 30, 2007)

Flyboy, the one lever does all did not die in Germany with the FW. I recall a number of years ago Porsche was trying to sell a replacement engine for a/c that was a version, I think, of the engine in the 911. It had one control for prop, throttle and mixture. That arrangement would have never worked for Lindberg. He could fine adjust an engine in flight where he reputedly would use substantially less fuel than the army and navy pilots he helped in the Pacific.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2007)

The Navy comparison of the Fw-190 to the F4U-1 and F6F stated that the Fw-190 was easy to fly and their only complaint about the single throttle lever was that it made it difficult to fly formation.


----------



## GregP (Mar 30, 2007)

Mr. Lindberg really DID use less fuel. What he did was to run the engine at lower RPM and higher manifold pressure. It was supposed to be "bad" for the engine, but his engines never showed the strain at all ... another myth down the drain.

Oh yeah, about the easiest to fly fighter for rookies, I'll stay with the Hellcat. Yes, the P-39 was high performance at low altitudes and yes, it was used in the USA for training, but ANYBODY could fly a Hellcat if they could fly a T-6 or a Stearman / N3N, and EVERYONE who trained to fly fighters in the USA for WWII trained on one of these types, so there were no real "taildragger rookies" that got out of US flight schools ... they all could fly conventional gear planes.

The P-39 WAS heavily armed, but it was mostly heavy weight, not heavy fire power. The 37 mm cannon installed in it had poor ballistic characterisctics, was VERY prone to jamming, and was simply thrown away by the Russians, who replaced it with a suitable Russian cannon, usually either the NS-23 or NS-37 ... either one of which was worth 10 of the cannons that came with the P-39's.

Personally, I LIKE the P-39 and wish it had received a turbocharger but, in the end, it was a mediocre plane unles used at low altitude. At anything below 10 or 12,000 feet, the P-39 was a dangerous opponent, but its handling characteristics were never as good at low speeds as those of the Hellcat.

So ... I'll stick with the Hellcat.

As for the worst-handling plane for a rookie, I'll go with the Messerschmitt Me-210. Famed the world over for its bad traits. The only worse planes I can think of would be the Natter (not many made and almost all were fatal if flown).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2007)

GregP said:


> Mr. Lindbergh really DID use less fuel. What he did was to run the engine at lower RPM and higher manifold pressure. It was supposed to be "bad" for the engine, but his engines never showed the strain at all ... another myth down the drain.


 Lindbergh did this but he did not go with extremely high MP pressures - he just flew above the MP/ RPM setting recommended by the factory and assured he was always leaning for altitude. Continual high manifold pressures at low RPM will destroy an engine, if could be a Merlin or an O-360 - that is a fact.



GregP said:


> Oh yeah, about the easiest to fly fighter for rookies, I'll stay with the Hellcat. Yes, the P-39 was high performance at low altitudes and yes, it was used in the USA for training, but ANYBODY could fly a Hellcat if they could fly a T-6 or a Stearman / N3N, and EVERYONE who trained to fly fighters in the USA for WWII trained on one of these types, so there were no real "taildragger rookies" that got out of US flight schools ... they all could fly conventional gear planes.


Not really...

Most of those pilots who graduated out of T-6s and Stearmans barely had 100 hours. As stated going from a 300 hp Stearman or even a 600 hp T-6 into a 12 or 1,300hp aircraft was a whole other animal. Although many competent pilots were turned out by all sides you still had high accident rates, especially for the USAAF in 1943. In the 3rd quarter of that year I remember reading that the flight training syllabus was expanded and the following year saw less accidents.

My point in all this being that an aircraft with a nose wheel will always be easier to fly than a tail dragger. If the US had a capable tri-gear aircraft available, training and post combat accidents would of been a lot less.


GregP said:


> As for the worst-handling plane for a rookie, I'll go with the Messerschmitt Me-210. Famed the world over for its bad traits. The only worse planes I can think of would be the Natter (not many made and almost all were fatal if flown).


Agree The Me-110 or 210. A twin engine tail dragger - it doesn't get any worse.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 30, 2007)

> Agree The Me-110 or 210. A twin engine tail dragger - it doesn't get any worse.




At least the P-38 had tricycle gear. 

Was it easier to land or take off in the tricycle P-38 with two engines instead of a tail dragger fighter, say the P-40, P-47, or P-51?


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> At least the P-38 had tricycle gear.
> 
> Was it easier to land or take off in the tricycle P-38 with two engines instead of a tail dragger fighter, say the P-40, P-47, or P-51?



takeoffs in twins are easier than single engine A/C. Left turning tendencies are not nearly as pronounced as in single engine birds.

Single engine birds entail being a trim jockey, which is pretty annoying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> At least the P-38 had tricycle gear.
> 
> Was it easier to land or take off in the tricycle P-38 with two engines instead of a tail dragger fighter, say the P-40, P-47, or P-51?


YES! Especially in a crosswind. Where the danger lies in a twin engine aircraft is having an engine fail on takeoff. The P-38 had propellers rotating in the same direction, that meant it had no critical engine. When the engine failed you had to immediately shut it completely down, feather it and trim out the aircraft and reduce - that's right - reduce power on the good engine. If any of the engine out emergency procedures were done wrong or sluggish the aircraft would roll on its back and crash. Even today, the biggest killer in General Aviation is low time or "rusty" pilots flying twins and having an engine out on take off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2007)

mkloby said:


> takeoffs in twins are easier than single engine A/C. Left turning tendencies are not nearly as pronounced as in single engine birds.
> 
> Single engine birds entail being a trim jockey, which is pretty annoying.


YEP!!! And picture the left turning tendencies with a 2000 hp engine!


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Bf 109 was a terror to land though for a rookie pilot. The landing gear was too narrow and atleast on earlier varients was not very sturdy. The aircraft was very hard to take off and land, atleast for a rookie pilot.


Adler, I have to disagree. I have read this many times before but the Bf 109 was really not very hard to take off and land. 
Apparently this story comes from the high number of non-combat accidents at the end of WW2 when the average German pilot was hardly able to perform the basic take off and landing. About 10% crashed on either occasions... try fighting a war that way.

There's a Finnish website which I can look up for you if you want which is completely dedicated to breaking the myths on the Bf 109 (that its wings fell of in a steep dive, that the Bf 109s controls locked up high speed, that the stick required too much arm strength, ...) and also makes clear that the aircraft was easy to land and even easier to take off with. The only thing they all stress is that you have to unlock the tail wheel, something some recruits tend to forget. Although it mainly quotes Finnish pilots, it also refers to German pilots. 
There are also other stories of other German pilots available on the net and they always tell the same story. Of course these pilots were experienced but in fact, they had to fly the Bf 109 when they were rookies. As you know, the weight of the Bf 109 hardly increased, especially between 1942 and 1945 it hardly differed.
Finally, there's a document (which I can also quote for you if you want me to) written by an official Luftwaffe committee in which operational fighter pilots complain about the new recruits getting false information about the Bf 109 during their training. Apparently the recruits were being scared by the instructors (I think, to keep them sharp) about the difficult handling of the Bf 109. The operational fighter pilots make it clear that this should stop as there is no reason for it.

A final indication would be to compare the Bf 109 with other planes with a narrow undercarriage like the Spitfire or Martlet. Or with other planes with a similar wing loading. 

PS. I did write about this a couple of months ago in another discussion. If someone recalls which, please tell me. It would save me some time in looking up and copying the information.
Kris


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 30, 2007)

Civettone,
I would like to read that site, it sounds very interesting. Could I have the address please?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

> Adler, I have to disagree. I have read this many times before but the Bf 109 was really not very hard to take off and land.


Sorry Civettone, but I have to disagree with ur disagreement... There are too many first hand instances where experienced pilots had problems with the 109's ground handling and takeoff/landing properties... Documented proof... Since Im re-reading Willi's book again, its fresh in my mind, but there WAS a problem with the 109, and compared to the 190's characteristics, there was indeed difficulties with new pilots, AND experienced ones....

It probably has been exaggerated through the decades as u are elluding to, but it was a problem and not myth...


----------



## Hop (Mar 31, 2007)

> A final indication would be to compare the Bf 109 with other planes with a narrow undercarriage like the Spitfire or Martlet.



The myth isn't that the 109 was difficult to land, it's that it was caused by the narrow track undercarriage. As you point out, the F4F had a very narrow track, and no problems with landing. The Spitfire also had a narrow track, and doesn't have the reputation the 109 has.

The problem for the 109 is that the wheels do not point straight ahead when the undercarriage is down. What that means is, when you land, if one wheel touches down before the other, the plane will tend to turn, if the wheel grips properly.

This is less pronounced on wet grass, and most dangerous on dry tarmac or concrete.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Even today, the biggest killer in General Aviation is low time or "rusty" pilots flying twins and having an engine out on take off.



That is an extremely good chunk of information to know. Thanks for posting it.

Sticking to Singles.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 31, 2007)

Hop said:


> This is less pronounced on wet grass, and most dangerous on dry tarmac or concrete.



There is a section in the book "The Blonde Knight of Germany" (at least I think it is that book) where Hartmann's group landed on concrete runways after operating from grass strips for a long period. The first 2-3 got down ok but everybody else after that had problems that either destroyed or damaged the aircraft. 

I've heard estimates of 5%. If you figure there were 20K Me109s made, that comes out to 1,000 aircraft over the years. That's the kind of thing somebody should've fixed.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 31, 2007)

5% is ok for non-combat losses. There are sites that say 50% of the Bf 109s were lost due to TOL accidents.

Luckily I didn't take me that long to find the Finnish site I was referring to. Here it is: virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

It's too much to copy paste so I'll just take a couple of examples:
_I noticed that people always kept warning about the swing at takeoff. I never let it do so, maybe I resisted it automatically. Visibility forwards was minimal during landing approach.
- Kauko Risku, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
The best things in the plane were its speed compared to the contemporary planes, and its weapons. The worst was perhaps the tendency to turn during take-offs, which was because the plane's horizontal and vertical stabilizers were of small size. One a young ensign made a takeoff: he was supposed to take off from Luonetjärvi's runway 31, but when he got up he had swerwed 90 degrees left from his original direction.
The best way to takeoff was to increase throttle slowly and push the stick at the same time, so the tail had enough airstream.
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. 

*Landing the 109*
Me 109 G:
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-2:
"Landing was normal."
-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"Good in the Me? Good flying characterics, powerful engine and good take-off and landing characterics."
- Onni Kuuluvainen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Landing: landing glide using engine power and the following light wheel touchdown was easy and non-problematic. I didn't have any trouble in landings even when a tire exploded in my first Messerschmitt flight."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Takeoff and landing are known as troublesome, but in my opinion there is much more rumours around than what actually happened. There sure was some tendency to swing and it surely swerved if you didn't take into account. But I got the correct training for Messerchmitt and it helped me during my whole career. It was: "lock tailwheel, open up the throttle smoothly. When the speed increases correct any tendency to swing with your feet. Use the stick normally. Lift the tailwheel and pull plane into the sky.
Training to Me? It depended on the teacher. I got good training. First you had to know all the knobs and meters in the cockpit. Then you got the advice for takeoff and landing. Landing was easy in my opinion. In cold weather it was useful to have some RPMs during the finals and kill throttle just before flaring."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. _

Especially look for the comments of Rall and of Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company who flew the Spanish Bf 109 up to 1999.
Also here:Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports Flight Journal - Find Articles

Kris


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2007)

Civettone said:


> 5% is ok for non-combat losses. There are sites that say 50% of the Bf 109s were lost due to TOL accidents.



and just why do you feel that is that "ok?"


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

And for as many guys that didnt have a problem landing/taxiing/takeoff, u'll find an even amount that claimed problems and ground loops because of the canted narrow tracked gear...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2007)

When I saw "White 14" fly at Mojave, the museum crew was always waiting with baited breath when it landed, one time the firetrucks were even on standby. They only flew her on calm days siting the squirreliness of the landing gear.


----------



## renrich (Mar 31, 2007)

Flyboy, I believe that the P38 had engines that rotated in opposite direction therefore you did not have the torque factor to deal with on takeoff or climb.


----------



## renrich (Mar 31, 2007)

Civettone, Regarding rookie pilots, I just finished a recent book about the Battle of Leyte Gulf which relied heavily on Japanese interviews. One participant in the battle related an experience when he was observing new IJN pilots trying to get aboard a carrier. He said it was pitiful as they took wave off after wave off and many never were able to land successfully. As for the Wildcat, a carrier landing because of the tail hook, may have been easier that a landing on a field. It was said that there were two kind of Wildcat pilots, those that had ground looped it and those that were going to ground loop it.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Flyboy, I believe that the P38 had engines that rotated in opposite direction therefore you did not have the torque factor to deal with on takeoff or climb.



That is true, but he was right that the P-38 had no critical engine, which is because it had counter-rotating props. I have found that multiengines are not nearly as bad as singles however, even if they have props spinning the same direction, when it comes to left turning tendencies - which would be Prop factor, gyroscopic precession, torque effect, and slipstream.


----------



## shatto (Mar 31, 2007)

P-39? Fighter? What for?
Bet there are a bunch of old men, with rows of medals on their jacket who loved flying the P-39 and killing German Tanks.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 31, 2007)

In some footage taken during, I think, the Marianas Turkey shoot, lots of navy pilots are ground looping their Wildcats, and maybe Hellcats, during carrier deck landing. Smashed planes up again'st deck and everywhere. 


On youtube somebody had the clip up but now I can't find it. 

I found another clip of carrier deck landings from the Turkey Shoot.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO56QsvxOZs_

In the 1970's film "Midway," they took a lot of WWII footage and used it in the film for theatrical effect. Cut expenses on the film budget a lot I bet, but it looks pretty good.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 31, 2007)

Willy Ellenrieder, a Messerschmitt test pilot at Echterdingen, had some interesting comments on the 109s handling on the ground and coming in to land:

"We were accustomed to the Bf 109's ill manners; bad visibility before take off because the nose pointed skywards, the frightening take -off with the common tendency to swing, the unwieldy handling during final approach and the bumpy landings"


----------



## renrich (Mar 31, 2007)

That film "Midway" still makes me see red. As important as that battle was to have all that melodramatic BS between the main character(Charlton Heston) and his son and all the other extraneous stuff but the crowning mistake was that they portrayed the carrier dive bombers(with models) as SB2Us. Well there were a few SB2Us flown by the poor Marines off Midway but if they are going to use models why not make models of the great airplane that did all the damage the SBD. Besides the SB2U could not deliver a true dive bomber attack as it had no dive brakes. I absolutely will not watch that stupid film when it comes around on TV. A good rendition of Midway was done in the film, "Task Force" from around 1949.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Flyboy, I believe that the P38 had engines that rotated in opposite direction therefore you did not have the torque factor to deal with on takeoff or climb.



Correct, my mistake...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> It was said that there were two kind of Wildcat pilots, those that had ground looped it and those that were going to ground loop it.


I think that could be applied to any taildragger....


----------



## Glider (Mar 31, 2007)

timshatz said:


> That is an extremely good chunk of information to know. Thanks for posting it.
> 
> Sticking to Singles.



Stick to Gliders then theres nothing to let you down, or it must be said, to let you go around again should you mess up the approach.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2007)

Glider said:


> Stick to Gliders then theres nothing to let you down, or it must be said, to let you go around again should you mess up the approach.



Get it right the first time!


----------



## Civettone (Mar 31, 2007)

In the years I've 'studied' the Bf 109, I have gotten a pretty good view on the aircraft, if I may say so. I'm not the expert like Kurfürst is but there are certain things which I observe without any bias.
Most important is that I usually read on the Bf 109 TOL problems when it's a site or article about the Bf 109. But when I read pilot accounts I hardly ever hear this. I can remember maybe two pilots claiming that they had problems with the landing gear of the Bf 109. All the other stories are writers telling the story. That's just my observation. Feel free to point out axis pilots complaining about the landing gear.
Now ... this still doesn't say that the pilots were right and the writers wrong. But here's another observation: when I was looking up on the Bf 109 TOL problems on the internet - I had to look for that Finnish website, remember? - I noticed how most websites mentioned the TOL problems of the Bf 109. And in 99% of the cases this was brought down to the narrow landing gear. Most of the publications I have in my possession tell the same story. 
But as a member correctly pointed out, the problem was not so much the narrow landing gear but the non-vertical position of the 'legs'. That makes me conclude that the pilots know better than the writers. 

And as I don't recall many pilots complaining that much about the Bf 109 landing gear, AND because there is no statistical evidence to back these accidents up, I tend to believe that the TOL problem was not as serious as it is usually told. 

Another document I mentioned is the "Abschrift des Berichts über die Dienstreise Major Grotes zu J.G. 101, 3./J.G. 105, I. u. 7./J.G. 108
für den Führungsstab Ia/Ausb., Zweck: Feststellung der tieferen Ursachen der hohen Flugzeugunfälle ohne Feindeinwirkung, 14.9.1944, in: BA-MA RL 2II/181"
Basically an investigation into the high non-combat losses of the fighter squadrons in 1944. One of the observations of Major Grotes was that the Flying Schools were deliberatey causing fear amongst the recruits concerning the Bf 109 flying characteristics. Apparently the JG pilots didn't see any reason for this fear. 

Btw, in June 1944 48.5% of all losses were not a result of combat. According to Galland 2/3 of these non-combat losses were the result of human failure. That also puts the results of Big Week and other air campaigns into perspective. Training was the biggest weakness of the Luftwaffe in 1943-1945, even more so than the fuel shortage. 
Kris


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 31, 2007)

The next time I'm at the hanger I'll measure the difference of the track of the Spit and 109 to me it looks about the same


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 31, 2007)

Ok here is the footage that was used in "Midway." 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_eDC8R4H9c_

On watching it again I realize that there are no Wildcats crashing on deck, only Hellcats. Another mistake "Midway" made. I didn't realize when I watched it that there were no SBD's used. That's really too bad since you say they were models anyway. 

I noticed there were no Fairy Firefly's and no Brewster Buffalo's and that F4U Corsairs made some cameo appearances. The Hellcats at least from a distance can fool one into thinking they are wildcats. 

Well, a lot of older films do that. You can't get all the original wardbirds you need or modern replicas, and WWII footage can't provide all the shots a movie needs. Nowdays with computers it's easier to make accurate planes but it's still expensive.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 1, 2007)

In Willi Reschkes book, page 153, he talks about the conversion to the 190 from the 109...

"Conversion to the 190 in fact proceeded quickly... The aircraft did not have the 190's tendency to swing on take off and landing..."


----------



## timshatz (Apr 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Get it right the first time!



Yeah, save gas on go rounds! 

I always wondered about landings in gliders. How do they set it up so they have such a wide landing evelope and missed approaches become less of a factor? Do the spoilers help that much?

A little off topic so I'll get back to the fighter that was most difficult to fly for newbies. Different war and not an American aircraft but the Sopwith Camel had a reputation for killing almost as many pilots on it's own side as the other. All the weight was in the first 7 or so feet of the plane (engine, machine guns, pilot fuel), coupled with a 130hp turning radial, it was murder on a new pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, save gas on go rounds!
> 
> I always wondered about landings in gliders. How do they set it up so they have such a wide landing evelope and missed approaches become less of a factor? Do the spoilers help that much?


 I've got about 12 hours in gliders and I'm sure Glider could speak to this better than I, but there is no missed approach - when you're committed to land, you land. If you fly the pattern by determined numbers (Airspeed at a certain altitude, at a certain point in the pattern) you shouldn't have any problems. The speed brakes really bring the aircraft down rapidly so you factor in the best time to use them, again based on altitude, airspeed and the size of the pattern when landing.


timshatz said:


> A little off topic so I'll get back to the fighter that was most difficult to fly for newbies. Different war and not an American aircraft but the Sopwith Camel had a reputation for killing almost as many pilots on it's own side as the other. All the weight was in the first 7 or so feet of the plane (engine, machine guns, pilot fuel), coupled with a 130hp turning radial, it was murder on a new pilot.


Not only newbies but some top aces were killed stall/ spinning the Camel - not an easy aircraft to fly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Adler, I have to disagree. I have read this many times before but the Bf 109 was really not very hard to take off and land.
> Apparently this story comes from the high number of non-combat accidents at the end of WW2 when the average German pilot was hardly able to perform the basic take off and landing. About 10% crashed on either occasions... try fighting a war that way.



Have you tried to land a Bf-109? Neither have I but I can tell you that a tail dragger with a main landing gear of a narrow track like that of the Bf-109 would make any aircraft difficult to land and take off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 1, 2007)

Hop said:


> The myth isn't that the 109 was difficult to land, it's that it was caused by the narrow track undercarriage. As you point out, the F4F had a very narrow track, and no problems with landing. The Spitfire also had a narrow track, and doesn't have the reputation the 109 has.
> 
> The problem for the 109 is that the wheels do not point straight ahead when the undercarriage is down. What that means is, when you land, if one wheel touches down before the other, the plane will tend to turn, if the wheel grips properly.
> 
> This is less pronounced on wet grass, and most dangerous on dry tarmac or concrete.



Good info there, thanks I was not really aware of that. I know that a narrow track is not the greatest to have but that certainly would cause problems. I have heard of instances of Bf 109s doing what you described but never thought of the wheels as a problem.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good info there, thanks I was not really aware of that. I know that a narrow track is not the greatest to have but that certainly would cause problems. I have heard of instances of Bf 109s doing what you described but never thought of the wheels as a problem.


I'll measure the distance between the wheels of the 109/spit this week and also ask the pilots as the birds are getting their CofA's this next couple of weeks so I'll have good info to impart. But as I looked at them yesterday they seem pretty close to being the same distance apart .


----------



## renrich (Apr 1, 2007)

My gripe about that stupid "Midway" movie is compounded by the fact that they showed, I think, Charlton Heston getting out of an SBD one time in the movie and as I said before the dive bombers during the attack in the film were models so if they going to build models why not build the correct one. Obviously there are no Vindicators left anywhere around.


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, save gas on go rounds!
> 
> I always wondered about landings in gliders. How do they set it up so they have such a wide landing evelope and missed approaches become less of a factor? Do the spoilers help that much?
> 
> .



It gets interesting if you have a number of gliders in a thermal called a stack and then the lift goes. Then its quite possible and not unusual to have a number of gliders comming in to land at the same time.

Last time we had one strip and six gliders comming in to land in basically two sets of three. I was the meat in the sandwich in the second group and you have to keep a close eye on the others. Standard rule is the one on the bottom lands as short as they can, the one in the middle aims for the middle of the strip touching down about a third of the way down and the highest goes long.
The danger is that everyone may not have seen everyone else so your constantly lookiing up and down to ensure they are doing what they should. The problem I had, was that the meat in the first group had stopped in the middle of the strip not off to one side. All I could do was aim right at him, touched down about 20ft beyond him and turned off as soon as I could to avoid the high guy coming down on top of me.

The spoilers are vital to give you that level of control on where your landing.


----------



## renrich (Apr 1, 2007)

In this thread there was an earlier mention of the most pilot unfriendly fighter and I recall in a book about either Joe Foss or Marion Carl a Marine squadron was pulled back from Guadalcanal to Espiritu Santo to transition from Wildcats to Corsairs. Said it was like a rodeo where the pilots were supposed to be flying the planes but instead the planes were flying the pilots and there were numerous crashes and some fatalities. This was before the Corsairs were debounced, without the starboard wing spoiler and were the low canopy versions.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 2, 2007)

Glider said:


> It gets interesting if you have a number of gliders in a thermal called a stack and then the lift goes. Then its quite possible and not unusual to have a number of gliders comming in to land at the same time.
> 
> Last time we had one strip and six gliders comming in to land in basically two sets of three. I was the meat in the sandwich in the second group and you have to keep a close eye on the others. Standard rule is the one on the bottom lands as short as they can, the one in the middle aims for the middle of the strip touching down about a third of the way down and the highest goes long.
> The danger is that everyone may not have seen everyone else so your constantly lookiing up and down to ensure they are doing what they should. The problem I had, was that the meat in the first group had stopped in the middle of the strip not off to one side. All I could do was aim right at him, touched down about 20ft beyond him and turned off as soon as I could to avoid the high guy coming down on top of me.
> ...




Sticking to prop birds. Always thought gliders were cool and fun but want the power to get out of there when the "knucklehead factor" kicks in (as you noted in your story). Plus, the go round gives me time to cool down instead of getting out of the bird and yelling at some 17 year old kid "What the ---- was that? Don't you know there are other birds out here!".


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2007)

As FJ said, you learn fast in a glider, if it all goes belly up you just have to sort things out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2007)

I always felt flying a glider made me a better pilot over all. About a week after my first glider solo I had an engine failure in a Cessna 150 - Although I was able to get the engine started and get back to the airport, I was confident enough to set up for a dead stick landing at a private strip which was in the same area.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> a dead stick landing at a private strip which was in the same area.



Now that's luck. Kudos on your confidence, sure it helped. But to lose the engine and have a private field close enough to get to, man, that is some excellent luck.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Now that's luck. Kudos on your confidence, sure it helped. But to lose the engine and have a private field close enough to get to, man, that is some excellent luck.


I was lucky - I had a choice - this private strip or the freeway - Had I chosen the freeway I would of been on TV, something you want to avoid. I was setting up to go straight in as the propeller was starting to windmill down, then all of a sudden it came to life, running rough but making power and everything was in the green, so I pushed on another 5 miles and made it to Mojave airport. Every 2 or three minutes the engine would shudder then smooth out. I landed uneventfully. The owner of the aircraft and I pulled 2 jugs and one had fried valves, the other had broken piston rings. That O-200 made almost 3000 hours before it came apart. And the annual was due the following month! 

Knock on wood, that's the worse mechanical failure I ever had, hope it stays that way!!


----------



## mkloby (Apr 2, 2007)

Joe,
Have you practiced much engine out? That encompasses a lot of our primary training in the single eng T-34.

Worst mechanical failure was an engine loss on a SE??? About the only thing worse than that is structural damage and falling out of the sky!

It must be hard to pick up an engine failure in a 150 because it's only a loss of about 2.5 horsepower


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Joe,
> Have you practiced much engine out? That encompasses a lot of our primary training in the single eng T-34.


Tons of it - especially when I was doing my Commercial rating. One commercial maneuver was the spiral - pull power about 3 or 4,000' AGL and do 3 complete 360s (turns at a point descending) at best glide and roll out 500' AGL as if you were going to land straight a head.


mkloby said:


> Worst mechanical failure was an engine loss on a SE??? About the only thing worse than that is structural damage and falling out of the sky!


I also had the radio burn up on me on the same plane due to a voltage regulator malfunction - thank god I had a hand held.


mkloby said:


> It must be hard to pick up an engine failure in a 150 because it's only a loss of about 2.5 horsepower


, Hehehe - actually like half - the thing was running on 2 cylinders. When I departed the private strip I was only able to climb about 800' AGL and hold about 60 knots - Thank god I was close to my home airport.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> It must be hard to pick up an engine failure in a 150 because it's only a loss of about 2.5 horsepower



That'll teach you to feed the squirrell before you take off. Little fella was probably starving.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I also had the radio burn up on me on the same plane due to a voltage regulator malfunction - thank god I had a hand held.



Had that happen to me a couple of times in the Yak. Just hung around the airport, making a nuisance of myself 'til everybody got on THEIR radios to talk about me and went in and landed. Not FAA standard procedure, but it worked.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 3, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Had that happen to me a couple of times in the Yak. Just hung around the airport, making a nuisance of myself 'til everybody got on THEIR radios to talk about me and went in and landed. Not FAA standard procedure, but it worked.



If it's towered you would have been cleared to land via aldis lamps, uncontrolled with traffic i'd be wary in putting her down right away - since a lot of those fools don't even talk on the radio. Did you have a transponder?


----------



## timshatz (Apr 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> If it's towered you would have been cleared to land via aldis lamps, uncontrolled with traffic i'd be wary in putting her down right away - since a lot of those fools don't even talk on the radio. Did you have a transponder?



Yeah, had a transponder. Now that was working. I think. Well, it looked like it was working (blinking now and again).

Where I fly out of is uncontrolled and busy. South West of Phila. Right in the Corridor from Washington to Boston. Just out from under the veil. There's always somebody buzzing around without communicating. Getting down is a lot like getting into a subway station at rush hour. Pick a gap and try to squeeze yourself in. It makes it interesting and you get plenty of practice with spotting other aircraft. 

The variety is entertaining too. All over the map, never two birds of the same type in the patern at any given time (unless they are trainers).


----------



## mkloby (Apr 3, 2007)

Well I would hope that you squawked NORDO and hopefully a bright controller would see that you would likely land at that field since it's 'land as soon as practicable' and you're circling at a field which is uncontrolled, then you would likely intend to land there. A bright controller might come onto that frequency and hopefully be able to clear out the other traffic. All this is predicated on approach picking you up w/ your 7600 squawk.

If you're VMC you're guidance from the FIH is to maintain VMC and land as soon as practicable - which you did, using good headwork to make others realize something was going on w/ your comms. Besides, at an uncontrolled field you'd likely be circling above to pick up other traffic, and check out the tetrahedron/wind sock so you could land into the appropriate R/W. I don't see a deviation in what you did.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 3, 2007)

Nah, pretty standard stuff, when you get right down to it. Something is always going to go wrong. Not to worry, all is well. 75% of the training given to a pilot (after take offs and landings) is for when things go wrong. IMHO.

Your official description is pretty much how I did it. Fuse goes "Pop", brief smell of something burning and the radio goes on the fritz. Also had it where I accidentally turned the volume all the way down and thought the Radio was out. Almost got a Darwin Award "Runner Up" for that one.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2007)

I have some excellent hot mike tales . 
In a nordo approach wouldn't you just join downwind and hope for the steady green or do a missed approach just to wake the controller up


----------



## mkloby (Apr 3, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I have some excellent hot mike tales .
> In a nordo approach wouldn't you just join downwind and hope for the steady green or do a missed approach just to wake the controller up



It depends. In the US, the Flight Information Handbook gives specific instructions. Of course troubleshoot, attempt contact on guard, then squawk 7600 and make all calls in the blind. If you're VMC(regardless whether IFR or VFR) you are expected to maintain VMC and proceed to land as soon as "practicable."

If you're IMC, it gets stickier. As to your route, you maintain the last
*A*ssigned route
*V*ectors - if on vectors proceed direct from point of failure to fix/airway
*E*xpected - in the absence of the previous, fly route told to expect
*F*iled - lastly, fly your route as filed if none apply

For altitude, fly the highest of:
*A*ssigned
*M*inimum altitude for IFR ops - likely an MEA or such
*E*xpected - if told to expect an altitude

these route/alt guidelines are referred to as *AVE FAME*

For the approach, you'd commence from the IAF as close to your EFC or timing as filed or ammended. GCA's have their own lost comms as well.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2007)

The rules are the same on your IMC clearance you are given a fix Tacan VOR or NDB to which you are cleared and if you have a lost com it gives you a IMC approach to work off . Works the same for Oceanic and if you stray to much you'll find interceptors off your wing to help out


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you tried to land a Bf-109? Neither have I but I can tell you that a tail dragger with a main landing gear of a narrow track like that of the Bf-109 would make any aircraft difficult to land and take off.


I measured the undercarriage of our 109 today and and from center to center on the wheel 
the 109 back its 75" front 76.5"

the spit rear 71.5"
front 73"
so both aircraft are towed out slightly but the Spit is narrower


----------



## Civettone (Apr 4, 2007)

From Hop:


> The myth isn't that the 109 was difficult to land, it's that it was caused by the narrow track undercarriage. As you point out, the F4F had a very narrow track, and no problems with landing. The Spitfire also had a narrow track, and doesn't have the reputation the 109 has.
> 
> The problem for the 109 is that the wheels do not point straight ahead when the undercarriage is down. What that means is, when you land, if one wheel touches down before the other, the plane will tend to turn, if the wheel grips properly.


PBfoot, can you comment on that?

Kris


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 5, 2007)

Its crap the wheels on both aircraft both point basically straight ahead and in fact as measured the 109 has a wider stance by 3" . But what did surprise me was the fact on both aircraft the wheels toed out !.5" or 35cm the reason yet I didn't determine. Ill try and ask the engineers in the next couple of days


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2007)

If possible, find out where the CG is on each aircraft. That will also be a determining factor on how "Pilot Friendly" the aircraft will be on the ground.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 5, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If possible, find out where the CG is on each aircraft. That will also be a determining factor on how "Pilot Friendly" the aircraft will be on the ground.


will do


----------



## mkloby (Apr 5, 2007)

SHouldn't CG be published in the various manuals for the A/C? It's not usually as big a deal like it is for us multis and cargo planes, but they should have a chart for computing??? I even did it before every flight in the T-34C.


----------



## Hop (Apr 5, 2007)

> Its crap the wheels on both aircraft both point basically straight ahead





> I measured the undercarriage of our 109 today and and from center to center on the wheel
> the 109 back its 75" front 76.5"



So the fronts of the tyres are 76.5 inches apart, and the rear 75 inches? If the fronts are further aprat than the rears, the tyres are not parallel, so cannot be pointing straight ahead.

That's the definition of toe out. 

Do either the Spit or the 109 have wing wheel bulges? The reason for the toe out was because they wheels didn't fit in the wings properly. Both aircraft later acquired bulges to allow them to have straighter wheels. Modern display aircraft almost always have these, because they usually operate from tarmac or concrete runways.

I thought the Spitfire was actually supposed to have toe in, though, which was why it had a better landing reputation.

What's the camber (degrees off vertical) of the wheels?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 5, 2007)

Hop said:


> So the fronts of the tyres are 76.5 inches apart, and the rear 75 inches? If the fronts are further aprat than the rears, the tyres are not parallel, so cannot be pointing straight ahead.
> 
> That's the definition of toe out.


 you got it just as stated both are toed out and the reason for that escapes me at this point but it was explained but I forgot


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2007)

mkloby said:


> SHouldn't CG be published in the various manuals for the A/C? It's not usually as big a deal like it is for us multis and cargo planes, but they should have a chart for computing??? I even did it before every flight in the T-34C.


I speaking in terms of where the CG is in relationship to the MLG - the further aft, the less aft fulcrum between the mains, CG and tailwheel...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 5, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I speaking in terms of where the CG is in relationship to the MLG - the further aft, the less aft fulcrum between the mains, CG and tailwheel...



Gotcha. But this should be able to be determined based off the reference datum that the CG is computed from. It would just have to be compared to the station number of the MLG.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2007)

Thanks for the info pbfoot.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 5, 2007)

Would the 109 be more liable to groundloop with its CG further aft of the undercarriage? But with the Spit's undercarrige further aft and closer to the CG would it be more likely to tip onto its spinner?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Gotcha. But this should be able to be determined based off the reference datum that the CG is computed from. It would just have to be compared to the station number of the MLG.


Right, and this would also make it harder to control on the ground.


----------



## GregP (Apr 7, 2007)

Trust me. Hellcat.


----------



## MAV_406 (Apr 7, 2007)

the worst for new pilots, if they got the chance Bee Gee


----------



## renrich (Apr 9, 2007)

Don't you mean the GeeBee?


----------



## V-1710 (Apr 11, 2007)

Did anyone bring up the A6M Zero? Wide landing gear, light on the controls, not too much torque, good visability.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 11, 2007)

Good plane, easy to die in the knowledge of an instant fireball when you're hit!

Joke.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 25, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I speaking in terms of where the CG is in relationship to the MLG - the further aft, the less aft fulcrum between the mains, CG and tailwheel...


 the CG on the 109 is right at the at Landing gear joins the wing and the Spit CG is about halfway on the front fuselage tank . Eyeballing it makes the spit about 6"aft of the undercart . and for FYI the wheels are toed out on all tail draggers to prevent groundloops


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> the CG on the 109 is right at the at Landing gear joins the wing and the Spit CG is about halfway on the front fuselage tank . Eyeballing it makes the spit about 6"aft of the undercart . and for FYI the wheels are toed out on all tail draggers to prevent groundloops


Theoretically that would actually make the 109 easier to handle on the ground but you now would have to consider the height of the the MLG. The toe out on all aircraft isn't necessarily correct - some have the wheels straight and I think gear height, wheel base and of course torque would also determine if there is any toe out configuration.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 25, 2007)

I don't know the physics of why they are toed out but 3 different people have tried explaining it to me but I got to see it on a napkin to understand . But the gist of it is that in X-wind landing it allows for ...... and thats as far as i go


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2007)

That actually makes sense...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 25, 2007)

Interesting contrast I'm trying to show the weight distribution and under carriage\
Also note the comparitaive ease of access on the 109


----------



## mkloby (Apr 25, 2007)

nice pics pb


----------

