Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
On late model 190s the ETC rack interfered with the operation of the doors and so were not fitted. The rack had to be moved forward to help with the CG.
On late model 190s the ETC rack interfered with the operation of the doors and so were not fitted. The rack had to be moved forward to help with the CG.
I would say you are correct A4K on the lack of space.
Can be seen in this Bentley drawing, http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A5F.jpg
Thanks for the responses so far, which made me realize that the Germans were operating from crude airfields in many instances, which probably made the doors a hindrance for maintenance.
I understand that lack of space likely initially resulted in the partly retractable tailwheel, but I am curious why the tail unit could not be enlarged eventually as the Fw 190/Ta 152 line evolved over 4-5 years to accomodate a fully-retractable tailwheel, as the Bf 109 did with the K-4.
The 109 had troubles with its tail wheel retraction and was locked in the down position very often. There was also late model 109s with extended tail wheel struts, which did not retract.
The 190 got an increase in vertical tail width which is very easy to do. An increase in height to accommodate the extra distance for a fully retractable tail wheel is harder to do. The semi exposed tail wheel could act as a bumper in a wheels up landing.
Don't forget about the KISS factor.
In the FW190 A8 aircraft handbook it states "when it is retracted, approximately one half of the tailwheel remains exposed and so can serve as an emergency tail skid".
In the FW190 A8 aircraft handbook it states "when it is retracted, approximately one half of the tailwheel remains exposed and so can serve as an emergency tail skid".
When you look at the construction of the tail unit and how much of it is taken up with the mechanism for the tail wheel you can see why it was never intended for it to be fully retracting, and to be honest the drag imposed by half a tailwheel would be so minor as to not be worth worrying about.
and to be honest the drag imposed by half a tailwheel would be so minor as to not be worth worrying about.
In the FW190 A8 aircraft handbook it states "when it is retracted, approximately one half of the tailwheel remains exposed and so can serve as an emergency tail skid".
The semi exposed tail wheel could act as a bumper in a wheels up landing.