pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Get it right the first time!
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.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?
Not only newbies but some top aces were killed stall/ spinning the Camel - not an easy aircraft to fly.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.
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.
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.
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 .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.
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.
a dead stick landing at a private strip which was in the same area.
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!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.
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.Joe,
Have you practiced much engine out? That encompasses a lot of our primary training in the single eng T-34.
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.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!
, 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.It must be hard to pick up an engine failure in a 150 because it's only a loss of about 2.5 horsepower
It must be hard to pick up an engine failure in a 150 because it's only a loss of about 2.5 horsepower
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.