Most Pilot friendly fighter?

[mkloby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
Assigned route
Vectors - if on vectors proceed direct from point of failure to fix/airway
Expected - in the absence of the previous, fly route told to expect
Filed - lastly, fly your route as filed if none apply

For altitude, fly the highest of:
Assigned
Minimum altitude for IFR ops - likely an MEA or such
Expected - 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks for the info pbfoot.

 

[bigZ]

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]

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.