Recurring Theme in WW2 Aviation

pbehn said:

In my opinion it was a characteristic not a weakness it could and was landed safely.

Click to expand...

The most malicious handling aircraft ever to take to the air could be landed safely. It's all relative and the landing (and take off) characteristics of the Bf 109 were worse than many contemporary aircraft, particularly in direct comparison to the Spitfire, an aircraft of overall similar performance (through most wartime versions until late 1944).
Cheers
Steve

pbehn said:

In my opinion it was a characteristic not a weakness it could and was landed safely.

Click to expand...

If it is a negative characteristic, then it is a weakness of the design.

BLine22 said:

If it is a negative characteristic, then it is a weakness of the design.

Click to expand...

Not if it made the 109 a more compact lighter faster machine. No 109 pilot would trade the undercarriage for a fixed one that took away its advantage in speed and handling. Of all the planes in the war the 109 was the most dangerous to the opposition from 1939 to 45. The Spitfire was much easier to fly in 1940 than it was in 1945, no pilot would want to get rid of the weight and power unless they were having a pleasure flight post war.

pbehn said:

Not if it made the 109 a more compact lighter faster machine.

Click to expand...

Why would a more conventional undercarriage attachment make the machine heavier or reduce performance? Even Messerschmitt abandoned the system on subsequent designs, a tacit acknowledgement that it could be improved. It's also why, though no paper trail exists, some involved with the original design of the Bf 109 blame the unconventional system on the transport requirement mentioned above. It was a compromise and I'm struggling to think whether the He 112 met the same requirement and if so how.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

The most malicious handling aircraft ever to take to the air could be landed safely. It's all relative and the landing (and take off) characteristics of the Bf 109 were worse than many contemporary aircraft, particularly in direct comparison to the Spitfire, an aircraft of overall similar performance (through most wartime versions until late 1944).
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

But we are talking about fighting a war. During the BoB accidents increased partly due to starting night time flights, bothe the Hurricane and Spitfire were supposed to be day/night fighters. The other reason was put down to poor cockpit drill or discipline for which you can read lack of experience. When pilots start crashing on Ops because they are insufficiently trained it is a sign that they are losing the battle. Having a poorly trained pilot flying a plane is not part of the designers brief, the Germans started off giving good training but couldnt keep it up, the RAF was in the same situation in 1940, there were plenty of pilots but few who could take the fight to Germany.

If you have a 109 or Buchon today you can fly it as it was flown in the war (with safety devices fitted) if you have a P51 you can fly it also but not loaded up with the rear fuel tank filled and 100 gal wing tanks, the plane is so marginal in that condition special instructions were given and the permission was purely for the duration of the war, despite this some pilots were lost and there were no inexperienced US pilots arriving in UK in 1944 all had hundreds of hours before they set off.

If the RAF was forced to fight in France and was losing pilots then putting inexperienced pilots in a fully laded Typhoons would result in accidents on take off and landing.

A nice wide track or fixed landing gear would result in something 20/30mph slower.

stona said:

Why would a more conventional undercarriage attachment make the machine heavier or reduce performance? Even Messerschmitt abandoned the system on subsequent designs, a tacit acknowledgement that it could be improved. It's also why, though no paper trail exists, some involved with the original design of the Bf 109 blame the unconventional system on the transport requirement mentioned above. It was a compromise and I'm struggling to think whether the He 112 met the same requirement and if so how.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

The advantage to the 109 was the undercarriage was in principle fixed to the engine mounting. It was a smaller lighter thin winged structure, the Spitfire had the elliptical wings to allow the landing gear and armament to be housed while the Hurricane had a box structure and thick wings, no German pilot would swap places with a Hurricane pilot because the Hurricane was easier to take off and land. The 109s landing gear wasnt continued but neither was the Spitfires, other better solutions were found because its easier to find those solutions when you have 2000 BHP to start the design with.

In Laura Hillenbrand's book, Unbroken, she notes that during WWII, "In the air corps, 35,946 personnel died in non-battle situations, the vast majority of them in accidental crashes." It seems that the US produced a huge number of dangerous aircraft, or alternatively accidents happen when a nation is put under pressure to do something more quickly than is safe to do so.

pbehn said:

A nice wide track or fixed landing gear would result in something 20/30mph slower.

Click to expand...

What, like the Fw 190?

A wide track undercarriage does not necessarily imply a reduction in performance. It was a design compromise allegedly to meet a requirement of the specification. All aircraft and all specifications demand some compromises, it's just that this one made the Bf 109 much more tricky for inexperienced pilots to fly.

Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?
Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?

Cheers

Steve

The FW 190 was a later design with a more powerful engine, the 109 first flew with a Kestrel engine. I have already said I consider the "inexperienced pilot" argument to be misleading, I guarantee that I would crash all of them. The 109s centre of gravity was further behind the front wheels than that of a spitfire, it was tail heavy and much less likely to "nose over".

Ray Hanna flew one and said it was easier than many aircraft to make a three point landing, maybe that was because it was designed to do just that. He also said that on the ground it was much different to other planes, you should not roll off the runway after landing but come to a halt and slowly taxi.

Pilots were killed taking off and landing in all sorts of aircraft, statistics would probably "prove" that basic trainers were more dangerous than some combat aircraft, I would think the most difficult flight a pilot ever makes is his first solo and every pilots remembers it My opinion is that given correct training the 109 was safe to fly, its record shows that, with incorrect training it was dangerous but they all are. The B26 gained a terrible reputation for landing crashes purely because of its high landing speed, pilots ignored the manual tried to land too slow and crashed, is that the fault of the plane or its designer? It went on to have one of the best safety records of any bomber.

pbehn said:

Ray Hanna flew one and said it was easier than many aircraft to make a three point landing, maybe that was because it was designed to do just that. .

Click to expand...

Or maybe that is because he was one of the most experienced warbird pilots in the world, never mind his experience on more modern types. The men who lead the Red Arrows tend to be fairly competent pilots..

You didn't answer either of my questions.

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

What, like the Fw 190?


Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?
Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?

Click to expand...

The geometry of the landing gear required training and procedures to keep it safe, the forward vision on the ground was chronic which also required procedures to operate it safely, if safety in take off and landing, pilot vision on the ground and general docility were priorities then the RAF would have gone to war in Texans.

The 109 may have had a higher accident rate with inexperienced pilots, the spitfire may have had a higher accident rate than the Hurricane and the Hurricane higher than a Hawker Fury what does that mean? There were a large number of pilots survived the war flying 109s saying it was dangerous for inexperienced pilots, to me they are saying that very quickly Germany was forced to put pilots into 109s that had insufficient training.

stona said:

Or maybe that is because he was one of the most experienced warbird pilots in the world, never mind his experience on more modern types. The men who lead the Red Arrows tend to be fairly competent pilots..

Click to expand...

Yes he was a fantastic pilot, I saw him fly. He was a fantastic pilot in a Spitfire and a 109 and he said that the 109 was easier than most to make the required three point landing. In Germany, in the war the 109 was normal, other set ups were unusual. In the UK the Spitfire and Hurricane were the norm and they had a tendency to nose over.

Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?

Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

Do you believe that the odd geometry of the Bf 109 undercarriage (I say odd because it was certainly not a method widely adopted by other designers) had no adverse impact on ground handling?

Do you believe that it did not increase the accident rate, particularly for inexperienced pilots, above what it might have been had a more conventional geometry been adopted?

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

Do you read my posts, I replied in #189

Your questions run close to the "when did you stop beating your wife" school of thought

Cheers

pbehn said:

Do you read my posts, I replied in #189

Your questions run close to the "when did you stop beating your wife" school of thought

Cheers

Click to expand...

I don't see the answers.

Did or did not the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage make its ground handling, take off and landing, worse than it would have been given a more conventional arrangement. ?

This is a fairly simple question requiring a straightforward answer. Either, in your opinion, it did or it didn't. There is no right or wrong answer, and certainly no incriminating answer; I fail to see an analogy with the wife beating question, incriminating whichever answer is given.

If you believe that the geometry of the Bf 109s undercarriage did NOT have a deleterious effect on certain aspects of its handling then that is fine by me, but we will have to agree to differ.

Cheers

Steve

I don't see the answers.

Did or did not the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage make its ground handling, take off and landing, worse than it would have been given a more conventional arrangement. ?

This is a fairly simple question requiring a straightforward answer. Either, in your opinion, it did or it didn't. There is no right or wrong answer, and certainly no incriminating answer; I fail to see an analogy with the wife beating question, incriminating whichever answer is given.

If you believe that the geometry of the Bf 109s undercarriage did NOT have a deleterious effect on certain aspects of its handling then that is fine by me, but we will have to agree to differ. It is quite possible for two people to weigh the same evidence and come to different conclusions

Cheers

Steve

pbehn said:

The advantage to the 109 was the undercarriage was in principle fixed to the engine mounting. It was a smaller lighter thin winged structure, the Spitfire had the elliptical wings to allow the landing gear and armament to be housed while the Hurricane had a box structure and thick wings, no German pilot would swap places with a Hurricane pilot because the Hurricane was easier to take off and land. The 109s landing gear wasnt continued but neither was the Spitfires, other better solutions were found because its easier to find those solutions when you have 2000 BHP to start the design with.

Click to expand...

This is actually false, or perhaps, it became false. Sticking a wheel and tire part way out the wing put it in a thinner section of the wing than using inward retracting gear. Hurricane didn't use a thick wing to house the landing gear.

The wheels/tires were technically in the wing structure but in the thickest part and space in the fuselage could have been used.

You also have the fact/s that the Hurricane and Spitfire wings were huge compared to a 109 wing. The often quoted % of thickness is the percentage of the cord. If one wing is 20% longer in cord at the wing root than another that means it is 20% thicker in actual dimensions even if the percentage stays the same.

Yes the structure may have to be heaver to take the landing loads further out from the fuselage but the thinnest wing could be made with the wheels almost touching on the center line.

The Geometry on the 109 also caused to wheel to tilted in the wing when retracted. taking up more depth than a wheel laying parallel to the wing. Not a problem in the early light versions. Became a problem on later versions when bumps/bulges had to used to cover the larger tires. On the early versions it points out that the wing thickness was NOT tailored to the size of the wheel/tire. A hinge/pivot could have been provided to make the wheel lay flat, or to keep the wheel more upright in the landing position. It would have been more expensive to make and possibly heavier.

And the differences between early and late versions is part of the problem with the 109, or at least evaluating it from 80 years later.
It gained over 40% in weight from the Jumo Powered versions to the K series. Changes in CG may be compounded by changes in movement arms or inertia. As the plane got heavier the weight spread out from the center of gravity do even if the CG stayed the same (or close to it) the control response did not. Obviously the torque reaction to a 700hp engine is mcu different than the reaction to a 1400-1500hp engine.
The B-C-D may have been perfectly delightful to fly, I don't know, The E may have had a few more tricks up it's sleeve. The F not much different (in most models) the G in later models seems to be where the bad reputation kicks in.

Pilot evaluations have to be tempered with the pilot in question's experience/expectations. A bit of reading between the lines may be needed too. The Series of books U.S. Civil Aircraft by Joseph Juptner is fun to read times because there wasn't a single plane he didn't like. A lot comments like "it kept a pilot on his toes" or "forced you to pay attention" are scattered through it, especially on the higher performing/powered models of certain aircraft (some panes could have a 225hp Lycoming or a 400hp Wasp Junior).
About the last thing a tired,cold and possibly wounded pilot needs when returning from a combat mission is a plane that kept him on his toes. Unfortunately all too often in many air forces, that is what he got.

stona said:

I don't see the answers.

Did or did not the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage make its ground handling, take off and landing, worse than it would have been given a more conventional arrangement. ?

This is a fairly simple question requiring a straightforward answer. Either, in your opinion, it did or it didn't. There is no right or wrong answer, and certainly no incriminating answer; I fail to see an analogy with the wife beating question, incriminating whichever answer is given.

If you believe that the geometry of the Bf 109s undercarriage did NOT have a deleterious effect on certain aspects of its handling then that is fine by me, but we will have to agree to differ.

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

It is not a straightforward answer, as I previously posted the Spitfire was more prone to nose over so it is a question of which attribute you choose. The Hurricane had much better vision and was much more stable on take off and landing the Spitfire. This was not a consideration when choosing to make the Spitfire the front line fighter, they just made sure pilots were trained to fly it. In 1940 in Germany the 109 was the norm for a monoplane fighter it is what they were and did and they were trained for it. 33,000 were produced and 2,500 pilots became aces.

As posted previously 36,000 US air personell were killed in training, training people to fly in war time was danegerous especially without dual controls. The lack of basic training for 109 pilots is not the fault of the 109.

Shortround6 said:

This is actually false, or perhaps, it became false. Sticking a wheel and tire part way out the wing put it in a thinner section of the wing than using inward retracting gear. Hurricane didn't use a thick wing to house the landing gear.


Yes the structure may have to be heaver to take the landing loads further out from the fuselage but the thinnest wing could be made with the wheels almost touching on the center line..

Click to expand...

I had in mind a previous post explaining why thin wings could not be fixed to the Hurricane, It was explained with photos how big the box structure was to contain the undercart mechanism. I believe the Spitfire needed a new type of tyre to fit its wing.

BLine22 said:

If it is a negative characteristic, then it is a weakness of the design.

Click to expand...

A negative on one hand, versus a very strong positive relative to portability, weight and performance on the other hand. Most pilots would prefer the latter