Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
no way no how 30% loss for t/o or landings due too the landing gear. landing accidents most often was the result
of running out of fuel, or mechanical problems. nose overs on landing was either rough fields or over zealous use
of brakes. takeoff nose overs were mostly letting the tail get off the ground BEFORE the rudder became effective.
locking they tailwheel worked very well, as long as the wheel was kept on the ground until the rudder was usable.
the biggest headache of the splayed landing gear was ground handling while taxing.
If I recall the problem was not really in the track but in the toe out configuration. I might be wrong, but I believe that 109 and the Spit had a similiar size in wheel track but the 109 had a more toe out condition. I believe pbfoot went and actually confirmed this by measuring a Spit and 109 at the museum he volunteers at.
Already noted in previous posts.
I think Lightnmust is looking more into how the myth began - not evidence to the contrary.
Bomber engine and propellor installed in a fighter airframe. Not a good indication of Me-109 performance when equipped with a properly matched engine and propellor.
Not why I mentioned it, just wondering if that issue has been integrated into the "Myth" also is there any corrsponding comments toward the Buchon?, it could all shine light on myth or fact??
The web link I posted provides technical information specific to this issue."I felt certain, too, that the landing gear's being slightly splayed outward aggravated the ground-looping tendency and contributed to the excessive tire wear and bursts. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow-track landing gear, but it was not splayed out like that of the Bf 109, and the Spitfire didn't show any ground-looping propensities."