The Bf 109 aka ME-109 landing gear myth research thread.

[Shortround6]

well In this case I thing the gear is very suited for the conditions.. maybe Willy was onto something. Can't imagine a spit or p-51 handling those conditions with any authority.

Why?
any sound reasoning or just love of the 109?

I will grant you that some American fighters might have been a disaster in a similar situation. But Landing gear alone is not the determining factor in landing and take off accidents. Torque effect on take-off with narrow runways and having enough rudder authority is one factor. Take-off and landing speed is another. A plane may have a reputation for rugged landing gear but if it's touch down speed is close to 100mph it is going to need rugged landing gear compared to a plane that touches down at 80mph. Braking and controlability can make a difference between a good landing (one you can walk away from) and clipping the trees with a wing tip.

 

[tyrodtom]

The only thing Willy was on to was making the landing gear so the aircraft could be moved around minus it's wings. That made for easy manufactor and transport.

The Luftwaffe just did like military men around the world have to do, they coped with what they had.

 

[Nikademus]

Well... As we all know, a Bf-109E with the guns, ammo and armor stripped out is not a Bf-109G loaded for combat. The difference in the weight of the two different engines alone makes the E versus the G two very different aircraft.

Bronc

Whether an E or a G, both planes still have the same landing gear. A better argument would be to point out that there's a big difference between landing on a grass field vs. a concrete runway, or the difference in fatigue of the pilots on landing etc etc. However the differences in a plane's characteristics in different load conditions as with weather and airfield conditions are a matter of pilot experience. I doubt, for example that the pilot quoted in the BoB book experienced in flying a 109E under combat conditions is suddenly going to start ground looping in Russia using a new 109G. If he did have an accident....was it in fact because of the landing gear?

In regards to the pilot's opinion of whom i spoke too, i think it would be foolish to discount the views of one who actually flies the plane in question. It doesn't make his word absolute but it's good food for thought. In the end, I am personally more swayed by Holland's reasoning and research and add the opinion of an actual modern pilot of the plane as adding support.

In that same fashion I was able to ask the pilot of the Collection's flyable I-16 Ishak on whether the plane was as hard to fly as i've read. His answer was also interesting. He said it wasn't "hard" per se.....but that you had to be careful....because the plane has no flaps and as such you have to use the throttle to help land the plane. Compounding this is the cockpit arrangement. The landing gear has to be manually cranked down but the device is located on the opposite side of the throttle (he told me)...so with having to keep one hand on the flight stick, your forced to use the other hand going back and forth from one side of the cockpit to the other as you crank (and it takes ALOT of cranks) the gear down, then with the same hand swap back to the throttle. All this while landing....which, unless i'm mistaken is the most difficult part of flying. (I know i'd be terrified trying to bring a plane down without making a mess)

 

[Nikademus]

The period 7/10/40 and 10/31/40 was when hurricanes were also being used as night fighters. I think it is very difficult to get the whole picture.

I believe the author's point was that even boasting the "most stable" landing gear of the three planes in question, there were still plenty of accidents, ranging from the very minor (a "prang") to fatalities. I should probably have included more of his text as he goes on to say that many of these accidents were given different labels of which few specified the 'landing gear' of the plane. All in all I personally agree that this points to the conclusion that in regards 109 operational accidents and losses, there's no real reason to single out the plane's landing gear as being signifigant to the point where it's labeled a "design weakness"

 

[Mustang nut]

I believe the author's point was that even boasting the "most stable" landing gear of the three planes in question, there were still plenty of accidents, ranging from the very minor (a "prang") to fatalities.

I agree Nikademus, the point I was making was that the hurricane was certainly a better plane for night fighting than the spitfire and because of that it was used more which meant that it had more accidents on take of and landing. Another poster said the 109 was used as a night fighter which i am sure will have added to accident rates.

 

[davparlr]

errant entry

 

[davparlr]

yes, many did not make the cut:

The real question here was why the Germans experimented with conventional gear in the first place. It certainly wasn't because the engineers were bored. Also it did not improve manufacture or repair. Was it possibly trouble with the landing gear configuration? It is also not difficult to understand that they would not interrupt the production to implement this change. There are plenty of examples of flawed weapons systems that were kept in production due to the need for quantity.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The landing gear has to be manually cranked down but the device is located on the opposite side of the throttle (he told me)...so with having to keep one hand on the flight stick, your forced to use the other hand going back and forth from one side of the cockpit to the other as you crank (and it takes ALOT of cranks) the gear down, then with the same hand swap back to the throttle. All this while landing....which, unless i'm mistaken is the most difficult part of flying. (I know i'd be terrified trying to bring a plane down without making a mess)

Just a comment here - no matter how difficult bringing down the landing gear may sound, this process would normally be done on a downwind leg or after an overhead break, configuring the aircraft for landing (flaps would be lowered as well) and allowing time to get everything prepared for landing. Turning base to final, the aircraft should be configured for landing and the final approach stabilized. Depending on pilot and technique, sometimes you may have someone try to do this on final. It may work for an experienced pilot but a "greener" pilot may be overworked during this process (especially if landing in a crosswind).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

well In this case I thing the gear is very suited for the conditions.. maybe Willy was onto something. Can't imagine a spit or p-51 handling those conditions with any authority.

Have you ever seen pics of the P-51 operating in dirt fields during the Korean War?

 

[Nikademus]

Just a comment here - no matter how difficult bringing down the landing gear may sound, this process would normally be done on a downwind leg or after an overhead break, configuring the aircraft for landing (flaps would be lowered as well) and allowing time to get everything prepared for landing. Turning base to final, the aircraft should be configured for landing and the final approach stabilized. Depending on pilot and technique, sometimes you may have someone try to do this on final. It may work for an experienced pilot but a "greener" pilot may be overworked during this process (especially if landing in a crosswind).

Sounds reasonable to me. Now that i'm thinking back on it, I believe a big part of the "careful" that he mentioned was that the plane has a nasty stall habit where one wing will suddenly drop if the speed goes below a certain threashhold. The tricky part is that the plane having no flaps, as mentioned required him to use the throttle to compensate and adjust speed, which IIRC is fast even when landing but he's trying to go as slow as the plane will safely allow....however when cranking down the grear on approach....it changes the plane's aerodynamics enough that the throttle must be adjusted to compensate. (I believe....i am going by memory here....wish i had wrote it down!)

Anyway....I also noted that according to the info posted with the plane...there are currently only 2 or 3 pilots in the world qualified to fly the thing.

 

[davparlr]

As stated, I have flown GA aircraft tail draggers and its a stone written rule that you NEVER tap the brakes when rolling on take off. NOW if you have some high time combat veteran who did this as a norm, all I can say is their experience and nerve overcame what the POH actually states and if they did smack up and aircraft (regardless how many kills or how many hours they had) they are still doing something that is violating the POH.

I really am out of my class here as all the aircraft I have flown were tricycle geared and had power steering, except the T-41 (Cessna 172), but I would think that if differential brakes are used for steering during taxi then it would also be used for takeoff run until rudder is effective (20-30 mph). Interesting side note was that the original Me-262 was a tail dragger and the pilot had to tap the brakes during take off roll to get the tail off the ground, otherwise it would not take off.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sounds reasonable to me. Now that i'm thinking back on it, I believe a big part of the "careful" that he mentioned was that the plane has a nasty stall habit where one wing will suddenly drop if the speed goes below a certain threashhold. The tricky part is that the plane having no flaps, as mentioned required him to use the throttle to compensate and adjust speed, which IIRC is fast even when landing but he's trying to go as slow as the plane will safely allow....however when cranking down the grear on approach....it changes the plane's aerodynamics enough that the throttle must be adjusted to compensate. (I believe....i am going by memory here....wish i had wrote it down!)

Anyway....I also noted that according to the info posted with the plane...there are currently only 2 or 3 pilots in the world qualified to fly the thing.

All true - a fairly experienced pilot (or at least an efficient and cautious pilot) can do all that and keep his airspeed above stalling while not exceeding landing gear extension speed (VLE). There's usually a pretty wide window there on most aircraft unless you're flying a U-2! The key to this is continually trimming the aircraft as the pilot changes power settings and is lowering the landing gear.

I seen "White 14" fly at Mojave before it went to Canada. The day it was flown the winds were dead calm and you can see the pilot was very cautious, flew long extending downwinds and seemed to try to do everything by the book.

 

[P-40K-5]

The real question here was why the Germans experimented with conventional gear in the first place. It certainly wasn't because the engineers were bored. Also it did not improve manufacture or repair. Was it possibly trouble with the landing gear configuration? It is also not difficult to understand that they would not interrupt the production to implement this change. There are plenty of examples of flawed weapons systems that were kept in production due to the need for quantity.

for aircraft carrier use, along with an arrester hook. the 109 was as pure of a fighter as one can get.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I really am out of my class here as all the aircraft I have flown were tricycle geared and had power steering, except the T-41 (Cessna 172), but I would think that if differential brakes are used for steering during taxi then it would also be used for takeoff run until rudder is effective (20-30 mph). Interesting side note was that the original Me-262 was a tail dragger and the pilot had to tap the brakes during take off roll to get the tail off the ground, otherwise it would not take off.

You would think that but unless you really know what you're doing, tapping the brakes on a takeoff roll is asking for trouble. I can tell you that just from flying a Super Cub or Citabria that 20 - 30 mph comes very quick when you advance the throttle and although smaller aircraft, their rudder becomes effective almost immediately. In the case of a -109 I believe you're going to have trouble (besides the "normal" left/ right swing as noted on the POH) if you try to take off in a stiff crosswind. It would be interesting to know wind conditions of those take off accidents listed in the previous pages.

This "rudder effictiveness" in the -109 IMO is being a bit exaggerated. I cannot see a -109 not accelerating quickly enough to gain rudder effectiviness within at least 6 or 7 seconds

 

[P-40K-5]

Have you ever seen pics of the P-51 operating in dirt fields during the Korean War?

nope. and I doubt very much in anything that the 109's were subjected too.

 

[drgondog]

Lol - Joe I have seen situations where 6-7 seconds is an eternity looking for bad events to fill the void.

 

[drgondog]

As 51's operating out of the goo - there is no reason to suspect it would be more difficult than a 109 or 190 (or F4U or P-40 or whatever in SWP back in Guadalcanal days before PSP). Simply we operated from PSP or concrete where possible and we weren't moving around as much as the Germans.

 

[tyrodtom]

There's a video on U-tube that show the entire uninteruped takeoff of a modern Me109, A G model I think. Grass runway.
Tailwheel off the ground in about 5-6 seconds, liftoff about 12-13 seconds.

There's plenty of pictures of operations in Alaska, and the Aleutians during WW2, just as rough or worse than Russia. Some of them I don't even see how they kept the engines running let alone take off.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

nope. and I doubt very much in anything that the 109's were subjected too.

Keep doubting - it was the same and probably worse

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Lol - Joe I have seen situations where 6-7 seconds is an eternity looking for bad events to fill the void.

LOL - I know, especially when going on "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride." Get the stick in your gut and hang on!