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

There's a few nice pics and 109 rebuild info here; although mostly not concerning the topic of U/C - tis' a pity the pic of the starboardside cowling has disappeared in the last 6 months...
Bf 109 In Detail - Part One

Air-con is needed in this here thread, if it gets hotter we'll drown in run-off sweat...

Lighthunmust said:

2. I understand how the "Report" button is intended to be used. Perhaps your #2 should be included in the FAQ statement to more clearly define use. I suggest deleting the word "pissy" as it is counterproductive.

Click to expand...

Sure, no problem.....

agitated, all torn up, apprehensive, broken up, bummed out, confused, disconcerted, dismayed, disordered, disquieted, distressed, dragged, frantic, grieved, hurt, ill, overwrought, psyched out, rattled, ruffled, shocked, shook up, sick, troubled, unglued, unsettled, unzipped, worried.

pick one.

We all have thick skins. But we have very thin skins when it comes to others telling us how to run the forum, such as thread content or insulting other members and Moderators.

Wellcome LM

I would like to apologize to you for hijacking your thread. I can honestly say however, that I never really "got" what it was that you were looking for.

Some observations.

This is a forum. There will always be quite a bit of deviation from the thread topic, especially if people dont understand what it is that was actually being sought in the first place.

The internet is a little like the wild west. It can be rough at times. There are people that come here with no good intention. There are people that are so diametrically opposed in their POVs that conflict is bound to happen. this thread was a prime example of that. I wish that threads could be better controlled as to how they play out, but its hard to achieve that.

I acknowledge that we didnt get to where and what you wanted but I disagree that it was wasted effort. Thats impossible to gauge to be honest. There were a lot of people that read these posted comments, and quite possibly learned something. I'd certainly like to think that.

Dont fight with the Mods its unhealthy. They do a great job IMO. Sometimes you just have to let go of the steering wheel and let the thing go its own way for a while. Just be cool if you can man!!!

Once again, I apologise for the mess I helped create out of this thread

parsifal said:

Wellcome LM

I would like to apologize to you for hijacking your thread. I can honestly say however, that I never really "got" what it was that you were looking for.

Some observations.

This is a forum. There will always be quite a bit of deviation from the thread topic, especially if people dont understand what it is that was actually being sought in the first place.

The internet is a little like the wild west. It can be rough at times. There are people that come here with no good intention. There are people that are so diametrically opposed in their POVs that conflict is bound to happen. this thread was a prime example of that. I wish that threads could be better controlled as to how they play out, but its hard to achieve that.

I acknowledge that we didnt get to where and what you wanted but I disagree that it was wasted effort. Thats impossible to gauge to be honest. There were a lot of people that read these posted comments, and quite possibly learned something. I'd certainly like to think that.

Dont fight with the Mods its unhealthy. They do a great job IMO. Sometimes you just have to let go of the steering wheel and let the thing go its own way for a while. Just be cool if you can man!!!

Once again, I apologise for the mess I helped create out of this thread

Click to expand...

Parsifal,

No apology is necessary, but thank you for the first kind words of dialog today. No apology is necessary from any member who posted what I thought to be off topic. Despite what some may think I was never angry or offended that members were posting what in my opinion were off topic posts highjacking the thread. These posts only caused frustration, disappointment, and worry from the irony that despite writing a starting thread designed to avoid what happened in this thread it started happening immediately. All feelings of offense were trivial in comparison and from other factors. I don't think the moderators are bad guys. I think they usually do a great job and I certainly have some understanding of the difficulties of doing what they do.

I think it is sort of funny I keep seeing people referring to the Internet as like "The Wild West". I live in what was once "The Wild West", Tombstone is only a short drive away. An Indian Reservation is within walking distance. Many of us in Arizona carry guns on a daily basis. If you do any serious study about "The Wild West" you will quickly realize that the Internet is far wilder. What people do on the Internet would get you shot in "The Wild West". There were no where near as many gunfights and people getting shot in "The Wild West" as there are conflicts on the Internet. "The Wild West" was actually peaceful in comparison. People understood there were potentially strong reactions to how they spoke.

Thank you for the friendly advice about letting go of the steering wheel . I already made this decision about the new "Citation" thread. I figure I have done all I can to point the way down the path and the members can choose to stay on it. From what I have seen most are going off the path. At least I tried.

Once again, no one needs to apologize for posts I thought were off topic. I think I had unrealistic expectations of what was possible in this thread. I sincerely wish that the history of this thread is beneficial to future activity on this forum. Any suggestions I made were made with good intentions.

Perhaps this has been posted, but I didn't read the 29+ pages of posts. If so, please excuse.

Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Willaim Green, 1962, page 11:

"However, the tendency to swing on takeoff and landing, that had first manifested itself during tests with the early protoypes, continued to plague the Bf 109E and contributed substantially to the Luftwaffe's high accident rate, some 1,500 Bf 109 fighters being lost between the beginning of the war and the autumn of 1941 in accidents caused by unintentional swings. Only after the tailwheel had been fitted with a locking device which operated when the throttle was fully opened did the tendency to swing lessen."

Doesn't cover the entire war, but lends credence to a high accident rate, at least up until autumn of 1941. There was a lot of war after that and I haven't run across figures to cover the rest of the war yet.

Best regards, - Greg

Greg, I believe that is exactly what Steve was looking for - some written word about the landing gear in an attempt to establish when this 'myth' started. Excellent!

It started a few years before that, in 1957, when the Green book was first published.

My copy is 1962, and I have heard everywhere from 11,000 down to 900, all unsubstantiated. I even saw a magazine article where the author stated the real loss figure for takeoff / landing was 5%, but he didn't quote a source for his "real loss figure!" So ... it is unsubstantiated.

I'll keep looking because I, too, am interested in this subject.

An aside, this 11,000 figure might be a myth, but it also might not be. Until we can establish a figure, we don;t really know, do we?

Maybe the conditions (mud) exacerbated the tendency due to lack of traction? I cannot speak of it with any real knowledge except to say I want to get to the bottom of it, too. I will refrain from speculation.

My copy is 1962, and I have heard everywhere from 11,000 down to 900, all unsubstantiated. I even saw a magazine article where the author stated the real loss figure for takeoff / landing was 5%, but he didn't quote a source for his "real loss figure!" So ... it is unsubstantiated.

I'll keep looking because I, too, am interested in this subject.

You can get fairly accurate samples of the overall accident rates for me 109s, but its difficult to find the causes for that accident rates.

But this is not what Steve was looking for. he was looking for the sources of the claims that the accident rate was affected by gear failures, to the extent of 33% of all losses.

I don't think they had thousands of gear failures ... they had a lot of takeoff and landing accidents resulting from a tendency to swing one way or the other (mostly to port) directionally when taking off or landing.

The Hispano Ha.1112 we are restoring (Planes of Fame) had a failed starboard landing gear and associated bits because it swung to port on landing due to brake failure when filiming the movie "Pearl Harbor" in the year 2000. 11 years later and we are just getting it back together! it is back on the gear and ready for engine installation ... if we get some new wheels ... maybe next week? Close, at any rate. We already have the tires and tubes ... and the wings / engine mount are on. We are just waiting for the new outer wheel discs to be machined. The first set didn't fit! CNC is accurate only when priogrammed correctly ...

I could be wrong ...

Ooops run out of runway

GregP said:

I don't think they had thousands of gear failures ... they had a lot of takeoff and landing accidents resulting from a tendency to swing one way or the other (mostly to port) directionally when taking off or landing.

I could be wrong ...

Click to expand...

You may be quite right or at least on track. There may have been thousands of landing and take-off accidents, after all how do you loose aircraft?

Shot down?

Shot up on runway?

Crashed due to engine failure (which can happen on take-off landing)

Pilot error?

Take-off and landing accidents?

Now out of the take-off and landing accidents, of which there are many, how many are due to landing gear failures?

How many are due to the design/layout of the landing gear? causing a great tendency to ground loop or other problems.

How many were due to some other factor? Plane ran into large stationary object because of poor view.

Unless we keep to one definition there is going to be much confusion in what we are looking for.

GregP said:

I don't think they had thousands of gear failures ... they had a lot of takeoff and landing accidents resulting from a tendency to swing one way or the other (mostly to port) directionally when taking off or landing.

The Hispano Ha.1112 we are restoring (Planes of Fame) had a failed starboard landing gear and associated bits because it swung to port on landing due to brake failure when filiming the movie "Pearl Harbor" in the year 2000. 11 years later and we are just getting it back together! it is back on the gear and ready for engine installation ... if we get some new wheels ... maybe next week? Close, at any rate. We already have the tires and tubes ... and the wings / engine mount are on. We are just waiting for the new outer wheel discs to be machined. The first set didn't fit! CNC is accurate only when priogrammed correctly ...

I could be wrong ...

Click to expand...

IIRC, I just read that those post-war 109s didn't have the proper engines and were substituted - usually with a very powerul engine and larger prop blades which really brought out the swing. Brake failures were common and the collapse of LGs.

Shortround6 said:

Unless we keep to one definition there is going to be much confusion in what we are looking for.

Click to expand...

Our (Planes of Fame) Hispano Ha.1112 has P-39 inner wheel halves and disc brakes fitted, with Messerschmitt outer wheel halves. Together they make a good Messerschmitt wheel with good, modern brakes. The "brake failure" was a ruptured hydraulic brake line ... in the air, probably too tight a radius in a bend and a lot of years of vibration.

So, when Steve Hinton landed he was straight and in coorinated flight, but had no right brake. The aicraft got down to about 35 knots and started a slow swing to the left. With no right brake, and with full right rudder, the groundloop slowly developed and folded the starboard gear.

We repaired the gear mount, the wing where it was damaged, fitted a new engine mount, and generally overhauled a lot of things. Every time we took something aprat, we found something else that needed attention. We also fitted new canopy panels all around. Now we are waiting on some long-lead parts (one part being a cut-down and recontoured DC-3 prop).

It is a long way toward being ready to fly, but we still, have a way to go.