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

Shortround6 · Jul 8, 2011

I think that what type of surface the 109 (and just about all fighters of the mid 30s) were designed to operate from can be guessed at by looking at the airfields that were common or in use during the mid to late 30s. While taxiways or aprons in front of the hangers/terminals were paved the actual "flying field" usually wasn't. The major commercial airports of many European nations used grass surfaces for take-off and landing and in some cases the 'field' was nearly circular so that the planes could almost always take-off and land into the wind.
with even the Tempelhof airport at Berlin having a grass flying surface I doubt that regular fighter fields had paved flying surfaces at the time.
However they may be a vast difference between a carefully graded, prepared, and maintained grass surfaced air field of the late 1930s and hastily prepared front line airstrips in combat zones. Think of the difference between a carefully tended Golf course fairway and a farmers wheat field. They both can loosely be considered "grass".

P-40K-5 · Jul 8, 2011

the amazing is that the 660mm x 160mm tires were able to handle those ' runways '.. especially in the east.
what tires were they? Continentals?

renrich · Jul 8, 2011

My brother in Llano, Texas, recently bought a completely restored N2S, (Stearman). Of course it is a tail dragger and a bi plane. He is an experienced pilot in a Saratoga(tri cycle landing gear) He took lessons in a tail dragger before beginning to fly the N2S. They have a grass crosswind run way at Llano International Airport and he has been doing all his flying in the N2S from that runway. I went flying with him a couple of months ago and while taxiing around the grass field, he asked if I wanted to taxi it. I declined but later handled it a little in the air, a few turns and such. He has ground looped it once but only limited damage to a wing tip. Easily repaired. Apparently it, as well as other tail draggers, like grass fields better than paved.

That grass field in Llano is just Texas Hill Country mostly dead grass mowed with most of the rocks and cactus removed.

P-40K-5 · Jul 8, 2011

self explanitory pics. shows what conditions the 109 can operate in.

parsifal · Jul 8, 2011

I dont know about the 109, but for the Spit it was certainly possible to operate in muddy or wetr conditions, though in heavily inundated fields there was a tendency for the brakes to fade a bit

Bill McCrae in an interview had this to say about differential braking on landing:

"On the lighter side; many RAF fields were designed like an overturned saucer, probably to improve drainage, so that on landing we always ended up going downhill. At low speed the Spit's rudder was ineffective and without a steerable tailwheel differential braking was needed to steer. Loss of brakes could mean trouble. One night I landed a bit long, probably overused the brakes to slow down, and they faded. I switched off and sat helpless as the Spit slowly rolled downhill, veering toward the side of the runway. First one wheel dropped off into the mud, swinging the machine around so the second wheel followed. The tail rose high but dropped back before the prop could hit the ground. I was lucky, but several others were not. Paul, one of three Free French pilots we had, lost his brakes one night and ran off the end of the runway. When we got to him his aircraft was balanced, vertically, with the spinner and prop embedded in the mud. Paul was looking down at the ground from his lofty perch, repeating over and over `SHEET, SHEET' to our great amusement."

This suggest brakes were used to steer, until sufficient air speed was travelling over the rudder. I have no idea how fast an aircraft needed to be going for that.

I have a strong suspicion that if the 109 pilots did use this technique, they might have learnt it off the Russians. Russians in 1941 were able to get airborne in muddy conditions at about twice the sotie rate as the Germans. Perhaps this was one of the tricks they used

pbfoot · Jul 9, 2011

P-40K-5 said:
self explanitory pics. shows what conditions the 109 can operate in.

they can all operate in such conditions if necessary of the one landing or taking off , but on a side note i think you have a little tunnel vision and should listen to those on this web sight are a little brighter or aware of real life aviation

Shortround6 · Jul 9, 2011

P-40K-5 said:
self explanitory pics. shows what conditions the 109 can operate in.

I would note that in the second picture the aircraft is NOT operating, it is just sitting there. Which is not to say that any other fighter in the same conditions would be doing anything else but sit there.

Mustang nut · Jul 9, 2011

parsifal said:
This suggest brakes were used to steer, until sufficient air speed was travelling over the rudder. I have no idea how fast an aircraft needed to be going for that.

Parsifal this is covered in post #7. As I read it and other posts a wet or muddy field isnt as adverse as a dry tarmac or concrete runway. The problem of the wheels "toeing in"
is caused when one wheel grips more than the other. There is a video of a 109 undercarriage collapse and that is on a hard runway.

stona · Jul 9, 2011

pbfoot said:
they can all operate in such conditions if necessary of the one landing or taking off /QUOTE]

There's some great footage about of some Fw190 (Doras) taking of from a flooded field. I can't find it but it is hair raising to watch.
Cheers
Steve

P-40K-5 · Jul 9, 2011

Mustang nut said:
There is a video of a 109 undercarriage collapse and that is on a hard runway.

that would have been a 'homemade' 109 replica that your refering too.

P-40K-5 · Jul 9, 2011

pbfoot said:
, but on a side note i think you have a little tunnel vision and should listen to those on this web sight are a little brighter or aware of real life aviation

' real life aviation'. show me any example today which replicates the aircraft conditions faced in WWII. I'm not bright enough
to find any. thanks.

pbfoot · Jul 9, 2011

P-40K-5 said:
' real life aviation'. show me any example today which replicates the aircraft conditions faced in WWII. I'm not bright enough
to find any. thanks.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19teA1bHvY8 and did you even look at the link of the pilot a current day test pilot who did the descriotion of 109 take off , BTW thats an origianal 109 flown by Marseille in BoB

parsifal · Jul 9, 2011

P-40K-5 said:
' real life aviation'. show me any example today which replicates the aircraft conditions faced in WWII. I'm not bright enough
to find any. thanks.

I can think of one at least. The example i quoted before of the RAN Carrier Melbourne. A 14000 ton WWII Light carrier, with a corrugated deck, a maximum speed of just 21 knots, a short flight deck, and an underpowered catapult. Yet she was asked to operate A4 Skyhawks, S2 trackers, Wessex and Sea Kings, all aircraft way outside her original design specs/

Another example, from my own backyard. Australia continued to operate fixed wing aircraft from unimproved rough jungle strips in New Guinea well into the 1990s. Mostly Caibous, but also Hercules Iroquois, Chinook Nomads and once or twice, Sabres (I am told).

Then there are untold operations in Vietnam that I can think of.

Not all modern operations are undertaken from asphalt or under anything like ideal conditions. And to be blunt about it, the mud operations that you posted are pretty standard in jungle operations

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8NlZfg-omg

P-40K-5 · Jul 9, 2011

aight, so, those examples are a direct equivilent to properler driven 1400+hp 6700lb taildraggers operating in the mud/water? if so, I stand corrected, thanks for the information.

vikingBerserker · Jul 9, 2011

I think a great example of this would also be the Swedish Airforce. At least with the Viggens they operated them from non-paved runways.

parsifal · Jul 9, 2011

P-40K-5 said:
aight, so, those examples are a direct equivilent to properler driven 1400+hp 6700lb taildraggers operating in the mud/water? if so, I stand corrected, thanks for the information.

Indeed, a trick question. What air forces operate taildraggers in their modern inventories? I assumed you were referring to the difficulty of operations. Because no-one operates WWII aircraft in their modern airforces (with the possible exception of the gooney bird, it is impossible to find comparable examples from the modern era.

An oxymoron, but you you are correct

pbfoot · Jul 9, 2011

if you look at a lot of eastern block aircraft they have fenders over nose wheel to prevent fodding engine out when operating from unprepared fields

Shortround6 · Jul 9, 2011

And the real question is not if you could operate in those conditions but what it did to the accident rate. What was considered an acceptable loss rate due to accidents caused by weather conditions before they stopped operations?

tyrodtom · Jul 10, 2011

The allies developed PSP, (pierched steel planking ) 2x8 pieces of interlocking panels to make usable runways out of the muddiest ground, you could lay it directly over dirt, or even better over a crushed stone base. It was used a lot in Europe and the Pacific, for temporary or semi-permanent airfields.
In the late 60's I was at Naknon Phanom, Thailand. They operated 3000hp + hp taildraggers ( A-1E H's ) off a dirt stip, ( mud, during monsoon season ) until they put the psp down in , I think, 66.

Kryten · Jul 10, 2011

many cases of fields being out of commision due to waterlogging during the winter of 1944!

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

Major General

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Attachments

Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Banned

Major

Banned

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Colonel

Banned

Lieutenant General

Colonel

Attachments

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads