Admiral Beez
Major
Would a A6M with a B5N-like folding wing have been worse off due to the weight vs. the benefit of larger CAGs?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As long as he didn't also demand a wide track undercarriage.As a structural engineer, I would want to place the fold as far out as possible, given that the weight of the fold and lock fittings will increase dramatically the further inboard you do the fold. I don't know why, but I would guess the folds on the Zero's wings was done solely to make it fit on the carrier's elevator system.
But I guess the crew chiefs and carrier operations officers could be inclined to argue for a fold further in to fit more of them on the carrier. But I would think that that would have been part of the requirement spec from the beginning in that case. But given where they put the fold it probably wasn't. But if the customer wants the fold at the wing root, well then that would be where I would put it. Because the customer is always right isn't he?
Only if somebody else is buying the aircraftWide undercarriages are only for wimps. A real man lands with Bf 109 type landing gears!
Believe it or not, the early Spitfire main gear track was 5 ft. 8 in., which was narrower than the Bf109's track of 6 ft. 5 in. which happened to be identical to the F4F's track at 6 ft. 5 in.Wide undercarriages are only for wimps. A real man lands with Bf 109 type landing gears!
Believe it or not, the early Spitfire main gear track was 5 ft. 8 in., which was narrower than the Bf109's track of 6 ft. 5 in. which happened to be identical to the F4F's track at 6 ft. 5 in.
Do they have a line of hats? Asking for a friend.My cousin owns the propeller factory.
Didn't know that. But now that you mention it, it looks pretty narrow on the Spitfire as well. Wonder why we hear about so many problems on the BF 109 but not the Spitfire?.......
The Bf109, unlike other types with narrow tracks, had a unique geometry to the main gear design that had the wheels at an offset angle to allow them to retract flush into the wings.Wonder why we hear about so many problems on the BF 109 but not the Spitfire?
Could it be the condition of the airfields? Most of the -109 incidents I've seen on film seem to have occurred on French grass fields. How was their drainage compared to the British equivalents?
The Bf109, unlike other types with narrow tracks, had a unique geometry to the main gear design that had the wheels at an offset angle to allow them to retract flush into the wings.
The core of that design, was to simplify production as well as allowing the Bf109's wings to be removed for transport/servicing and the main gear's structure was also part of the engine mount.
The ground handling issues stem from the gear geometry and extreme camber of the tire's contact with the ground.
I don't expect the they were consulted when the A6M was specified. When you look at the hangar layouts of the IJN carriers, especially the conversions you can definitely see the benefit of a narrow folded footprint.But I guess the crew chiefs and carrier operations officers could be inclined to argue for a fold further in to fit more of them on the carrier.
Or a F4F Wildcat.Wide undercarriages are only for wimps. A real man lands with Bf 109 type landing gears!
A very real man does it like that!Wide undercarriages are only for wimps. A real man lands with Bf 109 type landing gears!
A very real man does it like that!
View attachment 829305
The Spitfire and F4F's main wheels had 0° camber, which meant that either grass or hard surfaces saw the aircraft handle reasonably well, even with a low time pilot.Still, the Spitfire's gear also looks pretty skimpy but it still seems to have done so much better.
Seems to be a FM-2.I don't expect the they were consulted when the A6M was specified. When you look at the hangar layouts of the IJN carriers, especially the conversions you can definitely see the benefit of a narrow folded footprint.
Or a F4F Wildcat.
View attachment 829303