The Zero's Maneuverability

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Zero had quite a complex hydraulic system operating the flaps, landing gear retraction and brakes, so much so that the US commentator wrote during a test report on the A6M5 that its hydraulic system was unnecessarily complex. The Zero's gear was robust enough for the punishing regimen of operating from carriers and the rough island strips the type found itself relegated to once the IJN lost its carriers. Oddly however, the Zero didn't have a park brake, which raised criticism in Allied test reports, meaning that on the ground, the pilot had to stamp on the brakes throughout ground runs.

NX712Z 01
 
I've noted a large number of landing related issues (or indications of such from a greater non-combat attrition rate) on F4F/Martlets in FAA service and it appears that the Sea Hurricane was actually less likely to crash when landing on.
 
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.
True - one big difference, however, is that when extended, both the Wildcat's and Spitfire's wheels were close to vertical. The BF-109, with its cantered wheels, will get into some weird self-steering action with any sort of roll. A lot of positive feedback there - sort of like the steering system for the front wheels of a Road Grader.
The deck angle that an airplane sits at is a big factor as well. The P-40 and F4U Corsair could be ground-looping beasts - until they lengthened the fuselage on the later P-40s, and extended the tailwheel leg on the Corsair.
Now I'm going to have to break out my straightedge and protractor.
 
A very real man does it like that!
View attachment 829305
ANd then has to wait for a couple of weeks for the trucks with the takeoff trolleys and JATO Rocket Units to snake their way through the Allied Fighter-Bomber cover so that they could actually perform a mission after being forward deployed.
That's what happened to the Ar 234 Photo Recon Prototypes that were sent to Belgium (I think it was, offhand) during the Normandy Invasion, since conventional recon aircraft weren't going to get anything. Of course, getting to fly the first operational missions in July 1944 wasn't super productive.
"Wonderful pictures, really. But in order to find out where the Allies are, all I need is a telephone."
 

As I said before from my perspective the problem on the 109 is not the canted wheels but the canted shock strut that changes the aircrafts track width as it/they compress and extend.

From what I can see the Wildcat had a worse landing accident rate that the Spit and 109 and the Wildcat is easiest to demonstrate how the track change affects the landing.

For the same reason the F4F/FM2 are very squirrelly on the ground. As you can see from the following factory blue print the wheels do not move straight up and down like on most aircraft (and this is almost true of the Spitfire) the Wildcat track changes considerably from the nominal 76.5 inch track (and the angle of the wheel to the ground also changes though far less). Don't ask me why the blueprint has the landing gear at an angle but the rest of the landing gear installation drawing horizontal. That is the manufacturers decision.
The sideways movement of each wheel from prior to touchdown to maximum oleo compression is just under 8 inches according to my scale rule.
That means the track actually varies close to 16 inches during maximum travel but, far more importantly for the poor blighter landing it if one main gear lands hard before the other touches (because the deck has tilted and/or a crosswind has tilted the aircraft and/or the pilot was just a little off on his approach) the the fuselage can lurch almost 8 inches to the opposite side as the one gear compresses. The pilot has virtually no way of counteracting this lurch and the inertia of the engine will keep the aircraft swinging that way which, unless he can catch it in time, will usually result in a ground loop on land and a visit to the catwalk on a carrier.

As the records in R Leonard 's post 597 show that was a very common accident on FM-2 and that also means on the F4F.






 
Last edited:
As I mentioned earlier, the Bf109's mainwheels had a positive camber (close to 25° as I recall) which influenced what is called "Lateral Force Variation".

Automobiles, like aircraft, are also influenced by LFV - this is why "Toe", "Caster" and "Camber" are key issues addressed in alignment.

The Spitfire and F4F, while having ground handling quirks of their own, did not have the added issues of the Bf109's due to having close to 0° camber.
 
A difference between the Seafire accident rate and Martlet accident rate is the sheer strength of the fuselage. Many a Seafire landed 'safely' but the fuselage was over stressed and wrinkled becoming beyond shipboard repair. In Korea the FAA engineers chose to ignore the published Seafire damage limits to maintain the operational sortie rate.

One reason for HMS Unicorn was to have at least a Fleet capacity to repair more major damage at sea without impacting the operational carrier operations. A little shore bombardment from the four twin 4" guns was a minor icing on the cake. Even in peacetime carriers lose a lot of aeroplanes when operating at sea.

The Salerno Seafire landing cover was in the worst non storm conditions possible. Hot and windless with little room for carriers to make wind over the decks. Many Seafires were lost or damaged in the operation but maintained the cover over the landings and their accident rate was greatly exacerbated by operating outside their normal limits with landings at high speed and take offs at the margin for the weight with a full warload. Even the tough Martlet would have had a raised accident rate.

However it was the Martlet that was the preferred escort carrier fighter; last meeting modern Luftwaffe fighters in March 1945 with four Luftwaffe fighters downed. FWIW I used to know a wartime FAA pilot who considered the Sea Hurricane the best deck landing choice for bad North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean weather deck landing followed by the Barracuda.

He considered the Swordfish as cheating for a fleet carrier as a high wind speed and a fleet carrier at speed make it difficult to catch up with the carrier with a speed over the deck as a 'fast trot'. Jogging speed we might term it today. The biggest risk at a heaving sea at slow speed was having the Swordfish hit from below by 20,000 tons of ship suddenly pitching up as one reached the cut off point. He lost one of his friends when the fleet carrier had reports of U-Boats nearby and could not leave the fleet so progressed too fast for his friend and their crew to catch up with the carrier and they were lost ditching far from the fleet formation despite being in W/T contact and heading for the carrier's radio beacon.
 
One of the big reasons why the Wildcat stayed in service particularly for the Escort Carriers was that, with all its quirks, it was "Good Around the Boat". Leroy Grumman was an early Naval Aviator, and know that the biggest danger that a Naval Aviator faced was getting off the ship, and getting back on, and he was willing to lose a bit of peak performance to give that edge.
 
A good point - another issue I've heard described (Nobody's going to let me fly their Wildcat) is that the rather "Soft" rebound ratio in the struts would cause one wing or the other to dip as the strut on one side or the other compressed. Not that big an issue in an arrested landing, but on a runway, or while taxiing, I can see it causing a reaction from the pilot that gets things into trouble.
 
The Seiran is gorgeous and I love it. With that said, wasn't it a bit of a light weight? As I haven't penciled in any research time for today, I can't qualify saying you might as well use A5Ms.
 

Users who are viewing this thread