SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Effective camo. I didn't even notice the tail.
The Zero's Maneuverability (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
Not a big difference when it comes to the tires on the deck.
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
In the example in the picture, the wingtips meet just above the cockpit. Wings folding closer to the fuselage than halfways in, will result in the tips meeting higher up, and thus require a higher hangar. Unless you're Grumman.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?
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
For sure, the B5N fold saves a lot of space in the hangar and means you can get it up and down a smaller elevator. Maybe the B5N was designed to fit on smaller elevators on other carriers or simply to save space? Who knows? But looking at the attached picture of the Hiryu's elevators, it looks like the elevators were of different size and the Zero's fold was done to make it "elevatorable" on smaller type elevators.
Admiral Beez
Major
Wing tips aside, the non-folding wing on the A6M was such as wasteful use of hangar space. The only bespoke (vs. converted land-based aircraft) monoplane, retractable undercarriage carrier fighters without folding wings I can think of are the Brewster Buffalo and the A6M. I suppose there's also the early F4Fs, but they switched to folding asap. I wonder what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed if he was required to include folding wings. Maybe he could reduce the A6M's superlative endurance as this seems superfluous.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I believe Jiro designed the A6M's fold using the most minimal calculations.
Having the fold placed at the maximum allowable width, means less reinforcing which in turn means less of a weight penalty.
The tips could also be easily moved by ground crew, eliminating the need for a hydraulic system and the weight that it would add to the airframe.
Having the fold placed at the maximum allowable width, means less reinforcing which in turn means less of a weight penalty.
The tips could also be easily moved by ground crew, eliminating the need for a hydraulic system and the weight that it would add to the airframe.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Considering there were only 3 navies in the world building "bespoke" carrier fighter planes of any type in 1939/40 (and the F4F was using fixed wings at the time) then the fixed wing was the 'standard' of the day. It took time to get into folding wings.
The Japanese had built the 1st monoplane carrier fighter (production) but with fixed landing gear. The A6M was a continuation of the A5M design thinking (not the actual aircraft) in that light weight and streamlining were ways to get around low power of the available engines.
Many in Japan thought that even 100lbs could make a difference in success between two otherwise identical fighters.
The Japanese thought that a smaller number of superior performing fighters would be better than a larger number of lower performing fighters.
The Zero was designed to be the lightest plane possible in terms of construction to maximize the performance from the available engines.
Not just speed, but climb, turn, range, and it still needed a low landing speed and while carrying all standard equipment.
Specs for the A6M wanted equal or super maneuverability to the A5M while carrying more armament and flying almost twice as far and flying faster and climbing better.
Now you want it to fold into a smaller space below deck?
Admiral Beez
Major
Perhaps Nakajima had the manpower to design the folding wing. Put a thinner version of their B5N's folding mechanism onto their Ki-43 Hayabusa. Thought it seems that every Japanese fighter is designed around a monolithic, single piece wing.
Admiral Beez
Major
In 1939-40? No. Keep it fixed wing like the F4F. But by 42-43, yes, like how the F4F (and even the Seafire) moved to folding wings.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Because it is the lightest way to design a wing.
The F4F-3 had an 893lb wing. The F4F used an 1181lb wing. Last number is going to vary a few lbs due to production tolerance. F4F wing was it heavier due to the extra gun provisions (mounts? and doors) but the bulk of the weight change was due to the wing fold. Weight of the guns is a separate line item as is the weight of the ammo.
Now some Armies/Air forces/Navies wanted two piece wings for ease of transport of spare wings or ease of repair. P-36s and P-40s wings could be repaired by changing one side and not the entire wing. They were willing to pay the cost in weight.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
A6M2 folding wing tip looked like this; actually from the famous Akutan recovered. Also a closer shot of the hinge, note the locking tab (top of the wing is in the bottom of the shot) with remnants of the red paint. You can also see the tab in the first shot.
Admiral Beez
Major
I wonder how they'd turn without the tips.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Wouldn't that be the "Hamp"?
Bingo! Structural strength.
The Zero had a few reversals of design decisions, the later A6M5s didn't have folding wings and the self sealing tanks and armour added were removed. This was a deliberate attempt to leverage some performance back against superior Allied fighters, although the A6M5 was no match in speed against any of the Allied frontliners by 1944/'45.
A6M5 wingtip without folding tip.
A6M2 wing with folding tip.
A6M5.
Yes. The Hamp, or Zeke 32 as the US initially knew the A6M3 Model 32 with the clipped tips. An example captured in December 1942 underwent extensive testing at Eagle Farm in Australia and it was found that the rate of roll improved over previous models, which was attributed to the clipped tips, despite the A6M3 being heavier overall than the A6M2. Its rate of climb was better than current USAAF fighters at rated power, with the type's other positives, such as excellent low speed manoeuvrability, but all the negatives of the type applied, no self sealing tanks, armour plating, it was slow, controls stiffen at high speed negating the manoeuvrability advantages, etc.
See Dave's answer below and my additions
Yip, add to that a tail heaviness on the ground, which had a tendency for the tail wheel to want to lead when taxying and the Bf 109 was very difficult to control at speed while on the ground. It was easy enough while the pilot was going slow, but when he increased speed, the only directional control was the brakes as deflecting the rudder did nothing because it was so small, until the tail came up. Combine all that with the corkscrew of the prop and the aircraft becomes decidedly difficult to handle. The most vulnerable time for Bf 109 pilots was rollout after landing, as any attempt to manoeuvre the aircraft until the speed washed off naturally would result in a ground loop, and heavy braking resulted in the Fliegerdenkmal (!) Nosing over.
British pilots had similar experiences learning to fly the Spitfire, but it was less tail heavy and the gear being shorter meant it was not so unstable when changing direction on the ground, but it was no less prone to ground looping on landing. German test pilots flying Spitfires said that landing them was like "child's play", commenting that it was very easy to fly. The Spit also had lower wing loading and greater wing area per mass than the Bf 109.
Last edited:
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Here's an article from Naval Aviation News, the 1 Oct 1945 issue, which while explicitly referring to the FM series, is applicable to the F4F as well, pages 24-25
Wildcat Factograph
An appalling proportion of the FM's rolling off the production line were wrecked or damaged before a year was out due to accidents with the pilot at the controls, and, without a Jap in sight. The cost of Wildcats thus wrecked, plus the cost of replacing damaged parts of repairable aircraft, has run into many millions of dollars a year, representing the annual labor of thousands of men. In about seven out of 10 cases, boards assigned pilots primary responsibility, and in others they were held partially responsible. An analysis of 1000 pilot caused Wildcat mishaps covering somewhat less than a year, placed three-fourths of them in seven specific categories: groundloops and swerves (27%), hard or bounce carrier landings (14%), failure to lower or lock wheels down (12%), pilot-caused engine failure (7%), hold-off barrier crashes (5%), spins on landing approach (5%), and nose-ups while taxiing (5%). An analysis of all the crashes studied follows.
Groundloops And Swerves -
The difficulty in maintaining directional control on the ground is a most prolific source of trouble in the narrow-geared FM, accounting for one out of every four pilot caused accidents. Every landing in the FM is a potential groundloop; you can't just sit there and let it land itself. Before beginning your approach, be sure your tail wheel is locked, and brakes pumped. To avoid landing in a skid, contact the tower for information on crosswinds and gusts, and be sure the designated runway is the one most nearly into the wind. If your approach is ragged, or if there is danger of slipstreams, you can avoid trouble by taking a wave-off.
After you have landed keep your eyes peeled for embryonic groundloops. Line up with a reference point, avoid depending on the rudder after you have slowed down to 35 knots, beware of over-correcting, and leave that tail wheel locked until you can turn safely.
In carrier landings you can avoid the catwalk by a good approach. If you angle in, land off center, or land with one wing down, you can't expect to stay on the deck.
During takeoffs, in addition to insuring that the brakes are right, and the tail wheel locked, there is that little matter of rudder tab – 2½ marks nose-right in the normal case, but less or more, depending on the direction and the strength of the crosswinds. If it's touch-and-go, apply the throttle for the take-off, promptly, to help maintain control, but smoothly, to avoid torque. When you are taking off from a carrier, make certain that you release both brakes at the same instant, and that you don't get excited and over correct if your FM starts veering toward the catwalk.
Groundloops and swerves while taxiing simply shouldn't happen, but every few days some pilot promotes an accident by attempting a turn with excess speed, by catching his plain's tail in a slipstream, by failing to check his brakes, or by fast taxiing. Many accidents occurring during the take-off or landing, really begin with the pilot asking for trouble by riding his brakes on a taxi strip coincident with excessive throttle, or in a stiff cross-wind.
You can't avoid groundloops in the FM by experience alone. There is no substitute for constant vigilance.
Spins During Landing Approach –
Approximately five out of every seven spin-stall accidents in the FM occur during the landing approach, especially during field-carrier landing practice. The turn to final approach is the point of incidence of the largest portion of these accidents, but the turn to the cross-wind leg and the groove itself also claim a substantial share. Spins during wave-offs are not uncommon, especially following slow, mushing carrier or field-carrier approaches.
Frequently, the stall originates upon hitting an unexpected slip stream; sometimes after slowing down excessively to lengthen the interval between the planes. In other cases, the pilot overshoots the groove, or makes his crosswind leg too close aboard, and finds himself in a tight turn into final with inadequate lift.
The penalties of a slow approach (in the form of spins, colliding with obstructions, undershooting, etc.) are frequent and serious. Hence, insofar as airspeed during the approach is concerned, by all means don't err on the slow side. Rather than attempt a steep bank into the groove to correct over shooting, take a wave-off. But in taking the wave-off, be sure to level your wings as you ease on the throttle and be on the alert for the tendency of the nose to rise.
Pilot-Caused Engine Failure –
The FM single tank fuel system is simplicity in the extreme, but that doesn't stop some pilots from having fuel troubles. One favorite trick is to turn the selector valve to a non-existent "droppable" or "off," while intending to actuate the adjacent flap control. Another is to fly dumbly along with a stuck fuel gauge, apparently the gas to last forever. To keep yourself out of fuel troubles, make sure your tank is topped-off properly before you begin your hop, adjust your mixture, your RPM, and your manifold pressure, so you will end up with the most gas in your flight – not the least; and return to base promptly and at economical speed if your gas gets low, calling the tower for an emergency landing if you have the slightest doubt about the quantity of fuels remaining.
A considerable portion of pilot-caused engine trouble in the Wildcat takes place during the take-off. Throttle-creep sometimes occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the throttle to crank up the wheels, so don't neglect the friction-brake knob. Attempted take-off with the engine loaded up after long idling is another frequent error, the cure being a. always make the 5-second idle mixture check which is discussed in TO 80-44, and b. always clear engine fully after long idling.
During touch-and-go practice (and wave-offs), pilots occasionally get into engine difficulties by failing to adjust prop pitch and mixture controls; also, the sudden jamming on of throttle sometimes causes the FM engine to falter or fail completely in a crisis.
Hold-Off Barrier Crashes –
Hold-off barrier crashes are the fifth most frequent type of pilot cause Wildcat accident. In the typical case, the pilot makes a somewhat fast approach, takes the cut, but fails to fly the airplane down to the deck. Or the pilot may make contact with the deck but fail to force and hold the tail down with the stick. Occasionally an accident has its inception in failure to chop the throttle completely and immediately upon receipt of the LSO's signal.
When the cut is taken, don't "horse" back on the stick immediately. This will float you into the barrier or stall you out high. The stick should not be pulled back until the plane has started to settle. Then it should be eased back to cushion the landing.
Admittedly, it takes some pretty fancy piloting, coupled with keen depth perception, to fly down to the deck without diving, and to get and hold the tail down without floating. But the task is made easier with a good approach, which means immediate response to all of the LSO's signals.
Hard or Bounce Landings –
The shock of hard landings is not readily absorbed by the short oleo struts of the FM landing gear, nor does the short deck of a jeep carrier, from which the FM operates, permit much of a bounce before you find your prop chewing up the barrier. So, in the Wildcat, you have to avoid diving for the deck as you would avoid the plague.
Stay out of trouble by replying promptly to the LSO's signals relative to altitude and speed. When you get the cut, do not drop your nose, for if you do, you are sure to hit hard and bounce into the barrier; or if you luckily have caught a wire, damage your aircraft in the landing area. Hold your nose in the position it is in at the time of the cut. When you commence to settle in this attitude, ease the stick back.
Wheels Up Or Unlocked –
The FM, only Navy combat plane with a hand-cranked landing gear operating mechanism, has its own unique causes of numerous wheels-up landings. The hand crank normally requires 28 turns to get the wheels down. It's a good idea to count your turns, but don't depend upon count alone, for in some cases more turns are required. A point is reached in turning the crank handle at which it becomes difficult to rotate the handle. But don't stop there because hardened grease and grit may be causing the crank to stick.
You must observe the position-of-wheels indicator, but this alone is like-wise not dependable. To make sure your wheels are down and locked, turn the crank as for as it will go, at which point you should feel a definite metal-to-metal indication. If the wheels are full down, the extended position lock will remove all possibility of the wheels retracting during your run-out.
Wildcat pilots have their share of those Dilbert accidents wherein no attempt whatsoever is made to lower the gear, and those cases where lowering of the wheels is not completed after having been interrupted for various reasons. If you make a practice of always going over your check-off list, double-checking your wheels, handle, contacting the tower and of glancing at the runway watch for a wheels-up indication, your chances of forgetting to crank your wheels down are infinitesimal.
The landing gear of this airplane must not be abused. If you make a heavy landing, be sure the gear is inspected before the plane is flown again. Some pilots seem to have adopted a sort of "G" method of lowering the gear, that is, unlatching the hand crank, then pulling the nose up to let the gear lower itself. This may result easily in damage to the operating mechanism, and it is definitely not recommended. Several cases of stripped gears have occurred after the hand crank tore out of the pilot's hand and the wheels "ran away." A properly adjusted friction brake, and a firm grip on the crank handle, prevent this type of accident.
Taxi Nose-Ups
The Wildcat has a very marked tendency to nose up, and must be treated accordingly. Accidents of this nature occur most frequently when you hit the slipstream of another plane, but sudden brakes and gusty crosswinds are also common contributory causes.
To avoid taxi nose-ups in the FM, you must use great care while taxiing behind other planes, particularly at the take-off position, and at other places where engines are being run up. Conversely, whenever you are running up your engine, take care to see that no Wildcat (or any other plane for that matter) is in a vulnerable spot behind you.
END
Probably more than anyone wanted to know.
Rich
Wildcat Factograph
An appalling proportion of the FM's rolling off the production line were wrecked or damaged before a year was out due to accidents with the pilot at the controls, and, without a Jap in sight. The cost of Wildcats thus wrecked, plus the cost of replacing damaged parts of repairable aircraft, has run into many millions of dollars a year, representing the annual labor of thousands of men. In about seven out of 10 cases, boards assigned pilots primary responsibility, and in others they were held partially responsible. An analysis of 1000 pilot caused Wildcat mishaps covering somewhat less than a year, placed three-fourths of them in seven specific categories: groundloops and swerves (27%), hard or bounce carrier landings (14%), failure to lower or lock wheels down (12%), pilot-caused engine failure (7%), hold-off barrier crashes (5%), spins on landing approach (5%), and nose-ups while taxiing (5%). An analysis of all the crashes studied follows.
Groundloops And Swerves -
The difficulty in maintaining directional control on the ground is a most prolific source of trouble in the narrow-geared FM, accounting for one out of every four pilot caused accidents. Every landing in the FM is a potential groundloop; you can't just sit there and let it land itself. Before beginning your approach, be sure your tail wheel is locked, and brakes pumped. To avoid landing in a skid, contact the tower for information on crosswinds and gusts, and be sure the designated runway is the one most nearly into the wind. If your approach is ragged, or if there is danger of slipstreams, you can avoid trouble by taking a wave-off.
After you have landed keep your eyes peeled for embryonic groundloops. Line up with a reference point, avoid depending on the rudder after you have slowed down to 35 knots, beware of over-correcting, and leave that tail wheel locked until you can turn safely.
In carrier landings you can avoid the catwalk by a good approach. If you angle in, land off center, or land with one wing down, you can't expect to stay on the deck.
During takeoffs, in addition to insuring that the brakes are right, and the tail wheel locked, there is that little matter of rudder tab – 2½ marks nose-right in the normal case, but less or more, depending on the direction and the strength of the crosswinds. If it's touch-and-go, apply the throttle for the take-off, promptly, to help maintain control, but smoothly, to avoid torque. When you are taking off from a carrier, make certain that you release both brakes at the same instant, and that you don't get excited and over correct if your FM starts veering toward the catwalk.
Groundloops and swerves while taxiing simply shouldn't happen, but every few days some pilot promotes an accident by attempting a turn with excess speed, by catching his plain's tail in a slipstream, by failing to check his brakes, or by fast taxiing. Many accidents occurring during the take-off or landing, really begin with the pilot asking for trouble by riding his brakes on a taxi strip coincident with excessive throttle, or in a stiff cross-wind.
You can't avoid groundloops in the FM by experience alone. There is no substitute for constant vigilance.
Spins During Landing Approach –
Approximately five out of every seven spin-stall accidents in the FM occur during the landing approach, especially during field-carrier landing practice. The turn to final approach is the point of incidence of the largest portion of these accidents, but the turn to the cross-wind leg and the groove itself also claim a substantial share. Spins during wave-offs are not uncommon, especially following slow, mushing carrier or field-carrier approaches.
Frequently, the stall originates upon hitting an unexpected slip stream; sometimes after slowing down excessively to lengthen the interval between the planes. In other cases, the pilot overshoots the groove, or makes his crosswind leg too close aboard, and finds himself in a tight turn into final with inadequate lift.
The penalties of a slow approach (in the form of spins, colliding with obstructions, undershooting, etc.) are frequent and serious. Hence, insofar as airspeed during the approach is concerned, by all means don't err on the slow side. Rather than attempt a steep bank into the groove to correct over shooting, take a wave-off. But in taking the wave-off, be sure to level your wings as you ease on the throttle and be on the alert for the tendency of the nose to rise.
Pilot-Caused Engine Failure –
The FM single tank fuel system is simplicity in the extreme, but that doesn't stop some pilots from having fuel troubles. One favorite trick is to turn the selector valve to a non-existent "droppable" or "off," while intending to actuate the adjacent flap control. Another is to fly dumbly along with a stuck fuel gauge, apparently the gas to last forever. To keep yourself out of fuel troubles, make sure your tank is topped-off properly before you begin your hop, adjust your mixture, your RPM, and your manifold pressure, so you will end up with the most gas in your flight – not the least; and return to base promptly and at economical speed if your gas gets low, calling the tower for an emergency landing if you have the slightest doubt about the quantity of fuels remaining.
A considerable portion of pilot-caused engine trouble in the Wildcat takes place during the take-off. Throttle-creep sometimes occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the throttle to crank up the wheels, so don't neglect the friction-brake knob. Attempted take-off with the engine loaded up after long idling is another frequent error, the cure being a. always make the 5-second idle mixture check which is discussed in TO 80-44, and b. always clear engine fully after long idling.
During touch-and-go practice (and wave-offs), pilots occasionally get into engine difficulties by failing to adjust prop pitch and mixture controls; also, the sudden jamming on of throttle sometimes causes the FM engine to falter or fail completely in a crisis.
Hold-Off Barrier Crashes –
Hold-off barrier crashes are the fifth most frequent type of pilot cause Wildcat accident. In the typical case, the pilot makes a somewhat fast approach, takes the cut, but fails to fly the airplane down to the deck. Or the pilot may make contact with the deck but fail to force and hold the tail down with the stick. Occasionally an accident has its inception in failure to chop the throttle completely and immediately upon receipt of the LSO's signal.
When the cut is taken, don't "horse" back on the stick immediately. This will float you into the barrier or stall you out high. The stick should not be pulled back until the plane has started to settle. Then it should be eased back to cushion the landing.
Admittedly, it takes some pretty fancy piloting, coupled with keen depth perception, to fly down to the deck without diving, and to get and hold the tail down without floating. But the task is made easier with a good approach, which means immediate response to all of the LSO's signals.
Hard or Bounce Landings –
The shock of hard landings is not readily absorbed by the short oleo struts of the FM landing gear, nor does the short deck of a jeep carrier, from which the FM operates, permit much of a bounce before you find your prop chewing up the barrier. So, in the Wildcat, you have to avoid diving for the deck as you would avoid the plague.
Stay out of trouble by replying promptly to the LSO's signals relative to altitude and speed. When you get the cut, do not drop your nose, for if you do, you are sure to hit hard and bounce into the barrier; or if you luckily have caught a wire, damage your aircraft in the landing area. Hold your nose in the position it is in at the time of the cut. When you commence to settle in this attitude, ease the stick back.
Wheels Up Or Unlocked –
The FM, only Navy combat plane with a hand-cranked landing gear operating mechanism, has its own unique causes of numerous wheels-up landings. The hand crank normally requires 28 turns to get the wheels down. It's a good idea to count your turns, but don't depend upon count alone, for in some cases more turns are required. A point is reached in turning the crank handle at which it becomes difficult to rotate the handle. But don't stop there because hardened grease and grit may be causing the crank to stick.
You must observe the position-of-wheels indicator, but this alone is like-wise not dependable. To make sure your wheels are down and locked, turn the crank as for as it will go, at which point you should feel a definite metal-to-metal indication. If the wheels are full down, the extended position lock will remove all possibility of the wheels retracting during your run-out.
Wildcat pilots have their share of those Dilbert accidents wherein no attempt whatsoever is made to lower the gear, and those cases where lowering of the wheels is not completed after having been interrupted for various reasons. If you make a practice of always going over your check-off list, double-checking your wheels, handle, contacting the tower and of glancing at the runway watch for a wheels-up indication, your chances of forgetting to crank your wheels down are infinitesimal.
The landing gear of this airplane must not be abused. If you make a heavy landing, be sure the gear is inspected before the plane is flown again. Some pilots seem to have adopted a sort of "G" method of lowering the gear, that is, unlatching the hand crank, then pulling the nose up to let the gear lower itself. This may result easily in damage to the operating mechanism, and it is definitely not recommended. Several cases of stripped gears have occurred after the hand crank tore out of the pilot's hand and the wheels "ran away." A properly adjusted friction brake, and a firm grip on the crank handle, prevent this type of accident.
Taxi Nose-Ups
The Wildcat has a very marked tendency to nose up, and must be treated accordingly. Accidents of this nature occur most frequently when you hit the slipstream of another plane, but sudden brakes and gusty crosswinds are also common contributory causes.
To avoid taxi nose-ups in the FM, you must use great care while taxiing behind other planes, particularly at the take-off position, and at other places where engines are being run up. Conversely, whenever you are running up your engine, take care to see that no Wildcat (or any other plane for that matter) is in a vulnerable spot behind you.
END
Probably more than anyone wanted to know.
Rich
To at least partly exonerate the poor pilots, it must be stated that most of these FMs had to operate on and from the restricted decks of Escort Carriers.
MiTasol
Captain
I strongly suspect that a lot of the ground handling problems with the Me-109 and Wildcat come from the fact that the landing gear width changes dramatically as the shock struts compress and expand. If the aircraft wing is not perfectly parallel to the ground this must cause a certain amount of sideways movement which will throw the aircraft off track a certain amount.
On the Spitfire the struts are far closer to vertical than on the 109 so there is far less of this uncontrollable and unpredictable side to side movement.
On the Wildcat there is no camber on the wheels but the track width changes are very large meaning that, as with the 109, as the load comes down on the tyres they are forced to skid sideways. Obviously any variation on the weight on each wheel, or grip of the tyres and/or landing surface will cause the aircraft to change direction a certain amount and this will be exacerbated by uneven surfaces and cross winds.
On the Spitfire the struts are far closer to vertical than on the 109 so there is far less of this uncontrollable and unpredictable side to side movement.
On the Wildcat there is no camber on the wheels but the track width changes are very large meaning that, as with the 109, as the load comes down on the tyres they are forced to skid sideways. Obviously any variation on the weight on each wheel, or grip of the tyres and/or landing surface will cause the aircraft to change direction a certain amount and this will be exacerbated by uneven surfaces and cross winds.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Japanese did seem to get their landing gear designs right.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
