Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
yes, but only as far too say during taxing. but not as a result of take-offs or Landings. as stated above for take-off accidents, landing accidents would obviously
be for a damaged a/c or running out of fuel. combine that with the primative airfields, I don't think to many a/c would fare well.
also, no doubt there were accidents that was the direct result of the landing gear. the angles caused quit a bit of stress and led to landing gear failor.
whether it was more so then other a/c.. hard to say.
If a gear arrangement like the 109's and the Spitfire's was advantageous, more fighters would have had it. Messerschmitt dropped it for the ME309 in 1940. Supermarine dropped the arrangement in 1942 with the Spiteful. Why? Because the advantages of lightweight wings (faster roll rate, simplified wing design, etc.) did not outweigh the disadvantages of handling problems and load bearing problems.
but we're not talking about spits or other fighters now. Willy made his 109 landing gear the way it is for two primary reasons.
1. ease of transportation
2. ease of field servicing when the wings have to come off.
he, nor most pilots, mechanics, etc. did not see the need to change it. I tend to agree.
Would you agree the 109 suffered a significantly higher loss rate due to its landing gear than other fighters?
I'm fairly sure flight performance was also a factor in the gear design.
Pilots and mechanics have been known to gloss over the weaknesses of aircraft they love.
Obviously Willy saw a need for change when designing a better performing aircraft than the 109. So did Supermarine when designing a successor to the Spitfire.
I don't think you will convince me that the 109s gear was not a greater liability than it was an asset.
Here is a recent article about flying the 109 and a description of the undercarriage problems , it was done ny a current test pilot about 2yrs ago he alos has the Spit , Hurri, P40, Corsair , P51
Bounding Clouds - Flying the Messerschmitt Bf-109 > Vintage Wings of Canada
The pilot may have doubts about the percentages, but he does indicate issues with the gear due to the wheel angle. How do you explain Messerschmitt abandoning this gear configuration in designs meant to replace the 109s. Of course the late model 109s retained the gear, it was impossible to change it! I don't think its anybodys "job" to convince me. This forum is just as susceptible to years of propagating miss-information as any other source. Show me the data that refutes my belief.
yeah, the replacement for the 109.. most of the German/Finn pilots had ZERO I repeat ZERO complaints about the 109
l/g. the only ones that did complain for the most part are RAF USAAF pilots flying captured 109's. which, more then
likely were damaged. the Russians had no complaints for the most part.
thats what happens when one flys a/c with spacious cabins cup holders... the moment they fly a very " mechanical"
a/c the complaints start to fly (haha).
data vs the pilots who flew them in battle words? I'll take the pilots word anyday.
Say what you might neither the 109 or Spit deserve to be in this conversation as far as fighters go they were at their best by dates in late 43, war had changed and they lacked one trait that the US fighters had the ability to project their power very far . It was the 109 that got smacked down by the 51 in 44 , although they had the advantage of radar , playing the part of the defender etc and the Spit was playing also ran because it couldn't take the war to the LW
Yes the 109 had its way until the 51 arrived , it could pick and choose when to fight it had the advantage of ground control and fighting over its home territory the USAAF fighters negated this ability. please do not think that I am saying the US was better as it was far from that . When the 51 arrived in 43 the LW was waning and the 51 was able to complete the task that was started by Russians and Commonwealththe P-51 gave the Bf109 the smackdown??? I don't think so. I'd check your sources again. when all was said
and done, the Bf109 came out ahead of all allied aircraft in the ETO MTO.
the B-17 layeth the smacketh down on the 109 if truth be known.
but yeah I guess when 150 Bf109's engage 700-800 fighters and 1100-1200 B-17's on a single mission, 2/3rds
of the 109's come home.. then yeah, thats a smackdown
. If the LW could have it would have had these type of fighters tell me they were not aware of these shortcomings after the BoB. When they launched 109s after the B17s the 109s would sometimes not even make contact but would have to land and refuel and try and continue the chaseThat's a very simplistic view.Have you thought whether each airforce had specific needs and needed aircraft with different performance characteristics?
Say what you might neither the 109 or Spit deserve to be in this conversation as far as fighters go they were at their best by dates in late 43, war had changed and they lacked one trait that the US fighters had the ability to project their power very far . It was the 109 that got smacked down by the 51 in 44 , although they had the advantage of radar , playing the part of the defender etc and the Spit was playing also ran because it couldn't take the war to the LW
The Spit was past its best by date by 44 , it was a wonderful interceptor but there was little left to intercept. It had little range and its lack of range let the LW pick when and how to intercept that lovely aircraft. Yes it kept up in all the stats like speed and climb but was still restricted by its range , I believe RAAF and RCAF swapped over to the 51 as soon as the war ended.The Spitfire playing 'also ran'? to who?
The 'rhubarb missions' were very successfully accomplished by the later marks of Spitfire.(as well as other capable fighters)
The war against Germany was not all about bomber escorts.
Cheers
John
The Spit was past its best by date by 44 , it was a wonderful interceptor but there was little left to intercept. It had little range and its lack of range let the LW pick when and how to intercept that lovely aircraft. Yes it kept up in all the stats like speed and climb but was still restricted by its range , I believe RAAF and RCAF swapped over to the 51 as soon as the war ended.
In 44 would you opt for the 51 or Corsair or the Spit... to me its a no brainer
I know my share of Spit ops and I have talked to enough Spit jocks .Its an iconic aircraft for the period of 40-43 but after that its an also ran IMHO. I believe it was Portal that said to make a fighter with the range of the 51 it would cease to be a fighterI agree, it is a no brainer..the Spitfire.But, then I am English
After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire became the backbone of RAF Fighter Command and saw action in the European, Mediterranean, Pacific and the South-East Asian theatres. The Spitfire served in several roles, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber, carrier-based fighter, and trainer.
As I said earlier, defeating the Germans was not all about escorting bombers.
Apart from anything else the bomber command needed information....enter the photo recon Spitfire. High,fast and as far as Berlin.
Cheers
John
I know my share of Spit ops and I have talked to enough Spit jocks .Its an iconic aircraft for the period of 40-43 but after that its an also ran IMHO. I believe it was Portal that said to make a fighter with the range of the 51 it would cease to be a fighter