Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Here are the aircraft service instructions for the Bf 109 G-1,3,5 and G-2,4,6.
Note, Part B, para 4. on both documents headed Fahrwerk translates;
"Landing Gear
Two shock struts, retractable sideways into the wings, and a nonretractable tail wheel."
However, the Flugzeug Handbuch chapters do show the retractable Tailwheel and the outer gear doors!
The Deckblatt Nr.1 explains,
"NOTE.
Due to the change of the Tailwheel leg lock in the aircraft model Bf 109 G-1 the Tailwheel is not retractable, the operating cylinder is deleted
and the hydraulic lines blanked."
Eng
Finnish Bf 109G-2 did not have. I don't know about Bf1009 version though.
(Sheldon Cooper mode)
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Spitfire's aerlerons each had two pivot hinge points.
GregP
Major
There is anecdotal evidence that early G models had their tailwheel retract mechanisms disabled when they gave some trouble in the field, and later, they switched to non-retract tailwheels for the G series.
That seems to me to be a bit doubtful sine there is no anecdotal evidence of chronic tailwheel issues in the Bf 109 (well, those that had retracting tailwheels, anyway) , but I've seen it in print, nonetheless. I KNOW they had issues with the G series because the tailwheels first fitted were larger than earlier units and didn't want to reliably retract into the size-unchanged tail wheel bay. To me, the solution would have been easy; go back to the slightly smaller tailwheel tire.
The Bf 109K had a retractable tailwheel and it didn't seem to have any issues, anecdotal or otherwise, so I'm guessing any issues with the G series could have been easily corrected if there was a desire to do so. Though I have read they solved the retract issue by disabling the retract function, I cannot recall where I read it, so it's in the realm of "I read that somewhere ..." and no reference for it means no proof.
In an earlier thread from 2008, Wurger said:
"It seems that G-2 version had both retractable and nonretractoble tail wheel.
According to Robert Pęczkowski's book about Bf109G version,Mushroom Model Magazine Special vol.I no 6101 the first changes to G-2 version were introduced in the autumn of 1942 when the new larger tyres were introduced.
The main landing gear had 660x160 tyres in place of the older 650x150 ones and the tail wheel with 350x135 instead of the 290x110 one.The rectractable tail wheel was abandoned in favour of fixed one in the same time.So before the modification was done, the G-2 version had been equipped with retractable tail wheel ..."
Sorry, don't know how to quote that thread. The title of the thread was, "Bf 109 G-2 Landing Gear Question."
However, the early K series were basically the same a a G series with a few minor tweaks and the K DID have a retracting tailwheel and, more importantly, looked the same as a G until a bit later when some got a longer tailwheel strut plus a few other changes well away from the tailwheel.
That seems to me to be a bit doubtful sine there is no anecdotal evidence of chronic tailwheel issues in the Bf 109 (well, those that had retracting tailwheels, anyway) , but I've seen it in print, nonetheless. I KNOW they had issues with the G series because the tailwheels first fitted were larger than earlier units and didn't want to reliably retract into the size-unchanged tail wheel bay. To me, the solution would have been easy; go back to the slightly smaller tailwheel tire.
The Bf 109K had a retractable tailwheel and it didn't seem to have any issues, anecdotal or otherwise, so I'm guessing any issues with the G series could have been easily corrected if there was a desire to do so. Though I have read they solved the retract issue by disabling the retract function, I cannot recall where I read it, so it's in the realm of "I read that somewhere ..." and no reference for it means no proof.
In an earlier thread from 2008, Wurger said:
"It seems that G-2 version had both retractable and nonretractoble tail wheel.
According to Robert Pęczkowski's book about Bf109G version,Mushroom Model Magazine Special vol.I no 6101 the first changes to G-2 version were introduced in the autumn of 1942 when the new larger tyres were introduced.
The main landing gear had 660x160 tyres in place of the older 650x150 ones and the tail wheel with 350x135 instead of the 290x110 one.The rectractable tail wheel was abandoned in favour of fixed one in the same time.So before the modification was done, the G-2 version had been equipped with retractable tail wheel ..."
Sorry, don't know how to quote that thread. The title of the thread was, "Bf 109 G-2 Landing Gear Question."
However, the early K series were basically the same a a G series with a few minor tweaks and the K DID have a retracting tailwheel and, more importantly, looked the same as a G until a bit later when some got a longer tailwheel strut plus a few other changes well away from the tailwheel.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It was my understanding that the E/F series onward got the larger diameter tail wheel in an attempt to mitigate ground handling issues.
One of the main reasons were the airfield conditions, since airfields often where no more than makeshift landing strips.
Especially during mud and winter seasons, fixing the tailwheel was the way to prevent failure (additionally removing the landing gear covers as they could clock up and would retract and fail re deploy. Same for the tailwheel.)
Losing some kph vmax was the tradeoff for making sure you could land (more) safely.
The eastern front airfields were much harsher than the nice ones in the west.
You can also find many pictures of soviet fighter, where the tailwheel failed or was in a fixed position.
View: https://youtu.be/TCCfJ2ToBMI?t=469
though this an is F-version Ks also often had there tailwheel fixed and landing gear covers removed when the airfield conditons demanded this.
GregP
Major
Thought so, too, plus the longer tailwheel strut ... none of which really cured the issue.
GregP
Major
As for airfield conditions, most forward landing fields were basically that, just a farmer's field or a flat (relatively) place that was clear enough to actually approach and land a plane there. Many were otherwise terrible and had no formal preparation to be a base at all.
I'm thinking especially of forward airstrips in Russia. When the weather armed, they were basically a quagmire. Sometime the aircraft were frozen to the ground in the morning and had to be freed with torches. Brutal conditions.
The early aircraft Handbuch for the Bf 109 G-1 undercarriage (dated March 1942) does show the outer wheel doors, and the retractable tailwheel. The Hydraulic system is still shown with these parts in the September 1942 issue. However, there are few photo's of production aircraft with the outer wheel doors and a few with the tailwheel retracted in flight.
The early G-1 and G-2 aircraft certainly had the Bf 109 F-3/4 type tailwheel leg and tyre of 290x110. Black-Six (W Nr 10639) built in Aug 1942 did not have the outer gear doors or the tailwheel retraction jack fitted, although it would bolt on, and it was fitted with the smaller tail wheel Yoke and 290x110 wheel/tyre. Later, we see the amendment to state that the tailwheel retraction was not functional on these aircraft. So, it would seem that, at the latest, by Aug 1942 the decision had been made to not incorporate these parts on production even at that early stage.
The larger tyres, mainwheel and tailwheel, were fitted to handle the increasing weight of the aircraft.
The only production Bf 109 K was the K-4, designed with outer gear doors and retractable tailwheel with doors. The rear assembly frame 9 joint of the fuselage and tail assembly had to be made open at the bottom for the long tail leg to pass through as the whole assembly was different. Also, the tail/rear fuselage structure was very different to earlier G types.
Of course, some K-4 aircraft seem to have had some other differences in this area!
Eng
K
And for the later G-10 the main gear was fully covered and the tail wheel was prepared to be exchanged for the fully retractable one (K-style)…but only on paper according to the manual…the reality at that stage of the war was, that the whole 109 line was a total mess…
I might add, the for the main gear the the full cover was always available as spare parts
And for the later G-10 the main gear was fully covered and the tail wheel was prepared to be exchanged for the fully retractable one (K-style)…but only on paper according to the manual…the reality at that stage of the war was, that the whole 109 line was a total mess…
GregP
Major
Planes of Fame has an Ha-1112 Buchon in the process of restoration. I was on the team for years.
It would be simple to add the retract tailwheel. It's a matter of two hydraulic lines (pressure and return) and the retract unit. The Ha-1112 is basically a Bf 109 G-2 airframe from the firewall back, with a Merlin 500 series up front originally. The only real difference from a G-2 is bumps on the wings for the 20 mm cannon breeches, a pair of holes in the spar for them to fit through, and some outboard fuel tanks that we removed and reinforced since this will be an airshow/movie airplane. The Merlin 500 disappeared long ago and ours has a Merlin 624 in it. 6 means Packard-built and it is a Packard version of a Merlin 24, which is a single-stage, 2-speed supercharger.
Nothing in the Bf 109 would be all that hard to modify except down inside the cockpit. Not much room in there to do anything. I was the idiot who put the nut on the ends of the bolts holding the landing gear brackets in. Head down by the rudder pedals and feet sticking out the cockpit. It was not easy getting out, I can tell you! Especially for an old guy!
We moved the hydraulic pump from the firewall to behind the cockpit to get it away from the engine heat, and balanced that by making a battery box and moving the battery from behind the cockpit to the firewall. That way, we are very unlikely to have a hydraulic fire since there is no heat source near it.
It is still "in work," but nobody is working on it since the pandemic. I suppose it has to climb back up the priority heap before anyone will finish it, but it is reasonably close to being flyable and the Merlin 624 has been overhauled.
Just an FYI post, nothing much new in here.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #73
When you see tailwheels of German fighters late/midwar and fighters from other nations it is noticeable that they are chunkier. Which means more drag in the case they were of non-retractable.
Reasons I saw mentioned for this were to cope with the partly bad landing trips and the higher weights.
Though British and American planes were often heavier but had better start and landing strips yet even the tailwheels of the carrier fighter variants (built for rough carrier operations) seem smaller than 109/190's. Look at Seafires and Bearcats.
Russian and Japanese fighters operated under adverse conditions, too, and, while of similar size and weight, sport smaller tailwheels than the German fighters. See La-5/7, Yak-9, Ki-84, N1K1.
Was there another reason?
Reasons I saw mentioned for this were to cope with the partly bad landing trips and the higher weights.
Though British and American planes were often heavier but had better start and landing strips yet even the tailwheels of the carrier fighter variants (built for rough carrier operations) seem smaller than 109/190's. Look at Seafires and Bearcats.
Russian and Japanese fighters operated under adverse conditions, too, and, while of similar size and weight, sport smaller tailwheels than the German fighters. See La-5/7, Yak-9, Ki-84, N1K1.
Was there another reason?
Piano hinges were used on the new wing fitted to the Mk21
GregP
Major
Some carrier airplanes had solid rubber tailwheel tires. The A6M is one of them.
I thought that Germans were much larger than the Allies.
Attachments
don4331
Senior Airman
As the weight of Messerschmitt's fighter keeps increasing, the tire sizes kept pace (I threw in the 309 in as it is "popular" at the moment with Dan & Callum's new book out)
I'm certain engineers would have loved to get 250kg out of the G models and go back to smaller tires, but better (stronger) materials to reduce weight were hard to come by.
Weights from my Model Art books on Willy's fighter, tire capacity from German aircraft landing gear by Gunther Sengfelder.
| Model | Empty weight (kg) | weight (kg) | Main wheels | Tail wheel |
| Bf.109D-1 | 1,580 | 2,170 | 650x150 | 260x85 |
| Bf.109E-3 | 2,010 | 2,609 | 650x150 | 290x110 |
| Bf.109F-4 | 2,020 | 2,890 | 650x150 | 290x110 |
| Bf.109G-6 | 2,268 | 3,196 | 660x160 | 350x135 |
| Bf.109K-4 | 2,346 | 3,362 | 660x190 | 350x135 |
| Nose Wheel | Main Wheel | |||
| Bf.109F Werknummer 5602 (tricycle gear mock up) | 465x165 Bf.110D thru G tailwheel | 650x150 | ||
| Me.309 | 650x150 | 700x175 |
| Tire size | Approved stationary wheel load (kg) |
| 260x85 | 300 |
| 290x110 | 450 |
| 350x135 | 650 |
| 465x165 | 1,200 |
| 650x150 | 1,400 |
| 660x190 | 1,700 |
| 700x175 | 1,960 |
I'm certain engineers would have loved to get 250kg out of the G models and go back to smaller tires, but better (stronger) materials to reduce weight were hard to come by.
Weights from my Model Art books on Willy's fighter, tire capacity from German aircraft landing gear by Gunther Sengfelder.
Last edited:
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,143
- Mar 26, 2007
This book. On eBay and Amazone.
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 744
- Mar 16, 2014
Carrier decks were seldom covered in mud several inches deep, so they didn't need to be wide or of large diameter.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
They were - it was the Iron Cross that made them larger than life.
