Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?

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

Good compilation.

Eng
 
spicmart said:
Then maybe the Germans had worse rubber material....
Click to expand...
There are records that the quality of German rubber products varied hugely in WW2. My first hand experience is that some rubber was good, sometimes original seals are as good as new, but other rubber seems very poor. The tyres of some German aircraft suffered badly and some Bf 109's were recorded as blowing tyres on a single sharp turn. Certainly, the 109 particularly stressed the sidewalls of the tyres on the inside edge. Some of those tyres were just 4-ply, and those plies were just canvas with no comparison in strength to modern materials. Furthermore, the German tyre loading tables possibly reflect the tyre performance when made with top quality materials, not the reality with mid or late war low quality.

Eng
 
Part of the issue is the tailwheel. It is sort of spring-loaded to center, and you have to stab the brakes very hard to make the tailwheel turn, even if you unlock it. At least, that's the way the Ha.1112 works. It is basically a Bf 109G-2 with a Merlin on the front.

From what I have seen, it would be hard to taxi on a muddy field, and you might have to use blasts of power against the rudder to affect the direction. Then again, perhaps I am missing something. Can't really tell.
 
Last edited:

The Bf 109 tail leg does have a fair amount of weight on it in the static 3-point position and when unlocked the strut does have a strong central detent, until it is turned about 15 degrees, after which it is easy to fully castor. With the lock engaged the leg will not turn at all and it will not break-out, unless the lock is u/s. Unlike many taildraggers, the standard 109 is turned at very slow speed using forward stick and a burst of power to partly unload the tail leg and initiate castor. Above about 10 kts slight brake is enough to initiate turns.
Ground handling in tight spots with engine running is greatly assisted by a member of groundcrew holding-back or pushing a wingtip to help initiate stationary turns. Normal man-handling is best achieved with use of the simple Messerschmitt designed tail leg steering arm that hooks onto the tail leg fork for steering and using manpower to push on the wings. Force required to turn the steering arm is low. However, without the steering arm it is difficult to initiate stationary turns with just manpower, particularly if the aircraft is fully fuelled. Additionally, the Messerschmitt manual cautions that the tail leg is not stressed for moving the aircraft by force, so the aircraft should not be moved by any rope, strut or device pushing or pulling the tail leg. The steering arm is purely for steering.
Original Messerschmitt main U/C legs have towing eyes at their base and suitable rigid towing frames can be used with a small tractor. Ropes in the towing eyes can be used to pull the aircraft but, as anyone who has towed with ropes knows, it is not recommended for more than a small movement and, a brakeman in the cockpit is essential.

Eng
 
Last edited:
We have a Bf 109G-10 in Arizona, an Ha-1112, and a Bf 109E in as-recovered condition off the bottom of a Russian lake. The Bf 109E belongs to a private party, and may or may not be restored. Depends on the owner's wishes. The Bf 109G-10 is on static display, but could be restored to flight if the Museum wants to do so. It's really in pretty decent shape.

I'm not the person who makes those choices. I just volunteer there and work on volunteer restoration projects. At this time, I am working on a B-17 cockpit display and on incorporating some ADs and Service Bulletins on the wings of a C-47. The team consists of four of us, not just me, and I'm not the one with the most restoration experience. Having some fun and we might get the C-47 flying again! Now THAT would be cool.
 
I had the great and unforgettable pleasure of "working" for a day in 1988 with the late Richard T Lutz at Planes of Fame Chino, as it was. Richard was very generous in showing
me around the aircraft, and particularly the G-10/U4 (U4 with the 30mm MK108). That aircraft is a hugely historic 109. It seems to have had very little messing about and is/was very complete. It has a wooden horizontal stab. I got to talk with Steve Hinton about the G-10 as we were rebuilding the G-2 in the UK and the G-10 seemed a similar possibility. Steve said he thought that they would not even try to rebuild the G-10 to fly as it had flown in the War. Well, many, many warbirds and crash wrecks do get rebuilt to fly. I think the real issue was
probably funding a worthy rebuild for that aircraft. An additional issue was that the DB 605 engine was a big unknown in those days. Steve pointed-out that the Hispano they operated was cheap and easy with the Merlin engine and made good money in displays and film work. We worked on the Bouchon. Steve was making a new spinner for the prop. He said he wanted it to have a bigger dia and a more rounded shape so that it looked more like a Bf 109 G so he had cut a bigger backplate to see how it might work.
In the back of the workshop was wreckage from the Red Barron. I asked Steve about building another Griffon Mustang but he seemed cool about that idea. Overall, I got the
impression that despite the valuable historic aircraft, money was tight.
The G-10 restored today? The experience and skills are available, but it would be very expensive and should really be done to historic standard, if at all.

Eng
 
I don't really know of an Air Museum that doesn't have money issues, with the possible exception of Yanks Air Museum. There, if the owner wants a project done, the money becomes available to get it done. It's not that the money isn't important; it's more along the lines of the fact that there is no board of directors. There is one person who can tell you whether the money is there to get a part or get a service done, and he is the person who chooses the projects that get completed. So, you CAN get an answer when you need something. It isn't always "yes," but you CAN get an answer and proceed or not.

I'm sure there are other, privately-owned museums similar to the situation at Yanks. It all boils down to how many people have to agree on whether or not to do something.

By way of example, Yanks recently completed restoration on their F6F-3 Hellcat. It sat for a couple of years in an almost-completed state because the wing tank fuel bladders needed to get replaced. They had to find someone who could make the fuel cells, negotiate the task, send the drawings, wait for them to get made, and wait for them to get shipped. Once they arrived, the guys who had been working on the Hellcat, but were on other tasks at the time, could continue with the Hellcat. They waited for many things, but not the decision to continue when the original fuel cells were declared unairworthy. That makes restoration slightly different from place where a task may go from top priority to back burner if an expensive item suddenly crops up and the decision makers discuss it for several years as funding is identified.

All that really means is that unless someone with money owns the Air Museum, the revenues mostly will not cover ALL the projects that museum directors WANT to get done. So, they have to choose and prioritize where their funds get spent. At Yanks, the projects get prioritized, too, but it isn't by committee and it doesn't take a lot of time to get a yes or no answer. The restoration time is the same either way, but the waiting time for decisions is much less.

At the Planes of Fame, they have considerable experience restoring old aircraft. So, the general costs are pretty well-known and be estimated reasonably accurately. Also, Fighter Rebuilders is there at the museum. If the museum decides to restore an aircraft, and if something is beyond the skills of the volunteer people (not exactly uncommon), they have a choice to get it professionally done by Fighter Rebuilders or even to get someone there who can give advice on how to best proceed.

Sometimes, the paperwork is almost as heavy as the project!
 
Last edited:
spicmart said:
Still no clear explanation why the German tailwheels were so large.
Click to expand...
As with all wheels wherever they are and whoever puts them where they are it depends on the loads and impacts they have to withstand. There is no special rule book in the laws of physics for German tail wheels.
 
German aircraft were definitely designed with operations from unimproved airstrips in mind.

U.S. aircraft were more prone to the assumption that there would be relatively smooth runways available.
 
GregP said:
German aircraft were definitely designed with operations from unimproved airstrips in mind.

U.S. aircraft were more prone to the assumption that there would be relatively smooth runways available.
Click to expand...
British and US fighters operated from rather good airstrips. I guess hence the tailwheels could be small.
But Japanese, Russian and Italian fighters operated from rough airfields as well and still had smaller tailwheels than the German fighters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GregP
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
611
Shortround6
S
A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
Menu
Log in
Register