Which Spitfire? The later Griffon engines Spitfires had a considerable amount of weight placed in the tail to balance the weight of the longer and heavier engine, without that it would sit on its nose. The 109 sat heavy on its tail because it was short, it isnt a question of being German its a question of weights, forces and loads
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
don4331
Senior Airman
Here's a pair of hypothesis I would like the experts to answer for me:
Part 1: For a tail dragger aircraft, to allow it to stop short, my take would be that I would for the wing to 'stall' just as I touched down in 3 point stance (maybe a little before 3 point angle of attack to allow some compression of landing gear - principally main). That way, the full weight of the aircraft is on the wheels. In addition, I would like the weight to be biased to tail wheel (main landing gear forward). The combination would allow the pilot to 'stand on the brakes', minimizing stopping distance. Reasonable or am I missing something?
Part 2 (assumes part 1 is correct): As Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf.109 were originally designed for short, often (wet) grass fields do the aforementioned planes stall in landing/put proportionately more on tailwheel than those planes designed to operate from long, hard surface runways? The FiSk.199 leads me to believe the Bf.109 was stalled.
P.s. I hated when in my engineering 300 classes midterm that you had to get the answer correct to the 1st question as the 2nd question used that answer. Only 1 person in class got 1st question correct; hopefully, I at least get 1st part right.
The jacket is handy.
Part 1: For a tail dragger aircraft, to allow it to stop short, my take would be that I would for the wing to 'stall' just as I touched down in 3 point stance (maybe a little before 3 point angle of attack to allow some compression of landing gear - principally main). That way, the full weight of the aircraft is on the wheels. In addition, I would like the weight to be biased to tail wheel (main landing gear forward). The combination would allow the pilot to 'stand on the brakes', minimizing stopping distance. Reasonable or am I missing something?
Part 2 (assumes part 1 is correct): As Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf.109 were originally designed for short, often (wet) grass fields do the aforementioned planes stall in landing/put proportionately more on tailwheel than those planes designed to operate from long, hard surface runways? The FiSk.199 leads me to believe the Bf.109 was stalled.
There is corollary which says if Spitfire stalled normally upon landing, when the arresting gear lifts the tail wheel of the Seafire, it could cause the wing to 'un-stall' and the plane to resume flying - only to be pull up short (and land really hard). Which would also say Bf.109T would be every bit as bad (or worse) than Seafire as carrier plane for landing.
Alternative: If Wildcat wing isn't stalled in its landing stance, the arresting gear merely reduces the AoA when tailwheel is raised, so no (reduced) tendency to bounce off the deck. Which makes it a better carrier airplane.
Alternative: If Wildcat wing isn't stalled in its landing stance, the arresting gear merely reduces the AoA when tailwheel is raised, so no (reduced) tendency to bounce off the deck. Which makes it a better carrier airplane.
P.s. I hated when in my engineering 300 classes midterm that you had to get the answer correct to the 1st question as the 2nd question used that answer. Only 1 person in class got 1st question correct; hopefully, I at least get 1st part right.
The jacket is handy.
- Thread starter
- #103
For the reasons I explained, and there may be others, for example the Hurricane would go into a tail spin without its rear wheel.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Bf109B/D had a tail wheel size of 260x85
The Bf109E/F/G had a tail wheel size of 290x110 (early G variants)
The Bf109G/K had a tail wheel size of 350x135 (mid to later G variants)
Notice as the Bf109 grew heavier, the tail wheel got larger?
Some examples for comparison:
the A6M's tailwheel was 203x76, the Spitfire Mk.VB tailwheel was 260x80, the MC.202 tailwheel was 300x100 and the Fw190A's tailwheel was 380x150.
The Bf109E/F/G had a tail wheel size of 290x110 (early G variants)
The Bf109G/K had a tail wheel size of 350x135 (mid to later G variants)
Notice as the Bf109 grew heavier, the tail wheel got larger?
Some examples for comparison:
the A6M's tailwheel was 203x76, the Spitfire Mk.VB tailwheel was 260x80, the MC.202 tailwheel was 300x100 and the Fw190A's tailwheel was 380x150.
Your Bf 109 pic is at least 125% oversize compared to the Spit pic. Bf 109 G is a metre shorter than that Spit!
Eng
- Thread starter
- #107
Spitfire Mk. VB has smaller tailwheel than contemporary Messerschmitts.
You got stats for the Mks IX and XIV?
- Thread starter
- #108
Even if so, on fotos of most fighters mentioned prior you just can see that German fighter tailwheels are larger.
Also check Graugeist's last post #105.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I think this might be an internet "first". Bf 109 v. Spitfire tailwheel. I hear keyboard warriors worldwide, typing furiously.
It should make for a well rounded argument.
- Thread starter
- #111
In the quest for more performance details matter.
In part the size of a wheel is determined by the condition it is running on. Anything solid that sticks up more than the wheel radius will rip it off. Less than that even half the radius will cause it to jolt. On soft ground the weight on the wheel and the contact area determine if it will sink and become bogged down or not.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
The jokes keep rolling along.
Even though they have no bearing on the matter.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
... so he spoke ...
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I'm trying to tread lightly.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I never get tired of it... 
- Thread starter
- #119
Ain't "tyred" more appropriate?I never get tired of it...
