Bf-109 Landing gear

[Bulkhead]

Hi, I don't know if this is the right sub-forum so remove it if this is out of place.

 

I looked but could't find any discussion about this subject. The reason is what I learned about the 109's landing gear, it was very difficult to handle on the ground during takeoff and landings. The reason is that the main legs is very close to center and they are spreading like the "main legs" of a busy nympho. I think the sideways stability, it tended to sheer off to one side and maybe some kind of maniac wobbling.

If I understand the history right, the losses of 109 aircraft due to landing and takeoff accidents far exceeded the losses happened in actual combat and ground attacks on parked 109's at airfields.

 

Is the handling going to be difficult in a manner something like this?

 

I just have to say this is not a complaint or criticism. I love IL2 BoS already. I'm just curious and I think it also have a historical value. (If I got the history right) 

So please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

 

Thanks 

[Crump]

 

The reason is what I learned about the 109's landing gear, it was very difficult to handle on the ground during takeoff and landings.

 

 

The Bf-109's landing gear when properly shimmed rolls straight like any other tail dragger in existence. 

 

That being said the Bf-109 was a pilot's airplane.  The location of the CG in relation to the main gear is what determines the directional stability but comes with design trade offs.  Move the location one way and you increase directional stability so that the airplane is more resistant to ground looping.  When you move it in order to increase directional stability, you decrease the longitudinal stability making the aircraft more susceptible to nosing over (prop strikes) as well as decreasing the amount of braking power.

 

If you want to operate on a short unimproved runway then giving less directional stability increases his maneuverability on the ground for taxi and more importantly, allows him to stand on the brakes greatly reducing the ground roll without fear of a prop strike.

 

It allows the airplane to operate from fields it otherwise could not with more directional stability.

To take advantage of such design work requires a well trained pilot who can appreciate and use what the designer gave him.  It is not an airplane for poorly trained and inexperienced pilots to be attempting operations from short, rough, fields.  Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe and fortunately for us, the Luftwaffe was comprised mostly of poorly trained and inexperienced pilots during the last years of the war.  This was also the time that operating from short, rough, fields was the norm.  Good combination for increased landing accidents in any airplane.

[MiloMorai]

Some years back a guy did a study of accidents in JG26 when it had both the Bf109 and Fw190A. Surprise, the Fw190A had more accidents than the Bf109.

 

It is not so much the narrow track of the u/c but the geometry. The Spitfire had a narrower u/c track (by ~6").

[Bulkhead]

I read on another discussion about the myths that 11000 109's was lost in TO and landing accidents. A comparison to the spitfire that have a narrower gear was easier to handle on the ground because it was almost vertical, not the outward angle the 109 have. 

It said it was harder to recover from ground looping or something like that. But it seems the outward angle made it more difficult than most other fighter. I'm no expert but fun to read.

 

Can I link to another forum on a different site (ww2aircraft.net)? It would be nice to show because he is investigating the truth behind it and real pilot reports about the 109. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Bulkhead

[Bulkhead]

I guess it was only a small part of the story. Pointless discussion... sorry

 

Thanks for the info though

Edited November 22, 2013 by Bulkhead

[LG1.Farber]

Not this again. 

 

There were something like 33,000 109's built and they fought in all theatres... of course some crashed on take off.  Same as other planes. 

 

As for the "o but its got a narrow track landing gear"..  So did the spit.  I can't remember the actual figures nor find them, maybe you can?  Allot of aircraft had landing gear that opened from the centre rather than the outside.  Its hyped up.

 

Penultimately -

 

Do you really want the 109's pilots to be unable to take off? 

 

 

Here is some reading: 

 

 

 

 

Here is some more 109 info on the subject with credible sources:

 

Quote

Pilot's Notes for Messerschmitt BF109
(based on reports by RAE, Farnborough)
Printed by Crecy Publications in Spetember 2000

 

Ground handling qualties of the Bf109.

Page 8

Take-Off

The slotted flaps are set at the recommended position of 20 [degrees] for take off.  The throttle opens very quickly, responding almost instantaneously to throttle movements.  The direct injection system means there is no risk of choking.  The initial acceleration is very good and the aircraft will not bucket or sing.  When running along the ground the aircraft will rock slightly from side to side but the movement is minimal and should not concern the pilot.  

On opening the throttle the stick should be held hard forward.  The tail will come up quickly and the stick can then be eased back.  The pilot should hold the aircraft on the ground for a short time after flying speed has been achieved.  If the aeroplane pulls off too soon the left wing will not lift.  On applying the opposite aileron the wing will come up, fall again with the ailerons snatching somewhat.  As long as the aircraft is not pulled off too quickly take off is easy and straight forward.

The take-off run required is very short and initial rate of climb is fast.


Page 9

Landing

Landing the Bf109 is difficult.  This is due to two main factors.  Firstly the high ground attitude of the aircraft and secondly due to the narrowness of the main undercarriage.

The aircraft must be rotated through a large angle before touchdown requiring a fair amount of skill from the pilot, tempting him to do a wheel landing.  If a wheel landing is attempted there is a strong tendency for the left wing to drop just before touchdown.  When the ailerons are used quickly to bring the wing up they to snatch a little resulting in over-correction.  To achieve a three wheel landing the pilot should become easily accustomed to the landing technique and have no further problems.

The centre of gravity is unusually far behind the main wheels and the brakes can be fully applied immediately after touchdown, without lifting the tail.  The ground run is very short with no tendency to swing or bucket.  As the large ground attitude causes the nose of the aircraft to be very high visibility is poor for taxiing.  Landing at night is difficult.


Page 9

Ground Handling

The Bf109 can be taxied very fast as the large tail weight prevents it from bouncing or bucketing.  Turning rapidly is difficult and a large amount of throttle is required combined with a firm use of the differential brakes if attempting to maneuver in a tight space.  Apart from this turning the ground handling qualities are good.  The brakes are powerful and can be used without fear of lifting the tail.  The brakes are foot operated.

 

 

 

Messerschmitt Bf109 Recognition Maunal  
Marco Fernandez-Sommerau


Page 90

In the 1930's, the Bf109 had some design peculiarities that were shared by several other aircraft of the time .  It was, together with the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire and also some fighters of the Italian Reggiane Family, a mass-produced fighter with an outwardly retracting undercarriage.  This had both advantages and drawbacks:  the Bf109's narrow track arrangement not only allowed for quick dismantling of the wings, but once they were detached, the aircraft could still stand on it's oleo legs and be wheeled around.  The other practical advantage was that this design approach resulted in the Bf109 being significantly smaller and lighter than many other contemporary fighters.

 

[Sternjaeger]

According to a friend who piloted a Buchon for several years, the real peculiarity about the 109 landing gear is that the wheels are slightly diverging when seen from the top. This apparently gives a better stability on the ground, but causes problems when you're coming down on one landing gear and then put the other one down, triggering some unexpected yaw that can scare the inexperienced pilot, causing it to overcompensate and crash the thing.. 

[Crump]

 

(based on reports by RAE, Farnborough)

 

 

 

I would use the German sources over the RAE sources for German aircraft.  As such:

 

 

Turning rapidly is difficult and a large amount of throttle is required combined with a firm use of the differential brakes if attempting to maneuver in a tight space. 

 

 

Sounds like a tail wheel assembly issue.  Depending on the design, the knuckles get worn the tailwheel turns either to easily or shims/bearings wear and getting it to unlock becomes more difficult.

 

 

 the real peculiarity about the 109 landing gear is that the wheels are slightly diverging when seen from the top

 

 

All airplanes have toe in or toe out.  Just like a car has wheel alignment, so doesn't an airplane.  It is generally adjusted by shims at the axle mount but not always.  It is a royal pain in the behind to adjust as it involves trial and error, removing, replacing, and adjusting the shims/axle assembly until the airplane rolls perfectly straight.

 

Once set, it is generally left alone so it is not unusual for it to go uncorrected unless really bad and it gets reported to a mechanic. 

 

I would not go making sweeping conclusion's based on a few examples of any type.

 

The major factor that makes the Bf-109 susceptible to ground looping is the length of the arm from the CG to the mains.

Here is common shims use for alignment of aircraft wheels:

 

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/categories/aircraft_parts/ap/menus/lg/axlesandaxlenuts_shims.html

[LG1.Farber]

Can anyone find an official source that ever said this? - Where does this come from? 

 

I doubt anyone can find the actual source of this, so if not does anyone have a source on the figures it mentions? 

 

 

 

...

 

If I understand the history right, the losses of 109 aircraft due to landing and takeoff accidents far exceeded the losses happened in actual combat and ground attacks on parked 109's at airfields.

 

...

 

So please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

 

Thanks 

 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Rama

[Sternjaeger]

mmmmh Crump yeah I guess so, although it seems to be particularly pronounced on the 109, and in a way I can understand where he was coming from with that, but yes, I've noticed that on other aircraft, although they had wider landing gear configuration.

 

Crump, since there doesn't seem to be a document you can't get hold of, do you have a comparison of the 109 CG vs the Spit one to compare the two? 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Crump]

 

Regardless of what your hangar-flying buddies say, difficulties with an airplane's ground handling can often be traced to a misaligned landing gear

 

 

That is why we have "Dial a Degree" Shims! 

 

 

Loosening the clamps and rotating the tapered discs moves the axle to its proper toe-in/toe-out and correct camber angle.

 

 

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/dialdegree.php

[Crump]

 

Can anyone find an official source that ever said this? - Where does this rubbish come from? 

 

 

 

I don't know, it is like a myth and baloney about the slats, it just takes on a life of its own.  Quite a few of these World War II designs are cultural icons and as such they no longer are constrained by physics or engineering but part folklore/legend.

[DD_bongodriver]

A bit like the myths of unauthorised modification of aircraft

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFdRrWBW2w

[Bulkhead]

Found this. Have not read all of it but very interesting.

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

[Sternjaeger]

Oh dear, dare I ask what's the baloney about slats?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Bulkhead]

Looks like this wasn't the most popular topic to start.....

[JaMz]

Looks like this wasn't the most popular topic to start.....

 

lol. You may be onto something there..

Edited November 22, 2013 by 5./JG27Fritzi

[Furio]

Official source is not, and I can’t guarantee it as correct, but the names involved are difficult to dismiss.

The book is “Flight Journal” by Corky Meyer, long time test pilot for Grumman. At page 157, Meyer wrote:

“Fully 11,000 of the 33.000 Bf-109 built were destroyed in takeoff and landing accidents alone…” “I was most amazed when my late friend, 176-kill ace General Johannes Steinhoff, related this fantastic landing accident rate to me in 1956.”

[LG1.Farber]

Official source is not, and I can’t guarantee it as correct, but the names involved are difficult to dismiss.

The book is “Flight Journal” by Corky Meyer, long time test pilot for Grumman. At page 157, Meyer wrote:

“Fully 11,000 of the 33.000 Bf-109 built were destroyed in takeoff and landing accidents alone…” “I was most amazed when my late friend, 176-kill ace General Johannes Steinhoff, related this fantastic landing accident rate to me in 1956.”

So its hearsay then.

 

I would love to see if anyone has ever made any statistical data for the 109's and their fates.  It would be an enormous task and i very much doubt it has been done.

 

Also if you look at this, 11,000 of the 33,000 were destroyed on take off.  I doubt every takeoff accident destroyed the plane, that would have to mean the accident rat was far far higher.  Its total non-sense.  1 in 3?  Do you think they Luftwaffe would have allowed this to go on throughout the entire war and before?  - And then the countries that took on the Bf109 after the war would have wanted it?  It must have been a super weapon to score so many victories as half of them at any one time must have been splatted across the airfield or in various states of repair.  The spare parts factories must have made more parts than the original manufacturing plants!

 

Its either a mis-quote, mis-print or total balls.

 

Something like 1 in 3 take off accidents resulted in a destroyed aircraft would be allot more credible.  However i am merely speculating.  I strongly agree with Crump's statement about folklore.

Edited November 22, 2013 by 5./JG27Farber

[Sternjaeger]

Truth is that we will never know.

[MiloMorai]

I would use the German sources over the RAE sources for German aircraft.  As such:

 

Be sure that British pilots were clueless with regards to German a/c.

[Furio]

So its hearsay then.

 

Its either a mis-quote, mis-print or total balls.

I read the whole Meyer’s book. It’s credible and well documented. He had no reason to write “total balls” to quote you. He and Steinhof were good friends. Meyer quotes Steinhoff, not a name-less third hand hearsay.

To be precise, Steinhoff talked about takeoff and landing accidents. Surely, a sizeable part of these happened during emergency landings of battle-damaged planes.

I doubt of this 1 to 3 ratio, as I doubt of all the wild numbers circulating around planes and pilots, but I would not dare to call Meyer a liar.

[Crump]

 

Be sure that British pilots were clueless with regards to German a/c

 

 

No, it is just without the manufacturers maintenance manual, any mechanic is very limited.  You are just using best guess and "that looks ok"!  It is very important that a mechanic have one as a reference when doing any repairs on the aircraft.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnH_GRPocsU

[MiloMorai]

So German a/c went into the air 100% perfect. Yah right.

[Sternjaeger]

So German a/c went into the air 100% perfect. Yah right.

 

If Crump were the crew chief he wouldn't have accepted any less. Which means WW2 would have ended in 1941 

No, it is just without the manufacturers maintenance manual, any mechanic is very limited.  You are just using best guess and "that looks ok"!  It is very important that a mechanic have one as a reference when doing any repairs on the aircraft.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnH_GRPocsU

 

Crump, we're not talking about a 737, a Bf109 is a relatively simple machine...

there were other problems related to the testing of captured aircraft by the RAE, one of the main issues being the lubricants and fuels used.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[LG1.Farber]

I read the whole Meyer’s book. It’s credible and well documented. He had no reason to write “total balls” to quote you. He and Steinhof were good friends. Meyer quotes Steinhoff, not a name-less third hand hearsay.

To be precise, Steinhoff talked about takeoff and landing accidents. Surely, a sizeable part of these happened during emergency landings of battle-damaged planes.

I doubt of this 1 to 3 ratio, as I doubt of all the wild numbers circulating around planes and pilots, but I would not dare to call Meyer a liar.

 

 

 

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience nor can it be adequately substantiated.

-Wiki

 

The numbers do not make sense rationally.  Unless some one has catalougued the fate of every 109 built we will never know, it is just hearsay.

 

O and the full quote was:

 

Its either a mis-quote, mis-print or total balls.

 ...and I stick by that.

Edited November 22, 2013 by 5./JG27Farber

[NZTyphoon]

Truth is that we will never know.

Apart from anything else, shims (Ausgleichsscheibe) were not used to adjust the 109's undercarriage settings (from the 109K-4 Flugzeug Handbuch November 1944: Teil 2: Fahrwerke):

 

 

But it

 

But it's clear that any damage or maladjustment of the main support bracket, which was attached to the front of the spar, could lead to problems; a heavy landing was probably enough to damage these components:

 

 

Same with the tailwheel; any damage or distortion of the bulkhead (for example) might have been enough to make it jam or track badly:

 

 

109F tailwheel.pdf

[DD_bongodriver]

Amazing, the Brits were cracking away at the enigma code but couldn't translate a maintenance manual from German, oh no wait it's because they didn't have the manual....hmmm I suppose it's because without pictures a Brit wouldn't know which end of a spanner to use, I think the Brits could have benefited from a system whereby they gathered usefull information from their enemies, sort of like having people embedded into the society of their enemies who could gather that kind of stuff or on another scale actually seize as much of it they could from captured sites in the battlefield........now to think of a name for such intelligence gathering activities........

[Sternjaeger]

..erm, technically it was thanks to the Poles mate   it simply boggles the mind how they initially cracked it by hand!! 

 

(Funnily enough I'm off to Bletchley Park with the gang tomz   )

 

Btw yes, obviously Crump never heard of this, available in your local WH Smith since 1939 

 

Apart from anything else, shims (Ausgleichsscheibe) were not used to adjust the 109's undercarriage settings (from the 109K-4 Flugzeug Handbuch November 1944: Teil 2: Fahrwerke):

 

yep, thanks for this mate, and I agree, I'm sure there were more than a couple torn airframes airborne in those days 

[boot_Hardy]

Good post NZTyphoon! Thanks for the explanation.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Robo

[Crump]

 

Apart from anything else, shims (Ausgleichsscheibe) were not used to adjust the 109's undercarriage settings (from the 109K-4 Flugzeug Handbuch November 1944: Teil 2: Fahrwerke):

 

 

Most toilet mounting diagrams don't include shims either.  You think they do not get used?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Crump

[Sternjaeger]

..aaand here's another case of "the manual is right only when it proves my point" 

[AndyJWest]

How many aircraft in WW2 were shot down by a maintenance manual? 

[Furio]

The numbers do not make sense rationally.  Unless some one has catalougued the fate of every 109 built we will never know, it is just hearsay.

 

O and the full quote was:

 ...and I stick by that.

Being you a native English-speaking people, I stand corrected about the meaning of “hearsay”. In Italian it has a different meaning, and I translated it incorrectly. Sorry.

 

That the numbers "don’t make sense" is – of course – your opinion. I tend to agree with you, looking with suspicion at such big number. But I have no direct information disproving it. Do you have it?

 

I re-read the page in question. It’s not a mis-print, because the number is repeated many times, and commented as such.

I didn’t mis-quote anything. The quote is exact, word-by-word.

So, you’re saying that Corky Meyer wrote “Total balls”.

 

You have the right to stick with it.

 

That said, I don’t want to derail the thread by debating further this point.

 

In my opinion, FW190 had a much better landing gear design than the Bf109. In the interest of peace, this is the last word I’ll say on this point.

[DD_bongodriver]

Most toilet mounting diagrams don't include shims either.  You think they do not get used?

 

But if it's not in the manual is it not an unauthorized modification?

[Crump]

On the BF-109 tailwheel, inside of part d is the locking and unlocking mechanism for turning the tailwheel.  Without the manual you would not know the resistance it is supposed to give and would have no way of telling if it was worn or not. 

[NZTyphoon]

Most toilet mounting diagrams don't include shims either.  You think they do not get used?

I'm absolutely positive you're an expert on toilets, but it has little to do with the 109's undercarriage.

Edited November 22, 2013 by NZTyphoon

[AndyJWest]

Where did the Wright brothers get their manuals from?

[Sternjaeger]

Bongo, Crump is confusing me, do we need a manual or not? And if we do, we stick to it or we're authorised to install toilet seats on his aircraft? 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

Well they authorised a toilet installation on a Skyraider once so it must be ok.