Landing BF-109 is Easy ?

[Karost]

I remember that in history - many pilot  in bf-109 cause accident when make landing and I don't why landing gear set to narrow  which difference to FW-190 

 

from wiki:

 

An advantage of this design was that the main landing gear, which retracted through an 85-degree angle, was attached to the fuselage, making it possible to completely remove the wings for servicing without additional equipment to support the fuselage. It also allowed simplification of the wing structure, since it did not have to bear the loads imposed during takeoff or landing. The one major drawback of this landing gear arrangement was its narrow wheel track, making the aircraft unstable while on the ground. To increase stability, the legs were splayed outward somewhat, creating another problem in that the loads imposed during takeoff and landing were transferred up through the legs at an angle.

 

I hope dev.team not found this ....    

[JaMz]

I remember that in history - many pilot  in bf-109 cause accident when make landing and I don't why landing gear set to narrow  which difference to FW-190 

 

from wiki:

 

An advantage of this design was that the main landing gear, which retracted through an 85-degree angle, was attached to the fuselage, making it possible to completely remove the wings for servicing without additional equipment to support the fuselage. It also allowed simplification of the wing structure, since it did not have to bear the loads imposed during takeoff or landing. The one major drawback of this landing gear arrangement was its narrow wheel track, making the aircraft unstable while on the ground. To increase stability, the legs were splayed outward somewhat, creating another problem in that the loads imposed during takeoff and landing were transferred up through the legs at an angle.

 

I hope dev.team not found this ....  

 

We just had a thread 'locked' about this exact topic...maybe you could change this whole thread too...pictures of 109's for example.

 

[LG1.Farber]

I was gonna link that thread but i cant find it 

[Rama]

We just had a thread 'locked' about this exact topic...

It isn't the fate of such topic to be locked. It just depends on how the guys participating to the discussion behave. If they only give arguments and avoid personnal critics/bashing/childish comments, then there would be no reasons to lock them.

[Karost]

ok friends I found some info for you. about flying bf-109

 

here from Mark Hanna  

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

 

here 109g6  instruction

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/172565d1310133847-bf-109-aka-me-109-landing-gear-myth-research-thread-bf109g6_english-1-.pdf

 

 

here from Gen. Günther Rall

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

search with keyword "gear" 

[boot_Hardy]

We'll see on Tuesday, I can't wait to try the BoS Friedrich! The RL plane is known to be on the trickier side on landings and take-offs, but it was nothing an experienced and informed (e.g he knew about the behavior and expected it) pilot couldn't cope with. I am sure this will be the case with us virtual 'pilots' too. Every type has had its quirks and the pilots just learned their ways. During the war, there was a lot of accidents on the ground (TO/Landings) caused by lack of training, exhaustion, combat damage and who knows what other reasons, but this was the case with any aircraft, not just the 109. Perhaps it was indeed slightly more difficult than other types due to the specific gear design, but I doubt that was the main reason for the bad reputation of the 109 and the apparently high number of planes lost in similar accidents.   

Edited November 23, 2013 by Robo

[ACG_Kraut]

I can definitely see how landing the 109 in BoS could be difficult. BoS seems to model the bumps and texture of the ground (along with the lack of grip on snow) a lot more than other sims, that combined with the narrow track will make things interesting for sure. 

 

I considered myself very proficient at landing, but even the Lagg was difficult for me.

Looking forward to the challenge of the 109 if it is indeed thougher than the Lagg to land!

[Klaue]

ok friends I found some info for you. about flying bf-109

 

here from Mark Hanna  

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

 

here 109g6  instruction

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/172565d1310133847-bf-109-aka-me-109-landing-gear-myth-research-thread-bf109g6_english-1-.pdf

 

 

here from Gen. Günther Rall

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

search with keyword "gear" 

 

S! THX for the links,enjoyed reading them.

[DB605]

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

Scroll down and you find LOTS of pilots comments about taking off, flying, landing etc etc with 109. It wasn't really that hard plane to land for experienced pilot.

[LG1.Farber]

It isn't the fate of such topic to be locked. It just depends on how the guys participating to the discussion behave. If they only give arguments and avoid personnal critics/bashing/childish comments, then there would be no reasons to lock them.

Was the thread deleted?

[boot_Hardy]

Was the thread deleted?

It's still at the same place, it's been just locked: 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2359-bf-109-landing-gear/

 

The only post really worth reading imho is this one: 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2359-bf-109-landing-gear/?p=55129

[Fifi]

Anyway don't expect BOS 109 to be easy on landings.

It can be only harder than the Lagg, in its gear shape.

[YoYo]

It wasnt very easy on Bf-109.  Bf-109 had a small distance of chassis, it has large tendency to tilt but approach was easy.

[MiloMorai]

Opps

 

[Finkeren]

Also keep in mind, that the Bf-109 didn't have particularly good rudder authority, until it got the redesigned tail unit in 1944.

 

On the ground it wasn't too much of a problem, since it had toe brakes, but on take off and landing it became an issue.

 

Watch videos of real 109s taking off and landing, and see the amount of rudder deflection needed to keep it steady.

[andyw248]

From the page about 109 myths that DB605 has linked above (great find, DB, thanks!):

 

"Both thought the plane was enjoyable and easy to fly, but suggested us to land in slower speed than the Germans taught. Many Germans had ended up in the fields, after running out of runway when landing with too high speeds.
Now the German leutnant was conviced of our skills and promised our four planes for the next day. I flew my familirization flights with Emil and found it easy and enjoyable to fly. As the day progressed all our pilots managed to fly the Emil at least once. Ehrnrooth, Ervi and Lahtela managed to fly also the Gustav.
The German trainer was amazed to see how our Messerschmitt familization flights progressed without difficulty. The most amazing detail was how our pilots were immediately landing 3-pointers even with the Gustav, requiring less than half of the lenght of runway the Germans needed.

The Germans' proglem with the 1475 HP Gustav was, that they raised the tail immediately after pushing the throttle fully forward. The strong engine created a tendency to swing the tail. When landing the Germans had way too much speed, so it was hard to control to plane when the wheels touched ground and the plane bounced back into air."

 

"The usual reason for turning (when taking off) was that they forgot to lock the heel.
If you forgot to lock the heel, the plane began to turn when speeding up. When the plane was taxiing to starting place, the heel was locked from the cockpit and you began to speed up. By pulling the stick you kept the tail in the ground until you felt in the pedals that the plane is responding to the fin. Then you let the tail rise and kept the plane level, until you took off. It wasn't difficult to take off, but if you left the heel to turn freely, the plane began to turn when speeding up, and the results were often destructive."

[Matt]

Sounds like the problem some people were experiencing with the LaGG-3 last week.

 

So let's hope "tail wheel lock" works this time.

[PB0_Foxy]

IF you want a good reading about the 109, go read that link:

http://www.haa-uk.aero/media/pdf/pilots-notes/bf109e-25.pdf

 

It is a pilot notes from Rob Erdos about his first flight in an Emil.

A lot of stuffs are very well explained there. Especialy about the landing gear design.

[DB605]

IF you want a good reading about the 109, go read that link:

http://www.haa-uk.aero/media/pdf/pilots-notes/bf109e-25.pdf

 

It is a pilot notes from Rob Erdos about his first flight in an Emil.

A lot of stuffs are very well explained there. Especialy about the landing gear design.

 

Yep, it's good reading, about Emil. It's quite different plane to fly compared to F or G.

[Crump]

 

Yep, it's good reading, about Emil. It's quite different plane to fly compared to F or G

 

 

Not only that, there are some seriously factually incorrect conclusions at the implications of the gear geometry.

[DD_bongodriver]

I thought the gear geometry explanation was spot on, it's pretty obvious, when both wheels are on the ground you have stability but only 1 wheel with a negative camber like that is going to have a steering effect.

[JtD]

None.

 

It's a very good article in that regard.

Edited November 25, 2013 by JtD

[Karost]

I found one old link  :  "narrow gear was not impressed since BF-109D" 

 

One other non-German pilot able to test the Bf-109 before the beginning of World War II was USMC Major Al Williams, Schneider Trophy competitor and Pulitzer Trophy winner.  His 15 July 1938 flight in a Bf-109D impressed hi greatly.  His one negative observation was on the landing gear placement and operation.  He even suggested to General-Major Ernst Udet a fix that would improve ground handling and roll characteristics.  Fortunately for those who faced the Bf-109, his suggestions were never implemented.

 

http://orionift-history.tripod.com/orionift.history/armaments_3.htm

 

try keyword "narrow"  "gear"

Edited November 25, 2013 by Karost

[Crump]

The narrow width of the fuselage structure necessitated installing the undercarriage legs splayed outwards. This feature became the aeroplane’s Achilles heel.

 

However, this had one major drawback - the wheels had to be splayed outwards and this created an extreme tendancy to ground loop and/or collapse.

 

No the landing gear geometry has absolutely nothing to do with the airplane's tendency to groundloop.  In fact, the landing gear roll absolutely straight by design if set up IAW the manufacturers instructions. 

They roll straight ahead until the pilot brakes one side or the other or steers with the tailwheel.......by design!  Think about it.

 

Now the author does tell us the real reason why the Bf-109 was more susceptible to ground looping than another aircraft with a different CG/Main wheels relationship.

 

Taxiing is the Messerchmitt’s opportunity to get you alone and to whisper a warning in your ear. There

is a grotesquely high download on the tailwheel in the Bf-109; a situation made evident by the

requirement for full rudder, hard braking, forward stick and a blast of power to effect a turn. Try that in a

Spitfire and the propeller will chew dirt! While odd, it at least gave reassurance that even aggressive

braking would be unlikely to result in a nose-over. Unfortunately it also meant that the center of gravity

was very far aft of the main wheels. That is not a good thing. Recalling my misadventures in once

trying to steer a shopping cart backwards down a hill, I made a mental note that the tail might try to pass

me during the landing.

 

Well it is a good thing if you need short rough field performance out of the aircraft where you want maximum braking performance without causing a propeller strike.  The author is a little overzealous  in this article and the Bf-109 was certainly one of the most prolific and successful fighter designs in history. 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Rama
various reasons

[Crump]

Here is a great video.  Notice the airplane rolls straight ahead on the gear when they tug it out to start.  The gear are not causing it to try and loop at all.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzUUlO6ihwE

[MiloMorai]

So what happens when the a/c hits a bump and one main wheel is loaded more than the other?

[Crump]

 

So what happens when the a/c hits a bump and one main wheel is loaded more than the other?

 

If there is no side load, it will roll straight.  If you have side load then it will do the same thing any other taildragger you do not land straight will do.

 

stick back!

The Great Debate Landing a Taildragger Overview

If there is really one word that sums up all you need to know about landing a taildragger, that would world be "straight".  You must touchdown with the airplane absolutely straight with no drift or crab (which are really the same thing).  Since the center of gravity (CG) is behind the main wheels of the taildragger, if you are not straight when you touch down, that CG will be offset and will try to swing the tail around.  If the drift is slight, you can fight it back with the rudder.  If the drift is significant, or if you have a crosswind, you may not have enough rudder or brake available to straighten things out, in which case you may find yourself upside down the the weeds along the side of the runway faster than you can say "groundloop".  The bottom line is you want your wreckage to go straight down the runway!

 

 

http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx?page=Landing

It will ground loop.  The strength of that swinging tendency will be IAW the arm between the mains and CG.  Nothing at all to do with "geometry" of the gear.

Look at the landing on that video at how much he bounces and the gear come down asymmetrically loaded.  It rolls straight quite nicely as long as there is no side load. 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Rama

[Crump]

Here is the moment of touchdown.  Typical of a curved approach, one gear hits before the other. Notice the Left main oleo is almost completely compressed with the right main is extended.  The aircraft has no side load and rolls straight.

 

Nothing like the sensationalistic theories.  Notice too in the landing, a swing does develop after hitting a puddle of water.  It is easily controlled by the pilot with the stick back and proper rudder input.

 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Crump

[Sternjaeger]

The geometry of the gear is significant because a single wheel touch down in a 109 would require a great deal of coordination to correct the tendency of the plane to swerve instead of going straight. That's something you can control if you're prepared for it, but in an aircraft with small rudder authority like the 109 it might prove challenging, especially because when landing your rudder authority is further reduced. It's not that it can't be done, but something as silly as a small runway irregularity would get you into trouble.

 

The Spitfire wheels have an opposite camber to the 109 ones and are parallel to the roll axis, so despite the narrow track they offer a more predictable behaviour when landed on one wheel only.

 

It is no surprise anyway that the narrow track design was ditched in the propeller aircraft following the 109 and Spitfire.

[Crump]

 

It is no surprise anyway that the narrow track design was ditched in the propeller aircraft following the 109 and Spitfire.          

 

 

MMMMMMM If you mean conventional gear is no longer convention, Ok.  If you mean narrow track landing gear is not found on modern taildragger designs, you are mistaken.

 

 

 

[Sternjaeger]

Sorry, my bad, I should have specified I wasn't talking about toy planes, I was talking about +1000hp warbirds.

[Crump]

Oh yeah, because the physics is different, right?  

[FuriousMeow]

Certainly a 3/4 scale kit plane of a warbird won't perform the same as the one it's based off. Not different physics, but different handling for sure.

[Sternjaeger]

I'm not gonna derail this thread because we have all learned that there's no point in arguing with you, Crump.

The topic is the peculiarities of the 109 undercarriage. You can appreciate that if we have to choose between listening to a pilot who did actually fly a 109 or yourself, we will go with the 109 guy every damn day of the week, and there's nothing you can say that will change this, get over it.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[RedGuard]

and yet the 109 was still selected as the future Kriegsmarine carrier-based aircraft !  

 

red

[II./JG27_Rich]

Landing the 109 isn't the problem it's the rolling on the ground thats the problem. I think it's one of the best three point landers the problems come when you're actually on the ground.

[Karost]

Ja. I will tell you the weakness,

and I think, really, Messershmidt
will forgive me. <Laughter from audience>. The 109 had not for us, maybe
not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems
starting with the gear.  You know it was a high, narrow gear.  And we
had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm,
this is a exception, but it anyway happens.

Gen. Günther Rall:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

 

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
"You had to be careful in take-off and landing, though. The rudder was
small, you shouldn't lift the tail right away, but accelerate gradually
and keep the direction with brake. When you felt the rudder had effect,
you had no trouble any more. And you shouldn't let it bank at all when
landing. Remember that you had a three meter long engine in front of
you, a big propellor and narrow landing gear, if it started to roll you
had to let loose. " - Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2
victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association:
Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

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

I try to search about  LW pilot 's idea for BF-109 slats  if you guys have some info that would be good to share here

or open a new topic then many friends will test about slats 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Karost

[II./JG27_Rich]

Once you slow to taxi it's great like it show be. Just a big blast and rudder.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2013 by II./JG27_Rich

[Karost]

Hey Rich , That is very good video

 

too bad in IL2:BOS don't have a big  square landing field like desert field,

[imho]  then we may never have to test a cross wind to deal with. No cross wind, easy to drop 3 point ,  much less chance of a
un-balance touch down with one side of landing gear.

[Fifi]

too bad in IL2:BOS don't have a big  square landing field like desert field,

 

 

Yes, but large straight parts of frozen rivers are enough!...good for landing practice as well.