Author Topic: Question about Bf 109 (Read 650 times)

StarOfAfrica2 · « **on:** January 27, 2005, 04:42:48 PM »

Why isnt there a gear light for the tailwheel? Do they not retract? As far as I know once the F model came out the 109's had retracting tailwheels. I keep seeing screenshots floating around of 109's with protruding tailwheels, and there is no light in the cockpit to show if it is up or not.

Thanks!

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2005, 05:04:17 PM »

I believe that feature showed up on the K, not the F.

Then again I'm no Bf109 expert.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2005, 05:20:06 PM »

I'll look it up when I get home in a couple of hours, but I'd swear part of the "streamlining" of the 109 that produced the F model was creating a retracting tailwheel.

Angus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2005, 05:23:58 PM »

Think it was actually the G.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2005, 05:25:04 PM »

I think it was there until somewhere in the G series.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2005, 05:25:29 PM »

The F had a retracting tail wheel. The G-1, G-2 and G-4 as well. These were semi retracting as the tire still showed somewhat. The K-4 had the wheel enclosed by doors.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2005, 07:09:52 PM »

Milo's post is along the lines of what I remembered. Here is the section from "Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII" titled "The Fighting Friedrich"

Modifications

Quote

The new look 'Friedrich' introduced a series of aerodynamic refinements, while maintaining the basic structure of its predecessor. A deeper, more streamlined cowling and larger spinner were the most immediately recognisable differences. Importantly, the Bf 109F carried a new wing, based on the E structure, but incorporating reduced span and a new wider-chord ailerons, as well as a low-drag radaitor. In the tail, the 'Friedrich' carried a new retractable tailwheel and a reduced-size rudder. Follwoing pilots' recommendations, armament was altered to include a single cannon firing through the engine hub, combined with two MG 17s in the upper fuselage decking. The removal of wing-mounted cannon would improve its roll-rate and manoeuvrability.

(Notes)

During testing the reduced wingspan was shown to hamper handling, and was restored with the addition of detatchable, rounded wingtips. Even with the E model's DB-601N the 109F-0 showed improvements to performance and manoeuverability in all respects, but especially in terms of sustained turn and climb. Through the F-1 they had problems with crashes, and found the new brace-free tail to be the problem, and remaining aircraft were fitted with external strengthening plates.

The 109F-4 introduced self-sealing fuel tanks, additional armour, and streamlined internal tail strengthening.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2005, 07:22:12 PM »

What confuses me though, is later in the same book, in a following chapter dealing with later model Bf109s, it clearly shows a closeup of a flight of Bf 109G-6s of 7./JG 27 on patrol from their base in Greece. These have tailwheels hanging down. Two of them also have clearly visible underwing gondolas with the 151/20 cannons. So they cant be mislabelled E models.

Did they go back to having non-retractable tailwheels? Did they just in the G-6? Was it because of their operating environment (i.e. part of the "tropicalisation")? I can find no mention of the subject after stating that they included this feature in the F model.

Thanks!

brendo · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2005, 08:30:59 PM »

Star, I may recall that the decision to leave the tail wheels down was based on operational issues. There was the ability to intall retraction equipment, but it made little difference, so they left it off from most G models.

This is vague memory.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2005, 03:43:12 AM »

109 Tailwheels.

A-E models all fixed tw.

F-G2 models had partially retractable tw, but sometimes they were fixed in the down position.

G4-G14 had fixed tw because starting with G4 a new larger tailwheel was fitted.

K4 had fully retractible and covered by doors but it was often fixed down due to a fauty retraction up lock.

Kurfürst · « **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2005, 07:17:39 AM »

As Grunherz said. tailwheel was retractable from the 109F models, and it remained so until the G-6 (late production G-2s and G-4s introduced a larger tailwheel that did not fit in, same as fitted to G-6. So some G-2/G-4s did have non-retracting ones) Later Gs introduced longer tailhwheels to raise the tail on the ground. The 109K used the same long tailwheel, but then it was retractable again, with cover fairings.

BTW, afaik the self sealing tanks were already there on the Emil.

niklas · « **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2005, 10:10:26 AM »

The semi retracting tail wheel was used to serve in emergency landings btw. Else the airframe would have had contact with ground and a total break must be feared.

niklas

Krusty · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2005, 01:10:51 PM »

Well anybody who's gotten a fuel leak in AH2 while flying a 109 knows that there ain't no such thing as self-sealing in AH!!!!

Would be a nice feature to have!!!

JoOwEn · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2005, 01:06:04 PM »

retractable tail wheel adds weight?

rshubert · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2005, 01:27:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JoOwEn
retractable tail wheel adds weight?

Oh heck yes. Retraction mechanism, motors or hydraulics, piping or wiring...all heavier than a fixed system.