Me109 landing characteristics

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by wrag
Hmmm........

I fly the 109s allot and rarely have any problems take off or landing?

I don't use auto takeoff and I don't use CT for landing.

LOL I have bent some props landing from time to time, but not just in 109s.

A game is not real life.

The 109 got the long tail wheel strut to help aliviate(sp??) the ground handling problems. Another reason for the ground handling problem was the forward placement of the u/c.

[Whisky58]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
A game is not real life.

Very deep



I'm not suggesting 100% realism but highlighting a possible inconsistency in AH modelling ie F4us swing but Bf109s don't.
The bottom line is does anybody feel strongly about it?
Overall I think AH deliver a first class package.
Regards

[Charge]

In comparison P-51 releases the tail wheel only if you push the stick forward so if you do not touch the stick the tail wheel does not turn freely, so you do not need to remeber it.

In 109 you have to lock the tailwheel separately which you have to remember, otherwise you will notice it when the torgue starts to turn the plane and you have other foot on the floor and the speed is not enough for rudder effect and the accident/death is one breath away...

The toe in/out explanation is one explanation for difficult landing characteristics but I think it effects only if you speed is too high and the plane is in too steep angle. And this happens if you land with too high speed. I think in take-off the torgue and rudder effectiviness  and the general narrowness of  landing gear are dominant factors.

-C+

[Whisky58]

Encyclopaedic contribution Grendel, thanks v much.  Quotes from the fellers who flew the 109 are hard to beat, but -

.....saddling the Emil with a heavier engine, armour protection & additional ammunition resulted in a higher wing loading.  The landing speed consequently went up and brought about a worrying increase in Bf109E crashes and ground loops.
The aircraft was notoriously difficult to land because of it's narrow undercarriage...
 - Combat Legend Mess. Bf109. Jerry Scutts.

....one of the aircraft's greatest weaknesses throughout it's life, unforgiving ground handling characteristics that were to cause the loss or damage of hundreds of production aircraft.
....while the Bf109G-5/R2 featured a taller rudder & lengthened tailwheel leg in an effort to counter the aircraft's swing on take-off.
 - Warplanes of the Luftwaffe. Ed David Donald.


Drawbacks were the narrow landing gear, severe swing on take-off or landing.....
 - Fighting Aircraft of WW2. Bill Gunston.

....(on take off) the strong swing to port.....
....(on landing) but care has to be taken to prevent any swing....
 - Wings of the Luftwaffe. Eric Brown. (you quote this)

....the Bf109 was notoriously difficult to take off & land & many planes simply veered off or tipped over...
 - Wikipedia

"Why was the Bf109 so prone to swing on take-off?"
....the take-off swing is well known & notorious, almost as many accidents took place during landing when the aircraft was allowed to swing.
  - Keski-Suomen Ilmailumuseo.

Mark Hanna. Your quote. He describes the development of swing as "completely unpredictable"

So was the 109 swing a myth or just exaggerated? Was it there but only trapped the unwary/inexperienced?
Do we want it modelled?
Regards.

[MiloMorai]

The toe in/out explanation is one explanation for difficult landing characteristics but I think it effects only if you speed is too high and the plane is in too steep angle. And this happens if you land with too high speed. I think in take-off the torgue and rudder effectiviness and the general narrowness of landing gear are dominant factors.

Any deviation from the horizontal will have one main wheel in contact with the ground. Because of the toe-in/out this will cause the a/ to veer. It does not matter what speed the a/c is doing though higher speeds will have more effect.

The Spit had a slightly narrower track than the 109 and I don't recall it having the same problems the 109 had.

[gripen]

In the book "Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII", Mark Bradley writes how the ground loop problems of the P-43 and P-40 were solved by raising the the tail by increasing the lenght of the tail wheel srut. Notable thing is that these planes had a rather wide main landing gear.

gripen

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by gripen
In the book "Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII", Mark Bradley writes how the ground loop problems of the P-43 and P-40 were solved by raising the the tail by increasing the lenght of the tail wheel srut. Notable thing is that these planes had a rather wide main landing gear.

gripen

The P-40's track was ~12"/30cm wider than on the 109 and ~2.5ft narrower than the 190s.

[gripen]

I don't know the dimensions but at least the P-43 had inwards rectrating main gear and a bad problem with the ground loop according to Bradley.

gripen

[Charge]

"So was the 109 swing a myth or just exaggerated? Was it there but only trapped the unwary/inexperienced?
Do we want it modelled?

My answers:

I don't think it wasn a myth or exaggarated. If you did not put your mind to it, it killed you. Experienced pilots did not have problems with it.
I think the tendency should be modelled (as it is in Corsair, to some extent) but I doubt it will be.  There is a limit how tough you can make the planes to fly before it starts to pizz off customers.

Btw. do you know what is the part of Spitfire is in biggest demand?

The underwing pitot tube holder. Do you know why?

But really, Spit probably has the same problems but maybe the larger wing is able to hold the plane straight during take-off/landing. And the wheels are in different angle as Milo pointed out.

-C+

[Viking]

Let's look at it from the other side shall we. Greenhorns were responsible for crashing most of those 5% lost in T/O and landing accidents. Those greenhorns were fresh out of school in trainers and with less than 5 hours in 109G-12's if any 109 training at all ...

And most of them made it!

[gripen]

Well, a take off/landing accident rarely caused complete write off. Probably something like 20-30% of all Bf 109s had such accident assuming that the relation was elsewhere about same as in the FAF.

gripen

[Viking]

I bet that is similar to all types that operated from rough airfields regardless of nationality.

[FLS]

Originally posted by Whisky58
I think persistent handling weaknesses that result in loss of planes & pilots can reasonably be described as notorious and infamous.

I don't disagree. I'm just guessing but I think HiTech uses math when he models the aircraft.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Viking
I bet that is similar to all types that operated from rough airfields regardless of nationality.

There might be differences but at least in the case of the FAF, it's difficult say because the use of the types varied so much as well as the conditions. In addition the populations were so small; the Bf 109G was by far largest (about 160), the second was Fokker D.XXI (97), the third was the MS.406 (87) and so on.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that a plane like the F2A was seen as much easier than the Bf 109.

gripen

[Viking]

Originally posted by gripen
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that a plane like the F2A was seen as much easier than the Bf 109.

gripen

I'm pretty sure about that too. The F2A had a much slower landing speed and better visibility over the nose. A more modern high-speed fighter like the 109, 190, Spitfire etc. were more difficult to handle. Also I seem to remember that the Germans had about the same accident rate with the 190 as they did with the 109.