Author Topic: Me109 landing characteristics (Read 5457 times)

Whisky58 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 07, 2006, 04:50:57 PM »

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+ [/B][/QUOTE]

"The type has a fearsome reputation as one of the most challenging piston-engine warbirds to fly, especially during take-off or landing, when it is highly susceptible to loss of directional control and groundlooping. This is due to the forces exerted by significant engine torque, along with a very narrow-track canted undercarriage, restricted visibilty and limited rudder authority."
Richard Paver on the Hispano HA-1112 Buchon (Spanish Merlin engined 109)

"Limited rudder authority". Is that the difference between the Spit & the 109?

Viking · « **Reply #31 on:** November 08, 2006, 02:33:41 AM »

The 109 is supposed to have superior rudder authority over most other planes. It was one of its strengths AFAIK. However on the ground all tail-draggers suffer from rudder inefficiency until they build up enough speed to lift the tail of the ground.

I think the placement of the main gear so far forward of CG, combined with the toe-out of the wheels was what made the 109 dangerous unless you landed it in a tree-point attitude.

Charge · « **Reply #32 on:** November 08, 2006, 03:51:33 AM »

There is a film somewhere where a 109 comes down with quite high speed and it really looks dangerous as the a/c really looks as it would start to swerve on grass. The landings in slower speed look more gentle and controlled.

I think the point in 109 is to keep the tail down so long that you can feel the rudder reacting, then you can let the tail come up. Somebody described the 109 similar to Spitfire in that it likes to flare upon landing. That makes me think that there is really no point to come down in high speed.

"The 109 is supposed to have superior rudder authority over most other planes. It was one of its strengths AFAIK. "

Well I think this is true but it also reveals why there is a directional problem in slow speed. If you can force the plane in extreme angles in flight it means that the fuselage does not really add much directional force. Thus in slow speed it needs the rudder desperately to keep it straight and if the rudder gets ineffective... If you compare you notice that E.g. the Spit has a tall slender aft fuselage which increases it directional stability.

-C+

Benny Moore · « **Reply #33 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:05:33 AM »

The funny thing is that only the very first model Corsairs had the dangerous characteristics that the entire line is thought to have. After the first model or two, a stall strip was added to one of the wings and the problem was solved. The Me-109, on the other hand, never was fixed.

Viking · « **Reply #34 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:27:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Benny Moore
The Me-109, on the other hand, never was fixed.

You're assuming there was something wrong with the 109 in the first place. The 109 was designed to be the plane it was. All planes are full of compromises, and the 109's ground handling was one of them. There simply wasn't room in the thin wings for a better undercarriage. It was designed to be the mount of Germany's elite pilots during the 1930's, they never intended it to be flown by inexperienced pilots. Flown correctly the 109 was perfectly safe, however it was unforgiving if you made a mistake on landing. And for all its alleged landing problems the 109 was nevertheless also made into a carrier plane.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #35 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:42:23 AM »

The 109T was not the same as the109E which it was based on.

As was stated in a previous post, Messerschmitt attempeted to fix the problem with a longer tail wheel strut and larger fin/rudder.

Charge is that the one of the German 109 (German language) which shows 2 landings? The first looked like an accidendent waiting to happen while the other shows how it should be done.

Viking · « **Reply #36 on:** November 08, 2006, 10:03:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The 109T was not the same as the109E which it was based on.

It pretty much was the same in this regard. The undercarriage legs were strengthened to allow for the faster sink rates involved in carrier landings, but the landing gear was otherwise identical; same narrow track, same toe-out of the main wheels, same tail wheel. Landing a 109T would present the same inherent difficulties to the pilot as a 109E.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #37 on:** November 08, 2006, 10:15:57 AM »

Except for one small item, the tail hook.

Some 1800 arrested landings were done with non fatal.

Viking · « **Reply #38 on:** November 08, 2006, 10:17:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Charge is that the one of the German 109 (German language) which shows 2 landings? The first looked like an accidendent waiting to happen while the other shows how it should be done.

I think I already posted that film earlier in this thread.

Viking · « **Reply #39 on:** November 08, 2006, 10:21:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Except for one small item, the tail hook.

Some 1800 arrested landings were done with non fatal.

Yes of course, but the arrestor hook is not technically part of the undercarriage I think. Also it is irrelevant; the 109 was made into a carrier plane with only minor modification to the landing gear, none of which made the plane easier to land on a conventional airfield.

Angus · « **Reply #40 on:** November 08, 2006, 11:16:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Except for one small item, the tail hook.

Some 1800 arrested landings were done with non fatal.

I didn't see this at once, but do those 1800 landings belong to 109T testing?

Charge · « **Reply #41 on:** November 09, 2006, 07:58:29 AM »

"The funny thing is that only the very first model Corsairs had the dangerous characteristics that the entire line is thought to have. After the first model or two, a stall strip was added to one of the wings and the problem was solved. The Me-109, on the other hand, never was fixed."

Benny, the torque of the engine is hard to overcome by any other means but by pilots control of how much trottle is applied. The wing strip helped Corsair's stall behaviour in flight -it did not affect its ground handling as far as torque effects are concerned, AFAIK. In both aircraft throttle must be applied slowly as the speed builds up.

Basically the problem is more severe the more power you have at our disposal.

-C+

Benny Moore · « **Reply #42 on:** November 09, 2006, 08:12:29 AM »

Hmm, I'm talking about the stall characteristics. That's what the Corsair is notorious for, not bad ground handling. I don't know where anyone gets the idea that the Corsair was a bad plane to handle on the ground. Really, all taildraggers should handle more like the Corsair does in the simulator. In real life, all taildraggers have to be carefully kept from groundlooping, but in the simulator, only certain planes will groundloop at all - and even those need to be deliberately mishanded, usually. The Corsair's the only plane in the simulator I've had groundloop without me deliberately trying to do so.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #43 on:** November 09, 2006, 10:40:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
I didn't see this at once, but do those 1800 landings belong to 109T testing?

Yes Angus that was testing.

A landing area (~22m long) was marked out on a runway for the testing. This was what the USN did when it was considering the P-51 as a carrier a/c.

Angus · « **Reply #44 on:** November 10, 2006, 03:38:34 PM »

That is quite interesting.
So I presume they did it with the hook, and made it work.
I always wondered about the German Carrier program. They seem to have been so semi-serious about it, but yet developing a fighter variant and practically building the ship. BTW, I recall from recent news that the Zeppelin has been found. Anybody?