Rough Field AC

[Karnak]

Was that a weak landing gear issue, or was it other mechanical failure?  Ki-84's had weak landing gear that would at times fail,

[Zygote404]

Was that a weak landing gear issue, or was it other mechanical failure?  Ki-84's had weak landing gear that would at times fail,

The top picture, first crash, it was a harder then normal landing.  Snapped the landing gear.

The 2nd picture, apparently a crosswind cause the spit to bounce as it touched down, pitched it forward and caused a prop strike, the landing gear obviously gave way but I'm not sure as to why or how it was caused. Maybe his natural reaction was to pull the nose back and hes done a hop back onto the runway hard after that.

Heres one of the stories, they're all slightly different though.  Journalistic interpretations no doubt.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10613213

[RTHolmes]

(Image removed from quote.)

nice photo. this must prove that the spit's landing gear was too weak to operate off asphalt strips, right?

[Nemisis]

Lol zygote. As Holmes pointed out, you kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one  .

[Imowface]

I dont even know why you posted the second one, you said it your self, it was a crosswind and the prop hit the ground nothing to do with landing gear

[Zygote404]

nice photo. this must prove that the spit's landing gear was too weak to operate off asphalt strips, right?

What it indicates is even on developed airfields the Spitfire needs to be landed gently due to its landing gear and that it was sensitive to wind conditions.  The margin for error is going to go up on a rough field with divots and rocks obviously.

This thread reminds me of raising teenagers.  No matter what you say, how much evidence you provide, they won't listen because the don't want to.

I dont even know why you posted the second one, you said it your self, it was a crosswind and the prop hit the ground nothing to do with landing gear

Because the landing gear collapsed as well?

[Zygote404]

"Among the reasons the Spitfire V was not considered successful by the Soviets was friendly fire incidents when mistaken for Bf109, and poor servicability and high landing accident rate at rough forward fields. And the Spit V wasn't a greatly superior plane to P-39/40 again if high altitude wasn't emphasized. These were the reasons some VVS, ie. tactical af, units handed in Spits for P-39's in the Kuban region, but it's actually pretty similar again to experience in the Far East. Flying in primitive conditions in northern Australia, Spit V's were less successful against Japanese fighters than P-40's, a plane unsentimentally considered about equal below 15k ft in that theater. Those operations did favor a superior high altitude plane like the Spit, but again poor servicability and high operational loss rate in rough conditions was a big drawback. Again the Soviet experience was not unique.

The Spitfire IX was respected by the Soviets for its capabilities as high altitude interceptor, as v. German recon planes, so in that case the Spitfire's strengths were more the reason for its use in PVO, ie air defense, units than its weaknesses a reason not to use it in VVS units."

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/soviet-use-hurricane-spitfire-17216.html

Want more?

[RTHolmes]

evidence of the C-130s weak landing gear - proof that its unsuitable for operation from unprepared strips:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_730n6N0yHw


... 

[Zygote404]

evidence of the C-130s weak landing gear - proof that its unsuitable for operation from unprepared strips:

(Image removed from quote.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_730n6N0yHw


...  

If could be if you backed it up with as many references as I have provided for the spitfire's issues.

Although, ironically, the first comment on the video says:

This video shows yet again that the 150, 000 pound C-130 needs a softer landing gear--either tracks or an Air Cushion Landing System (ACLS) so it can land without need of hard, prepared runways as standard practice.

So you might be right 

[Karnak]

If could be if you backed it up with as many references as I have provided for the spitfire's issues.

What references?  You haven't provided a single one yet.  Not one single reference of yours says that Spitfires could not and did not operate off of rough air fields.  All you have provided is that it was a bit harder on Spitfires than on some other types though easier than some.

[Zygote404]

What references?  You haven't provided a single one yet.  Not one single reference of yours says that Spitfires could not and did not operate off of rough air fields.  All you have provided is that it was a bit harder on Spitfires than on some other types though easier than some.

Semantics.

From what I have discovered during researching they were even poor performers on developed grass strips.  A bit of soggy ground or a bump was enough to tip and damage a wing or cause a prop strike and the brakes were so poor they needed a lot of space to land.  They couldn't taxi well, needing to use a zig zag which further put them at risk of accident and they couldn't brake well because they were nose heavy.  They couldn't take off with full power due to dangerous yaw to the right.  All in all they had a very bad record of accidents while landing and taking off.

In the context of the idea behind this thread, they would not be classified as a plane suited as a rough field aircraft.  Sorry but thats the end of this story.

[Plawranc]

 

Alright, as a squeaker I know what its like to be flamed, but this just deserves it.

A. Spitfires were originally designed as a carrier or seaborne interceptor and so their landing gear while side by side centreline is reinforced for rough landings.

B. Spitfires were dispersed away from main airfields during the Battle of Britain, one squadron operated from a piece of farmland with a wooden shack at the end with no more servicing than a lawn mower, The Kent Aero club.

and C. The Spitfire developed a reputation for being one of the most effective if not THE most effective "hun getter" of WW2.



That doesnt look like a smooth mown paved strip to me

So sit down and shh.

[Plawranc]

That doesnt either

Also, THATS A LATE WAR SPIT

late war they had concrete and such but these were STILL flying off grass and dirt even with all the new high tech stuff on board

[Nemisis]

Zygote, why would you even bring up the crosswinds thing? everything is affected by crosswinds, and I'd assume that lighter planes are more affected.

And not only would this have little impact on the game IMO, but since spits WERE based at rough fields, you can't really use the "well, they weren't ideally suited to it" argument. The Ju-88 wasn't idealy suited as a night fighter or strafer, but it was used in that role, with some success I might add.

[Zygote404]

Alright, as a squeaker I know what its like to be flamed, but this just deserves it.

A. Spitfires were originally designed as a carrier or seaborne interceptor and so their landing gear while side by side centreline is reinforced for rough landings.

B. Spitfires were dispersed away from main airfields during the Battle of Britain, one squadron operated from a piece of farmland with a wooden shack at the end with no more servicing than a lawn mower, The Kent Aero club.

and C. The Spitfire developed a reputation for being one of the most effective if not THE most effective "hun getter" of WW2.

So sit down and shh.

LOL.

A. Absolute garbage. All evidence regarding the Spitfire is contrary to that statement.  The spitfire was never designed as a naval aircraft nor did it have strong reinforced landing gear.  You had best read the material I have linked above before you embarrass yourself making these sorts of statements.
B. A farm cannot be classified as a rough airfield.  What classifies a strip as a rough airfield is rough conditions (rockey, bumpy, uneven, short length etc).  How do you know that farm didn't have a really lovely flat hard paddock that was ideally suited for aircraft? What was the accident rate on that airfield in comparison to other aircraft like the hurricane operating in similiar conditions?  Why was the action taken? Was there a World War going on? Did the country in question have a major air battle lasting months in which they were losing more aircraft then they could replace when this action was taken?
C. Operational K/D has no bearing on whether it was capable of using rough airfields effectively.