Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hogenbor on January 28, 2005, 08:08:49 AM
-
A friend and I had a bit of an argument about the 109. We couldn't agree on why the 109 had it's undercarriage the way it is, despite it has been criticised so much.
If I remember correctly, the undercarriage retracted outwards because it was a requirement that the 109's could be transported by train standing on their undercarriages (with their wings removed). I've seen photographs of this, although that is a loooooong time ago.
My friend claims the undercarriage is a compromise because many design principles are carried over from the Bf 108 Taifun, including the undercarriage. This also would explain the odd 'toe out; stance of the wheels. He also claims it was never rectified in later models because it would mean holding up production too much. Reason I don't believe this is that I've seen both the 108 and the 109 in the metal and it just seems a bit too far fetched.
Many experts here, so enlighten us please.
-
I remember reading that the struts attached to the fuselage to allow easy maintance and wing removal.
afool
-
Carriage attached to the fuselage for easy mainenance, - wings could be removed easily.
This would allow for a lighter wing also.
In early models there were some structural issues with the wing?
-
from what i heard the wings could be removed on the 109e4 by removing a small plate then this showed a couple of larger screws that held the wing in place,very simple to do
rogerdee
-
It was rather common practice to mount the undercarriage this way at the time, just look at designs in the 1930s... a wider undercarriage meant a lot more load on the wing, a heavier design. Most designers opted for performance. Mounting the undercarriage on the fuselage had a lot of advantages - fast wing change, easy transport, and eventually, the fuselage could bear more transmitted load than the wings. Never underestimate operational factors ! One factory pilot I know took off a 109 to battle on his own - damage to wing in combat. After he landed it was changed within a few hours and he flew back home on that afternoon! That 109 was operational on the next morning because of that. If they would have to disassamble to u/c, support the plane etc. it would take a lot more.
Actually the only downplay was the narrow track width, which would leave with poorer ground traction. I guess the Bf 108 was also a serious reason, as the 109 was based on it almost directly. Hardly something to be ashamed of, as the 108 re-entered production post-war, it was so nice. However the guy is wrong in that it was never improved, the wheel track was slightly increased, and much larger tires were used later. I doubt anyone who driven a car with just slighly larger tires would argue how much difference it can make in handling...