Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[Cromwell]

I think that one point that was never resolved for both the 109 and maybe a lesser extent for the Spitfire were the out-folding undercarriages and the narrow track which led to high losses of newbies in general and all pilots in fact at night or rough landing strips or side winds etc.

I never understood why a Messerschmit engineer did not come up with a clever conversion, even a half recessed landing gear.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Cromwell

I think that one point that was never resolved for both the 109 and maybe a lesser extent for the Spitfire were the out-folding undercarriages and the narrow track which led to high losses of newbies in general and all pilots in fact at night or rough landing strips or side winds etc.

I never understood why a Messerschmit engineer did not come up with a clever conversion, even a half recessed landing gear.

Real simple - weight, material and producibility...

In the years the 109 and Spitfire were developed some of the materials used to carry some of the major stress loads were state of the art. High strength aluminum forgings, steels and magnesium were starting to find their way into aircraft construction. Designers of that day had to come up with a design that was light weight, strong and producible. Operational considerations were weighed when the initial prototypes were first evaluated and some of those idiosyncrasies were accepted. The pilots just had to learn to deal with them.

As the war progressed and aircraft development was at a "wartime urgency", many of the pre-war "quick and easy" design solutions that incorporated some of the previously mentioned materials became more refined, especially around the landing gear. The oleo strut evolved from a simple piston to a structural masterpiece that not only carried the aircraft weight but managed a smooth cushion when landing. At this point the engineer and operator has to ask themselves "Is interruption of the production line warranted to incorporate these improvements?" I would guess that although Germany built 35,000 109s, every production day of this aircraft was critical and if there were going to be major improvements, they better be well worth it, and it seems the lion's share of those improvement went into the propulsion, airframe and weapons systems. After 8 years of operating these squat, narrow track fighters with landing gear nothing more than a crude shock absorber, it was probably felt that it wasn't worth the effort to incorporate a better landing gear design although there were numerous accidents on both aircraft (the Spit and 109) due to their landing gear configuration.

[renrich]

A half recessed gear would have resulted in too much drag. Because of trying to reduce weight in the main wing spar the designer in effect on the BF attached the main gear to the fuselage resulting in the narrow track.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Cromwell

I think that one point that was never resolved for both the 109 and maybe a lesser extent for the Spitfire were the out-folding undercarriages and the narrow track which led to high losses of newbies in general and all pilots in fact at night or rough landing strips or side winds etc.

I never understood why a Messerschmit engineer did not come up with a clever conversion, even a half recessed landing gear.

I cant remember who it was pbfoot maybe who went and measured the tracks of the 109 and the Spitfire at the musuem airfield near where he lives and the Spit was actually slightly narrower than that of the Bf 109.

[Hunter368]

Really? Wow never knew that.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I might be mistaken but I thought was what it was or the 109 was only a very slight narrower. I cant remember now.

I need to find the thread.

[Cromwell]

Maybe because the Hurricane had a wider track - outward opening cart - it was therefore able to help the RAF win the 'Crashing War' during the Battle of Britain.

I am sure that the Luftwaffe must have lost a bucket-load of good planes and pilots simply because they did not have the Hurricane's undercarriage arrangement.

Same for the RAF and the Spit of course as the Hurricane was moved into ground attack and night raiding roles.

I wonder what the Stats say in terms of pilots lost through landing or taking off because of undercarriage-related crashes ?

[Soren]

The Spits landing gear was narrower yes, however it didn't have any problems with toe out as the 109 did, which meant the Spit was easier to land and take off.

[Jackson]

I saw some show where a test pilot flew them both, back to back..

The Spit was more of a pilots plane, the '109 was more of a war plane..

Even visually looking at them both, I know what he meant..

He admitted to loving them both

[claidemore]

I believe the 109 struts were longer as well.

[Njaco]

The landing and take-off of the Bf 109 was covered in another thread and I got my butt chewed on that one. Apparently didn't happen as often as reported. (crashes that is)

[pbfoot]

Both aircraft are toed out 1/2" or 1.7cm the camber on the 109 is pronounced . Most aircraft I have been told are towed out as one method used to to give directional stability on landing as it sort of self centres the aircraft on touch down

[Soren]

The Spitfire's landing gear hos no toe out AFAIK. The straight landing gear also helped on landings.


PS: Pbfoot, I hope that isn't your hand that's stuck there! Man you just can keep you fingers to yourself can you ?? :P

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Spitfire's landing gear hos no toe out AFAIK. The straight landing gear also helped on landings.


PS: Pbfoot, I hope that isn't your hand that's stuck there! Man you just can keep you fingers to yourself can you ?? :P

I don't know about afaik I measured both of them side by side front and rear of tires centre to centre

[Soren]

AFAIK = As Far As I Know