Warbird Information Exchange

Always wondered about certain landing gear designs.

I've seen ME109's taxi and take off, they look so wobbly on their gear as opposed to the spitfire. Why do you think both aircraft used retractable gear outward as opposed to inward? My guess is the thickness of the wings, grass airstrips, cheaper to manufact. ... Any smarter answers out there?

The ME109 always looks as if the landing gear is ready to fail on landings and taxiing.

The P-40, Hellcat, Corsair, Hawk 75 and I'm sure more had ... as I see it ... very complex retractable landing gear. Why was this? ... seems all the above could have went with a simpler system. I know the Navy planes had folding wings, but the TBF avenger had outward retracts.

I'd love to hear some real good technical debate here. I know you mechanical and airframe design folks have some great feedback.

... Found this interesting item as well about the 109 ...

http://www.k-silmailumuseo.fi/?action=a ... HMA=27&ID=

Mark the wonderer

Interesting questions Mark...YOU WUSS. You changed your name. That's lettin' 'em win.

Honestly though, I've wondered the same about those gear set-ups myself. Were the designers not also pilots? If so, couldn't they see the inherent problems with the narrow track gear set-up?

Yeah...lets' hear the explanations from the experts on this. Give me and the WUSS the skinny.

Mudge the manly

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

On the 109 and Spitfire, the gear attaches to the strongest point avialable, ie, the fuselage. I think the big difference between the 2 is the length of the gear legs, a 109s leg is longer than a Spits.
On the P-40 and others, the gear is really a very simple design. as the gear moves aft, there is a gear at the top of the strut that causes the rotation. one actuator per gear.

HAHAHAHA! .... That's "MR. WUSS!!!!!" to you Mudge .... lolol, My Dad taught me a great lesson .... pick and choose your fights. Especially when you feel like you always have the upper hand. Why fight em ... when you can always out smart em ....

..."To know when to be generous and when firm—that is wisdom"....

Mudge ... did you read my first solo? ...

MR. WUSS

Doesn't the Spitfire gear still attach to the wing? The 109 can be rolled around on the gear with the wings removed.

The farther out the gear, the more of a bending moment you have on the spar due to the landing loads. Makes the plane heavier.

Aft retracting gear keeps the wheels out of the lower fuselage where you may have interference with other components (intercoolers in the case of the F4U and F6F). Also, if the gear retracts aft you don't have as much drag if the gear isn't exactly flush with the bottom of the wing (P-40 for example). There are a lot of tradeoffs here.

Well actually that is not entirely correct.

On the 109 the the gear is attached to frangible forgings attached to the fuselage. They look delicate and I am sure are designed to buckle at the extreme of loading and preserve the fuselage structure. The gear can be fitted with the wings dismounted which can be a ground handling maintenance bonus.

On the Spitfire however the gear is attached to the spar web of the wing. Close inboard, sure, but still attached to the wing.

PeterA

Yeah Mark I'm with Mudge on this one.

Atleast if you were gonna change youre name, you could of picked something more inflammatory like:

STOPYERBITCHN or EATSHITANDDIE or my fav SUCKMYPIEHOLE

Just couple modest suggestions

Actually I'm surprised HELLCAT wasn't taken by now.


___________________
Ok back to topic


Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis

Hellcat was taken ... I just KILLED the person that had it .... See Mudge! ... I'm no WUSS!! ... hehehe

FWIW, here are some pictures I took of “Rote Sieben” last fall:

_________________

Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
Warbirds of America

What are you waiting for? Join us!

Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com

Some interesting info and photos ... All things P-40 ... looks like Jack Cook has some photos as well. Never can get enough of Jack's photos.

http://www.p40warhawk.com/index.htm

In Europe in the pre-WII era, grass fields were much more the norm and pilots were used to tail-dragger aircraft that might currently be considered 'unforgiving.' Mounting the landing gear inboard, whether it was mounted to fuselage structure, or wing stubs, was certainly lighter and less complicated than doing it the way a P-51 or P-47 was. Grass is more forgiving due to slippage, as well as the way airfields were laid out - you could land into the wind rather than fight a x-wind. But also contemplate the F4F or other American designs - seem like built-in ground-loopers. I think planes got wider track gear as time went on due to the fact that pilots couldn't receive as much training time during wartime, as well as just design improvements- you didn't have to work so hard or have as much talent/experience if things were better designed. Why are so few modern planes taildraggers? (counterpoint - why do the majority of modern pilots not care/have no idea which way the wind is blowing?)

lolol (just had to add that . . .)

I'm surprised no one has brought up the F-8F Bearcats two piece gear as a way of making clearance for the prop. I always thought the retract sequence was a bit strange but very cool!

_________________
Civis Aerius Sum

I am a citizen of the Air

If you are really curious on the subject

Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/