Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:18 am 
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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:45 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
Interesting questions Mark...YOU WUSS. :evil: 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. :P

Mudge the manly

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:00 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3294
Location: Phoenix, Az
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:09 pm 
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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:28 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11324
Matt Gunsch wrote:
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.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:32 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 1073
Location: UK
Matt Gunsch wrote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:12 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:37 pm
Posts: 2755
Location: Dayton, OH
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 :wink:

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


___________________
Ok back to topic


Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:40 pm 
Hellcat was taken ... I just KILLED the person that had it .... See Mudge! ... I'm no WUSS!! ... hehehe


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:07 pm 
Offline
Pvt. Joker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 1012
Location: Location: Location!
FWIW, here are some pictures I took of “Rote Sieben” last fall:

Image

Image

_________________
Image
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:28 pm 
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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 429
Location: new York
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 . . .)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:05 pm
Posts: 303
Location: Oklahoma City, OK.
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

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:58 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:11 am
Posts: 2392
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
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/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group