PDA

View Full Version : tailwheel



hsj43
10-08-2008, 06:03 PM
Why was some planes made to have its tailwheels out not in when flying.The 109s had there tailwheels out but the f-2,4-ks did not.In game i think planes with tailwheels out when flying look ugly.USA had all there planes tailwheels in when flying even early made planes did.Spits did not have there tailwheels in only later spits did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifwouldnt flyers be afraid of tailwheels being shot off.

WTE_Galway
10-08-2008, 06:33 PM
I do not believe looking ugly was a consideration.


A retracting tail wheel is more complicated, more expensive to manufacture, needs more maintenance and is more likely to fail.

ImMoreBetter
10-08-2008, 06:41 PM
Because retractable tail wheels just weren't needed, it is not large enough of a problem.

The tail wheel is not that big, and is quite close the fuselage, there are probably much larger drag-inducing problems.

As planes became much heavier and larger, larger wheels were fitted. And they didn't always fit completely inside the fuselage.

Retraction mechanisms were also heavier and more expensive.

Even with the tail wheel inside the fuselage, the tail wheel is almost just a vulnerable as they have no armor around them. You don't necessarily need a tail wheel to land, losing it would be the least of my worries in combat.

Kurfurst__
10-09-2008, 01:54 AM
The guys at Messerschmitt AG considered the small tailwheel being worth -12 kph in speed, and tall one -17 km/h when lowered. It a surprisingly high amount of drag from such a tiny item, actually.

See drag items No 20 and 21: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistung...html#dragitems_table (http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html#dragitems_table)

Falcke
10-09-2008, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The guys at Messerschmitt AG considered the small tailwheel being worth -12 kph in speed, and tall one -17 km/h when lowered. It a surprisingly high amount of drag from such a tiny item, actually.

See drag items No 20 and 21: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistung...html#dragitems_table (http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html#dragitems_table)

So why did they opt to not keep the retracting tailwheel if it slowed the 109 so much?

Treetop64
10-09-2008, 05:42 AM
Visibility while taxiing and taking off were one of the serious problems facing green Bf-109 pilots late in the war. This was induced by the high cowl line at the front of the cockpit and the relatively high nose-up attitude of the aircraft when it sits on the ground. So, to help rectify this problem some of the late war 109s (the late serial G models, don't remember specifically which ones they were, but definitely not the G-10) featured a tall tail wheel to help drop the nose of the aircraft a bit while it's on the ground, slightly aiding forward visibility.

Of course, this modification was of such physical dimensions that it rendered the retractible tail wheel mechanism unusable. Simply redesigning the retractible mechanism was, at that stage of the war, low on the list of priorities for Messerschmitt who's remaining resources were directed towards simplifying the 109 as much as possible, and to build as many as rapidly as possible. However, just to confuse the matter, if you read any material regarding the late series production runs of 109-Gs you'll learn that there were numerous different sub-variants produced, and it can be difficult for the initiate to keep track of it all, as it became quite bewildering... In fact, some variants had a fixed tail wheel that was dimensionally no different than that of the retractible type. Again this was likely to aid in simplifying production and keeping costs as low as possible. Simply bolting the tail wheel to the fuselage is much cheaper and faster than installing some complex system to retract it. It also results in, all things being equal, a lighter airframe, and one less worry about a system that could potentially fail.

So, there are advantages - but always compromises to consider - with a fixed tail wheel design.

hsj43
10-09-2008, 06:59 PM
Thanks for the info all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Crikey2008
10-09-2008, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Falcke:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The guys at Messerschmitt AG considered the small tailwheel being worth -12 kph in speed, and tall one -17 km/h when lowered. It a surprisingly high amount of drag from such a tiny item, actually.

See drag items No 20 and 21: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistung...html#dragitems_table (http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html#dragitems_table)

So why did they opt to not keep the retracting tailwheel if it slowed the 109 so much? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the 109G-5 models lengthened the tailwheel in concert with lengthening the tail fin in an effort to provide horizontal stability. The 109 re-designers considered an appendage lying in the airflow could have properties that might be advantageous (a reasonable proposition considering other appendages such as dorsal fins etc effect leverage as well). To my knowledge they were not impressed with the result.