Sorry had the nomenclature off.
I am doing the 3/4 scale mj9
Just getting rolling.
Lots of redrawing to do.
How far along are you ? Have the engine running now and about to start on the wing. Don't have the room though so looking into doing it in three piece.
God speed to you and would love to keep hearing of your progress
More German flyboys got killed by that landing gear than by enemy action.My projects was restarted and I’m making the formers for the fuselage. It was completely redesigned to take engine over 300 kg. I was able to get the new jurca plans that were not published. On the new plans the landing gear is attached to the fuselage and not the wing spar. The landing gear designed is far and away more complex than the simple one originally used by jurca.
Several years ago I had the privilege of meeting a former WWII pilot that had flown 109s in combat against Russian aircraft. I asked about the vicious reputation regarding takeoff and landings. He simply stated that the individuals just needed to be aware of the potential for problems and be prepared to act accordingly. To him, landings and takeoffs from paved surfaces were not a huge issue.Not true - old myth
Off grass the 109 was no more trouble than any other ww2 fighter
Have researched this extensively. Will post my sources if your interested . . . ?
Hi. From where did you obtain the updated plans? What engine will you be using?My projects was restarted and I’m making the formers for the fuselage. It was completely redesigned to take engine over 300 kg. I was able to get the new jurca plans that were not published. On the new plans the landing gear is attached to the fuselage and not the wing spar. The landing gear designed is far and away more complex than the simple one originally used by jurca.
What was found was that if you exceeded the correct approach speed of the early 109s up to the E model,which had drooping ailerons, you would float and anything other than a proper three-pointer would start the aircraft swinging and it could rapidly get out of control. It was a stupid idea, when plenty of other narrow-gear aircraft,like the Spitfire, worked perfectly well. All the other Daimler Benz engined fighters were relatively easy to take off and land,because they had conventional inward retracting gear. If the 109 had had such a gear, there would have been far less accidents, deaths and injuries and the strain on the procurement and supply system.
Last part of your post: exactly my point. 109 u/c + low hour pilots + wartime stresses = pilot deaths.Regarding the undercarriage of the 109, it has been said that the Messerschmitt Bf 109 was a good basic trainer for the Bu 131 Jungmann, rather than the other way around. The Jungmann as originally built had so much inward camber on its main undercarriage that, combined with the extremely long travel of the oleos, it was easy to achieve considerable angles of bank on the ground and, especially in crosswinds, the aeroplane could veer uncontrollably as the mass shifted laterally, with a wheel 'tucking under'. If corrected with the usual bootfull of rudder, the a/c would swap ends dramatically, usually with expensive results. Later examples of the Jungmann were factory or retro-fitted with axle spacers which provided a similar wheel attitude to the much easier Jungmeister.
People who have flown the 109 recently have adhered to the techniques described by Farnborough test pilots in operating the type following tests of a captured 109E in the early war period. No difficulties were experienced once the behaviour was fully investigated and understood. This was a far different situation than existed under the demands of hurried training of inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots or those suffering from combat fatigue and tiredness due to flying constant operations.
Stating the obvious of course but all aircraft are compromises. The 109's gear gave it advantages too. For example, It would have been heavier with outward retracting gear.
Sorry but no. The contemporary Macchi 202, Ki-61 and Reggiane 2001 fighters disprove that. All were highly manouverable and efficient aircraft and incidentally, all three could easily outturn a 109 in a dogfight. The weight difference between them was very little and the 109 did nothing but gain weight as it evolved. The 109's undercarriage was just a technological dead end and it cost lives and airframes. Many times it has been said that it was designed as such so that the hull could be transported on a railway flat car or even in a truck. One famous pilot derided this, stating that the needs of the Reichsbahn should not outweigh the needs of the fighter pilot. The FW 190 is a case in point. Focke Wulf were building 109s under contract and I suspect that Kurt Tank, who would have studied the 109 in great detail, decided to rid his aircraft of the 109's great bugbears,it's undercarriage and the canopy,which was hated by it's pilots for being both heavy and heavily framed.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: