Bf-109G-10 undercarriage track

[72modeler]

I thought a new (Well, really not new!) discussion topic on the subject might be better than hijacking (Can you still use that term post-9-11?) the original thread. I have posted links to two photos that I think might be helpful. One is of a restored Bf-109G-10 and the other is of a restored Bf-109E. Both were taken from about the same angle and view. It appears to me, and I'm probably wrong, that the location of the mounting points for the landing gear struts is the same for both aircraft. The track, or angle that the struts are splayed outboard, seems to be greater on the G-10. That would perhaps account for the new upper wing bulges on the G-10 and other variants. I think another factor might be the missing panels that should be inboard of the struts in the G-10 photo that give the illusion of the struts being moved further outboard.  In the Jochen Prien book on the Bf-109 F, G, and K, he states that the angle of the axles and struts  was changed, as was the size of the wheels, but not the location. Does this help or make sense?

Mike

 

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=kVpkXPLLHYXKsQWT5L_YDg&q=Bf-109G-6+undercarriage+track&oq=Bf-109G-6+undercarriage+track&gs_l=img.12...131366.136742..139133...0.0..0.79.1385.20......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i30j0i24.eq5b1RiJvFI#imgrc=gzcAWZq78AHo1M:&spf=1550080811755

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Bf-109G-6+landing+gear&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=v2_ywA0QlLfVCM%3A%2C1pIOpja9yBcnnM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kS9iJis44BHtQ24l0KvWoaNrRUWxQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhmLG1pLngAhUL7qwKHZktCYYQ9QEwAHoECAMQBA#imgrc=PlRd81bc6GDcGM:&spf=1550080671289

 

 

[Richard502]

Mermet, in "Messerschmitt Bf109" gives the distance between wheels for the E model as 1975mm, with wheels of 650mm diameter and 150mm thickness/width.(p. 39). For the F model "The landing gear's castering angle was raised to 4.5 degrees forward", wheel size as in the E model. (p.57).  For the G10 wheel size was increased to 660mm diameter by 190mm width (p. 129). I did not find any information on the track width of the G10.

HTH, Richard

[Troy Smith]

37 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

that the location of the mounting points for the landing gear struts is the same for both aircraft.

Hi Mike

given the construction of the  109, and the need for planes,  AFAIK they are the same on all models,  in the way they are the same on all Spitfire until the series 20 wing came in.

that the 109 UC is attched to the fuselage and thus you get 109's  without wings on their UC legs, plus  the G-10 was seen with both the teardrop bulges and the wide bulges.

 

This is a K-4,  wide tyres,   and you can see the attachment points.    

 

 

39 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

That would perhaps account for the new upper wing bulges on the G-10 and other variants.

Again, AFAIK the wide bulge on the late 109's was to accommodate the wider tyre,  the small teardrop bulge introduced on the G-3/G-4 was again as a result of a wider tyre from the G-1/G-2 type.

 

I have near read anything to the effect that the G series differed from the F in basic structure,  and all the later variants were attempts to get more out of the basic G airframe with minimal changes.

 

Not sure if we have a specific raging 109 nuts here,  if you are on Hyperscale Lynn Ritger would know.

 

HTH

 

 

 

[stevehnz]

4 hours ago, 72modeler said:

I thought a new (Well, really not new!) discussion topic on the subject might be better than hijacking (Can you still use that term post-9-11?) the original thread.

This is the original thread Mike @72modeler alludes too, a couple of really nicely modelled Revell Bf 109G-10s by @Mig88.

It seemed a shame to take it over completely with discussion of the maybe changed track on the G-10 & also -K & G-14 which was mentioned in the article from IPMSStockholm that was linked to the thread in post #8.

Steve.

 

[stevehnz]

Another photo from similar angle that Mike linked to this time of an Avia S-199 aka Jumo engined Bf 109G-6 which to my eye has much the same undercarriage mount location as the G-10 photo.

Steve.

Edited February 13, 2019 by stevehnz

[Mig88]

Until I posted my Revell G-10s, I had never heard anything about a change in track of the Bf 109 undercarriage. I would agree that, considering the way the undercarriage is attached to the fuselage, it is doubtful that the location of the legs would have changed. Now, if the legs were splayed further outwards it wouldn't affect anything other than the sit of the aircraft unless the change in tyres compensated for this. The bulges were, as already mentioned, to accomodate the larger tyres.

 

Miguel

[Vlad]

As far as I'm aware, there is no change to the oleo angle with version for 109s.

 

The thing that did change is the angle of the wheel relative to the oleo. It's parallel up until G-2, then the wheel is more vertical from G-4 onwards. This is what causes the teardrop bulge on the upper wing, as one edge of the tyre now sticks up when the gear is retracted.

 

The later, much larger fairings are to accommodate the wider K-4 tyres. The wheels are at the same angle relative to the oleo as the late G tyres.

[Troy Smith]

Bf 109E 

If I find a proper head on shot I'll edit it.

found one, I'll leav the above as it shows details not clear below

 

Bf 109 G-10 or K-4 (has the undercowl bulges for the DB605D engine, and the wide tyres, large wing bulges)

 

to me they look basically the same,  and I have never read anything to the contrary.

I believe that there are strengthened gear legs from somewhere in the G series,  but quite how the differ I'm not sure. 

[Vlad]

I can see it in the pictures you posted but the shots aren't from the same angle. The wheels toe-in and the shots are parallel to the ground not the fuselage, so this distorts the angle you see. Also the big tyres on the K obscure it a little. Try comparing an F-4 or early G-2 to a late G-4 or G-6.

 

I don't remember where I read it, but the reasoning is sound. Making the wheel itself more vertical reduced the tendency for it to "dig in" under sideways load, a known issue impacting 109 ground handling.

 

Edit:

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Vlad

[silberpferd]

If that can be of any help, here is a drawing from a wartime russian report on a captured Bf109E, confirming the track width as 1.975 m (and it's the same for the F, from another manual)

 

 

The width changed on the G

 

 

drawing from a G-6 manual (similar to the one found in the G-4 manual). There is a difference of 87mm, maybe due to a different angle of the gear leg, or the bigger wheel.

 

Maybe someone has manuals for later models, which I unfortunately don't.

 

Laurent

Edited February 14, 2019 by silberpferd

[gingerbob]

So measuring from the centerline, a little over four centimeters.  Not very much!  A change of wheel (axle) angle could easily account for that.  And I'll bow out now, because I'm an interested student in this case, not a "knower".

 

bob

 

Edit: Wait a minute!  I get a difference (in overall track) of 27, not 87 mm!  [Edit: Or do I?  See next comment.]  Divide by two, multiply by 10, hold your jaw right, and that means less than 1.5 centimeters change from the centerline.

Edited February 15, 2019 by gingerbob

[silberpferd]

49 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

Edit: Wait a minute!  I get a difference (in overall track) of 27, not 87 mm!  Divide by two, multiply by 10, hold your jaw right, and that means less than 1.5 centimeters change from the centerline.

I guess the figure for the G-6 wheels track width is 2.062m, thus making a 87 mm difference. Unfortunately, I have a digital copy of that manual that has not been scanned at a very high resolution, so I cannot confirm if it's 2,002 or 2,062, but to me it looks 2,062. Aay, it's a small difference with earlier models, especially when scaled down to 1/72.

 

Laurent

[gingerbob]

Ah, I see.  Sure looks like 2002 above, but it could just be "copy sabotage"!  Edit: I looked at G-4 and G-6 manuals at Avialogs.com and it does look more like 2062 there, though not as large as I'd like.

Edited February 14, 2019 by gingerbob

[Richard502]

can the increase in track width be accounted for by (27mm)

a) wider wheels (track is measured from wheel centre line to wheel centre line) and/or

b) the increase in forward rake of the gear legs in transition from the E to the F?

Richard