Revised Bf 109 design to alleviate take-off/landing problems

[Pasoleati]

What might be the easiest way to alleviate the above problems inherent in the basic Bf 109 design? In short: How to make it suitable for average pilots with far fewer than 200 flying hours to manage both from soft and hard runways. In fact, even experienced FAF pilots (who had no TO or landing accidents with it) complained that due to very narrow wheels it virtually "plowed" soft airfields and due to the overall weak construction, the gear linkages developed play causing retraction problems.

My revision would be to revise the wing design to allow significantly wider gear and wider/larger wheels (at least 750 mm x 200 mm) while keeping the fuselage intact.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The FW-190.

 

[Justo Miranda]

The FW-190.

German pilots preferred to make forced landings with the 109 because the landing gear came off easily, while the Focke-Wulf gear often caused the plane to be turned upside down.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The advantage of the Bf109 design was that the landing gear all attaches to the fuselage. If you need to move one on the roads you disconnect the wings and let it roll on the LG.

Changing that would not be easy. At best you could add ~50-60cm by adding a new center wing box that widened the mounting points.

Note that basically all other aircraft have their landing gear folding in towards the fuselage with the attach point in the wings.

 

[perttime]

You COULD design a completely new wing. The Spitfire has a similar layout, probably for the same reason. The final development, Spiteful/Seafang, got inward retracting landing gear. I suppose the new wing would have to be a little heavier to take the loads.

 

[Hood]

Would the solution not be to use the wings from the Me 209V5 with its wide-track undercarriage? Though I suspect the span might need to trimmed a little.

 

[tomo pauk]

Modify the wing, so the landing gear is attached to it and it can retract towards the fuselage.
Alternatively, add a small 'plug' between the fuselage and the wings - it does not need to be as big as on the 109H - so the stance of the legs can be more vertical. Something like this was probably very easy to do; note that the wing is originally from the 109F prototype, with the 'square' wing tips.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

maybe doing something like this

 

[alejandrogrossi]

better and closer image

 

[perttime]

maybe doing something like this

That is not a Bf 109, though. VL Pyörremyrsky has the same engine as Bf 109G - but there isn't much more commonality.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That is not a Bf 109, though. VL Pyörremyrsky has the same engine as Bf 109G - but there isn't much more commonality.

It is about what would need to happen.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

That is not a Bf 109, though. VL Pyörremyrsky has the same engine as Bf 109G - but there isn't much more commonality.

I know that.
But you need a new wing to redising the landing problems.
So VL, have a new wing.
Or design a VL for the version of Me-109F/G.

That plane with Lutwaffe marks. Historical date of the G version of 109G