Jump to content

Why no tailwheel lock on the Spit?


imacken

Recommended Posts

Out of interest, why was the Spit designed without a tailwheel lock? I'm guessing there must be a good reason!

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because British pilots were trusted to be able to cope with more than other nations?! :P

 

In all seriousness, I don't know the actual answer but it will likely boil down to a multitude of factors. Here are my guesses:

 

1. Weight - all the mechanisms required to lock the tail wheel would have added weight to an a/c whose primary function was as a short range interceptor; climb rate is paramount in this role ergo, anything that added further weight would have been regarded as problematic.

 

2. Wasn't required - in light of my flippant opening response, the Spitfire rudder area as designed in 1935 was probably deemed sufficient to respond to the torque demands of the powerplant then proposed. The vast majority of pilots were managing to get on and off the ground without an unusual number of incidences so...

 

3. Few previous RAF fighters had such feature; nearly all the bi-planes all had skids (Gladiator excepting). Even the training a/c would have unlikely had something quite so exotic for the time (with perhaps the Harvard being the exception - American Harvards had options: tail wheel locking only (US Navy) or rudder bound steering mechanism (USAAF), I have been unable to find out if the RAF Harvard Mk.I had either). Ergo pilots have been trained and are familiar with the directionally unstable ground handling behaviour of tailwheel aircraft and given point 2. as long as the rudder area and torque forces are in some form of equilibrium, the characteristics should provide little in the way of surprise, drama or cause for concern.

 

4. The technology was fairly new and the RAF has always viewed new and potentially complex (read unreliable) technology askance over that which is tried and tested.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you also have brake steering and a locked tail wheel would hinder it.

you need a free castor at the back if you are steering at the front.

My Rig: AM5 7950X, 32GB DDR5 6000, M2 SSD, EVGA 1080 Superclocked, Warthog Throttle and Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Oculus Rift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you also have brake steering and a locked tail wheel would hinder it.

you need a free castor at the back if you are steering at the front.

 

Sorry, I meant a lockable tailwheel. Like in the K4 for example. Can be locked and unlocked for taxiing.

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because British pilots were trusted to be able to cope with more than other nations?! :P

 

In all seriousness, I don't know the actual answer but it will likely boil down to a multitude of factors. Here are my guesses:

 

1. Weight - all the mechanisms required to lock the tail wheel would have added weight to an a/c whose primary function was as a short range interceptor; climb rate is paramount in this role ergo, anything that added further weight would have been regarded as problematic.

 

2. Wasn't required - in light of my flippant opening response, the Spitfire rudder area as designed in 1935 was probably deemed sufficient to respond to the torque demands of the powerplant then proposed. The vast majority of pilots were managing to get on and off the ground without an unusual number of incidences so...

 

3. Few previous RAF fighters had such feature; nearly all the bi-planes all had skids (Gladiator excepting). Even the training a/c would have unlikely had something quite so exotic for the time (with perhaps the Harvard being the exception - American Harvards had options: tail wheel locking only (US Navy) or rudder bound steering mechanism (USAAF), I have been unable to find out if the RAF Harvard Mk.I had either). Ergo pilots have been trained and are familiar with the directionally unstable ground handling behaviour of tailwheel aircraft and given point 2. as long as the rudder area and torque forces are in some form of equilibrium, the characteristics should provide little in the way of surprise, drama or cause for concern.

 

4. The technology was fairly new and the RAF has always viewed new and potentially complex (read unreliable) technology askance over that which is tried and tested.

 

Thanks for the detailed reply. That all makes sense, but still, it obviously worked in planes like the Mustang and the Kurfurst. It’s not the take off or landing that bothers me, it’s the ground taxiing which would be so much easier if we were able to lock the tailwheel when going in a straight line.

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True Quadg, but tail wheel locks tend to be disengageable, i.e. that on the 109. Engage for takeoff, landing and taxiing at speed, disengage for spot turns and tighter manoeuvering.

 

it obviously worked in planes like the Mustang and the Kurfurst

 

Yes, but the Mustang was a 5-6 year later design by which the tech has become a bit more prevalent, plus the US designers were much inclined to add these kinds of nice-to-haves in their aircraft often at the cost of all-up weight; remember the Mustang was put on a diet (for the P-51F/G/H/J) because of fears that the gap between it's climb rate and further developments of the 109 would only widen.

 

The 109 it could be argued was more of necessity - marginal aerodynamic directional stability, narrow track undercarriage, smaller plane, more power, narrower undercarriage, toe-out of wheels; these all combine to make the lock at least a desirable feature, if not an outright necessity. I don't know when it was introduced to the series, be interesting to find out.

 

it’s the ground taxiing which would be so much easier if we were able to lock the tailwheel when going in a straight line.

 

Yes it's definitely a bit twitchy and is the most frustrating part of the flight process. However, having flown backseat in the real deal, you sense in your butt the divergent movement quite early and it really helps as a pre-signal as to where it's starting to break before you get the the visual cues. Thusly it's easier to stay on top of it.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True Quadg, but tail wheel locks tend to be disengageable, i.e. that on the 109. Engage for takeoff, landing and taxiing at speed, disengage for spot turns and tighter manoeuvering.

 

 

 

Yes, but the Mustang was a 5-6 year later design by which the tech has become a bit more prevalent, plus the US designers were much inclined to add these kinds of nice-to-haves in their aircraft often at the cost of all-up weight; remember the Mustang was put on a diet (for the P-51F/G/H/J) because of fears that the gap between it's climb rate and further developments of the 109 would only widen.

 

The 109 it could be argued was more of necessity - marginal aerodynamic directional stability, narrow track undercarriage, smaller plane, more power, narrower undercarriage, toe-out of wheels; these all combine to make the lock at least a desirable feature, if not an outright necessity. I don't know when it was introduced to the series, be interesting to find out.

 

 

 

Yes it's definitely a bit twitchy and is the most frustrating part of the flight process. However, having flown backseat in the real deal, you sense in your butt the divergent movement quite early and it really helps as a pre-signal as to where it's starting to break before you get the the visual cues. Thusly it's easier to stay on top of it.

Thanks again for your detailed and interesting reply.

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the spitfire is an interceptor. you save all unnecessary weight on an interceptor.

and as it has no tail wheel lock, clearly it is unnecessary.

 

the question to be asked is why does the p51 and the 109 need a tail wheel lock?

why is it necessary?

 

i would say toe brakes is the answer.

My Rig: AM5 7950X, 32GB DDR5 6000, M2 SSD, EVGA 1080 Superclocked, Warthog Throttle and Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Oculus Rift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what's being said here...but how heavy can a tailwheel locking mechanism be? Surely it wouldn't be enough to put such a dent in performance as you guys talk it up to be?

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on a design school. Back then airplanes were not as pilot friendly as they are nowadays. Creature comfort and ease of use were not very high on the list of priorities.

 

Also in real life it was a bit easier to control the aircraft on the ground, since it had a single brake handle that applied differential brakes depending on rudder position. You can't simulate that with pedals and warthog stick.

 

Come to think of it, I can see a pattern:

- central brake handle (Spitfire, most Russian planes) - no tailwheel lock

- toebrakes (German, US aircraft) - there is a tailwheel lock

 

Of course there are some exceptions :)

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what's being said here...but how heavy can a tailwheel locking mechanism be? Surely it wouldn't be enough to put such a dent in performance as you guys talk it up to be?

Every pound makes a difference in aviation. If something is not absolutely mandatory don't get it.

 

 

3. Few previous RAF fighters had such feature; nearly all the bi-planes all had skids (Gladiator excepting). Even the training a/c would have unlikely had something quite so exotic for the time (with perhaps the Harvard being the exception - American Harvards had options: tail wheel locking only (US Navy) or rudder bound steering mechanism (USAAF), I have been unable to find out if the RAF Harvard Mk.I had either). Ergo pilots have been trained and are familiar with the directionally unstable ground handling behaviour of tailwheel aircraft and given point 2. as long as the rudder area and torque forces are in some form of equilibrium, the characteristics should provide little in the way of surprise, drama or cause for concern.

Not sure, but some clues makes me think it's like USAAF version. Anyway, don't know if it's the Canadian accent, buy I don't get a bunch of the chatter :doh: .

 

 

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aspect usually overviewed in simulators is how the controls of the real thing feels. Usually aeroplane controls are really heavy, and I mean really really heavy, like nothing one expects when first tried. That makes a huge difference when flying a certain model, and a free castering wheel can be very heavy to move so no need to lock it.

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 109 it could be argued was more of necessity - marginal aerodynamic directional stability, narrow track undercarriage, smaller plane, more power, narrower undercarriage, toe-out of wheels; these all combine to make the lock at least a desirable feature, if not an outright necessity. I don't know when it was introduced to the series, be interesting to find out.

 

 

You say that, but unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Yo-Yo's indepth talks with Eric Brunotte revealed he did not use the locking tail wheel in the 109 for takeoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on a design school. Back then airplanes were not as pilot friendly as they are nowadays. Creature comfort and ease of use were not very high on the list of priorities.

 

Also in real life it was a bit easier to control the aircraft on the ground, since it had a single brake handle that applied differential brakes depending on rudder position. You can't simulate that with pedals and warthog stick.

 

Come to think of it, I can see a pattern:

- central brake handle (Spitfire, most Russian planes) - no tailwheel lock

- toebrakes (German, US aircraft) - there is a tailwheel lock

 

Of course there are some exceptions :)

 

When I was using pedals and my CH stick it was taking me months to taxi in the Spitfire and occasionally I'd smash the nose into the floor.

First try with my T-50 using the brake lever and it took a tenth the time! Having the right(ish) control does make a huge difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that, but unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Yo-Yo's indepth talks with Eric Brunotte revealed he did not use the locking tail wheel in the 109 for takeoff.

 

 

The early E models didn`t have the tailwheel lock, it came later. And it certeanly was a nice addition considering safety especially on paved runways.

 

 

 

In many aspects the Spitfire was quite an oldschool aircraft for its time.

 

The Bf109 was more modern and revolutionary when it came to cockpit ergonomy, system automatisation and pilot load.

 

The British often chose the good old way over the new solutions. The spitfire was manageble without tailwheel lock so it was good enough for them.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



KG13 Control Grip Building

Control Stick and Rudder Design



 

i7 8700K, Asus Z370-E, 1080 Ti, 32Gb RAM, EVO960 500Gb, Oculus CV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you have to dance on the pedals like you do in a tail dragger to stop it from doing a ground loop then toe brakes suck.

its much better having the brake on the stick with the left right axis controlled by the rudder.

 

the reason I found the p51 so hard to land at first is that you can get into the situation of one pedal pressed with the opposite brake. dancing backwards and forwards.

you cannot do that in the spit.

which automatically made me love it.

I don't have an axis on the stick but I do have a button. and I tap it in time with my feet in the pedal dance.

 

so much easier than trying to apply toe brakes at the right pressure while constantly dancing.

My Rig: AM5 7950X, 32GB DDR5 6000, M2 SSD, EVGA 1080 Superclocked, Warthog Throttle and Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Oculus Rift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I think I found a way to lock the tail. Apply some power, nearly go into nose stand, cut the power and slam the tail into the ground. now it's broken in a convenient position for take-off :P

DCS: F-5E / Spitfire / Normandy / WW2 asset pack

Flying planes for a living and for fun. Sometimes at the same time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I found a way to lock the tail. Apply some power, nearly go into nose stand, cut the power and slam the tail into the ground. now it's broken in a convenient position for take-off :P

 

Haha! :smartass:

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because British pilots were trusted to be able to cope with more than other nations?! :P

 

In all seriousness, I don't know the actual answer but it will likely boil down to a multitude of factors. Here are my guesses:

 

1. Weight - all the mechanisms required to lock the tail wheel would have added weight to an a/c whose primary function was as a short range interceptor; climb rate is paramount in this role ergo, anything that added further weight would have been regarded as problematic.

.

 

 

Is weight also why the cannons/guns never quite got up to german levels of ferocity?

 

 

 

To be honest at first I hated the spitfire cannons/guns having tried out the germans weaponry, but now having got quite good in the spitfire have found they are more than capabul of getting the job done.

------------

 

3080Ti, i5- 13600k 32GB  VIVE index, VKB peddals, HOTAS VPC MONGOOSE, WARTHOG throttle, BKicker,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also in real life it was a bit easier to control the aircraft on the ground, since it had a single brake handle that applied differential brakes depending on rudder position. You can't simulate that with pedals and warthog stick.

 

But can simulate with pedals and VKB MCG, VPC T50 sticks. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or... ;)

 

 

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=161179&d=1492931140

Freaking...

EPIC

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you could lock the tailwheel as written in the manual's takeoff procedure?

 

"6 Pull stick fully back to ensure that tailwheel remains straight"

 

"8 Slowly release control stick to center position as aircraft gains speed and tailwheel leaves the ground"

Intel Core i3 8350K 4GHz, MSI RTX 2080 Super, AS Rock Z370 Pro4 Motherboard, Samsung SSD, 32G DDR4 RAM, Windows 10 PRO 64 Bit

 

Rift-S, Tripple Samsung 27" C27F Display, Hotas Warthog, Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals, EDtracker, Track IR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...