Why no tailwheel lock on the Spit?

[imacken]

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

[DD_Fenrir]

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 September 7, 2018 by DD_Fenrir

[Quadg]

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.

[bullitt757]

the spitfire mk's didnt have locking tailwheels and the earlier version were on a stick

[imacken]

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.

[imacken]

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.

[DD_Fenrir]

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 September 7, 2018 by DD_Fenrir

[imacken]

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.

[Quadg]

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.

[Magic Zach]

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?

[DD_Fenrir]

Because it's only one aspect of a multitude of factors.

 

If it were only about weight you'd have a point. But it isn't just about weight.

[some1]

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 :)

[Ala13_ManOWar]

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!

[Ala13_ManOWar]

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!

[Buzzles]

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.

[Sabre_Ewan]

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.

[VO101_MMaister]

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.

[Quadg]

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.

[PilotNL]

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

[imacken]

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:

[Wolf8312]

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.

[Sokol1_br]

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:

[Goblin]

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

 

Or... ;)

 

[Magic Zach]

Or... ;)

 

 

 

Freaking...

EPIC

[Charlie-1]

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"