Hey guys, I’m working on getting the wings and tailplanes all situated for my Classic Airframes 1/48 Bf109D. This is the first airplane kit where the elevators and tailplanes were separate parts. Because of that I’ve never really paid attention to how they sit when the plane is parked. [:-^]
I flipped through stacks of my Bf109 references and interestingly enough, the elevators were pointing up about 80% of the time as opposed to pointing down. [:O]
Is there a reason for that? I would have assumed they’d normally be down due to gravity. Do the pilots intentionally set them sticking up, and if so is there a reason for that? I’d be really curious to know if anyone can shed any light on this. [%-)]
The tailplanes are balanced with only a small amount of bias toward heavier on the trailing edge on all high speed airplanes, to prevent flutter. It would be interesting to know if the 109 had a built in control lock, as that would tell the tale. If not, a common way to keep the controls from banging around in the wind would be to tie the stick back with the seat belt, which would hold the elevators up. Otherwise without a control lock they would probably be down.
I want to see you wrap those PE belts around the stick if you pose the elevators up. Now, there’s a challenge for you!
Doh! Then theoretically I should have either had the stick pushed forward or pulled back. I installed it in a neutral position, so I would imagine to be “accurate” the elevators would need to be pretty close to level.
The seat belt was an effective control lock for both the elevator and ailerons, however I do not know if the Bf109 had an in-cockpit mechanical one. (in fact, I never knew of an airplane with a ‘stick’ having an internal control lock mechanism other than the seat belt)
It would certainly ad an extra amount of realism if you posed it like that. [:)] Having the stick and elevator in the neutral position would be unnatural if the plane is posed sitting unattended… if the seatbelt isn’t used, the stick would be full forward/elevator down/ailerons neutral.
You don’t want the wind flopping your control surfaces around now do you? [;)]
Hmmm… I may have to take a chance and see if I can get the stick to go forward. Wished I would have thought of that before I put the cockpit in, as it would look really cool to have the stick in sync with the elevators.
not speaking specifically about the Bf, but planes with direct controls, as opposed to hydraulic, have many different configurations that could effect how the surface sits statically. The trim system more than anything can effect its placement. Some will sit markedly down, others neutral, and some will be up. My 195 will have the yoke full back, with the elevators up at rest - there is a lock in the control panel that the control column engages to keep it in the up position. It puts it into an aerodynamically more favorable postion for ground storage, and makes it easier to get into the cockpit.
I’ve also seen photos that show different locations of the elevators. This also goes for FW190’s as well. One thing I also noted was if the elevator was either up or down it looks like the ailerons were generally not in the neutral position. This isn’t always the case though. Kind of looks like it might very well be they were using the seat belts to kind of lock the stick.
k, so let me make sure I understand this correctly (can you tell I’ve never piloted a plane? [:-^] LOL)
If I go with locking the seatbelts around the stick so that the stick is pulled back the elevators will be in the raised position. And as long as the stick is centered, the ailerons should be neutral, correct?
yep. it would be pretty hard to have ailerons other than centered in a single seater with a stick. If you had a yoke, you could wrap the belt around one horn of the yoke and introduce some aileron into it.
Just get a book on the ol’ girl and look at pictures. Seems to me, the elevators are generally either level or slightly drooped when the plane is parked.
Well, that’s just it. I have at least 15 reference books on the Bf109. In approximately 80% of the photos the elevators were pointing up, when I had expected them to be pointing down. It’s funny, I was actually looking to see how far down I should angle them, only to find so many pointing up. [:O]
I’m inclined to go with the theory of the seat belt being used to hold the stick back. I would imagine that also had the added benenfit of making it a little easier to get out of the cockpit as you could get your right leg/foot around or over it a little easier with it pulled back a bit.
Thanks for all the great input gentlemen, I appreciate it. [bow]
Only so long as the starboard ailertooter is synched with the flaperonics.
[;)]
You see a lot of Spitfires with elevators down, as the pilot would push the stick forward, grab the forward windscreen frame, and pull themselves up out of the cockpit. Or so I’ve read… never done it myself. [:)]
I would imagine that having been in the air for a few hours, the pilot would be plenty tired. Add to that the fact that he is now sitting in a reclined position. He’s been using his arms for the entire time he’s been flying and they’re tired. How to get out of the plane? Place your hands on the edges of the cockpit and lift yourself out? You’re tired. I’d opt for pulling myself forward a bit using the nearest thing at hand to grasp - the control stick. Then your batman (or whatever the Germans called them) grabs you under the arm and helps you out of the plane.
How does that sound - plausible? I wouldn’t know, having never sat in any type of cockpit. But being overweight and out of shape, I know that I use my steering wheel as a tool to help myself get out of the car every day, so if I were fatigued instead of out of shape, I would imagine having something handy like that would be just as helpful.
You’d grab the windshield frame to haul your butt out – all grabbing on the stick would accomplish is to knock yourself in the crotch!
As far as stick equipped planes not having control locks, that isn’t correct. They can have them mount in various ways. A very simple way to do it is to have a tubular yoke that is hinged under the instrument panel. It swings out in an arc and has a ring on the end that you put onto the stick - aileron and elevator lock for the price of one. (I could draw it easier than describe it) It’s been used on all sorts of planes.
-Bret
From my understanding the 109 was a nightmare to land and take off more were lost to take off and landing accidents than in combat. The pilots would push forward on the stick to keep the tail down during rough field landing. The narrow landing gear stance and light weight made it difficult not to go tail over. This may explain way you see the tail surfaces up. After it’s inspection the elevators would be back to the level or if left have a slight downward droop to them. As the 109 got nose heavy and higher landing speeds were needed I’ve been told this was common for 109 pilots. I am not a pilot this is just what I have been told in the past.
I have sat in a 109 before and ther only way I could get out was by grabbing 2 supports on the front windscreen and hauling myself out. the way your sitting in it it’s hard to get your footing to use your legs for help. It’s a tight fit inside the cockpit, but not as tight as the spitfire.
The actual loss rate from takeoff and landing mishaps was around 5% (which is still very high). The narrow undercarriage, small airframe and powerful engine combination was the downfall of many a young pilot. [:(]
Right, well you certainly wouldn’t push forward on the stick when landing. Full back to get the tailwheel down like a boat anchor. When rudder effectiveness stops at low speeds you want the tail planted.
As far as where it winds up when left static, it depends on the way it’s balanced, or not, how the controls are set up and how the trim is done. Some planes have a spring that will make it go neutral- you push the stick forward, and it goes neutral. Some when left idle go full stick back (elevator up) like my 195. It has a lock in the panel and also a combo parking brake/control lock. Others will hang eleavtor down due to balance weights, or the way the controls are run. No hard and fast rules. Also depending on the contro system, tying it back wwith the belts is not always advised.
I recall an interview with Gunther Rall, where he stated that this was a problem mostly for inexperienced pilots. The issue was the torque effect of the engine, where the pilot had to use opposite rudder to counter the effect on take-off.
you have torque, p-factor (swirling vortex from the prop hiitng the tail) and gyroscopic effect from the prop disc making for different inputs needed from the rudder at different times. A taildragger is like a big weathervane-it always wants to turn into the wind, plus the fact that the center of gravity is behind the mainwheel makes it very unstable. Try pushing a shopping cart backwards, and you’ll start to get the idea. If the tailwheel get outside the track of the maingear, it becomes nearly impossible to recover. Think about the difference between a P-51 (wide gear) and a 109. Or a Spit (or my C195 for that matter) and you can realise how much less forgiving they might be. It is a matter of training, currency and concentration to keep out of trouble.