P-40 gear collapse incident?

[Shay]

Here's the Training video:

"Ways Of The Warhawk"

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-40RV1056.ram



Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[Bill Greenwood]

While I prefer 3 pt landings in what I fly, Spitfire, T-6 group, J3, Champ, Citabria, Decathlon. Chipmunk, Parakeet biplane; it really is going too far to always rule out a wheel landing or say that a pilot who does it is not trained well. I have flown with and beside Tiger D. and he is a very fine pilot and he wheel lands the P-40. Might just be tailwheel tire wear, I don't know. I've seen Alan Henley 3pt a Mustang yet wheel land his T-6 when in the formation landing of the Aeroshell act, and he is real good.
Lee lauderback has doen and taught wheel landings for years sucessfully in the dual P-51 and he's really trained after flying with all manner or students trying to scare him.

[Bradburger]

It's true that the Spitfire & indeed the Hurricane tailwheel's did not lock and where fully castering.

But the main thing to remeber when considering ground handling qualities is the position of the CoG in relation to the main wheels.

The Spitfire's CoG is close to the mainwheels as is the Hurricanes, and this means that both are not natural ground loopers, as pilots of both will testify.

The P40's CoG is quite aft of the mains, and therefore more prone to ground looping than either of the above. It also is not free to caster until it travels beyond 30 degrees or so, when it will break into fully castering.

Interestingly, the Hurricane had a similar system to this also where a break out force was required before it could castor fully.

Cheers

Paul

[Bill Greenwood]

I am told the Spitfire and Huricane have the same type brakes, the only difference being the Hurricane having a spring to hold the tailwheel in a cnter detent; not locked fully.
The reason virtually all the British and almost all US pilots make 3 point landings in Merlin Spitfires is as follows: 1. There is no real loss of elevator or rudder authority with flaps down and slow, plenty of control left even at 80 mph. 2. There is little tendency to sharply stall and drop a wing even down to 70, unlike what Mustang pilots say about the 51. 3. The Spitfire is a little hard to slow down, it would be easy to come in too fast if in a level attitude without a flare. 4. The Spitfire flaps are not as effctive as P-51 full flaps, thus less view over the nose at normal approach speed. You need to be used to steering a tailwhel airplane without having to look over the nose. 5. With the tailwheel on the ground the plane is more stable even if the wheel is not lockable. It is not lockable because a lock was not needed, it is good just as Mitchell designed it. 6. If some correction is needed while rolling down the runway, the rudder steering is vey effective down to about 25 mph, brakes are rarely even needed until slowing down. 7. Tailwheel tires last pretty well, and in any even are a lot cheaper than prop blades.
Spitfires can be sucessfully wheel landed especially if it is a mostly held off, tail low type at the correct speed, touching down about 65 mph or so, not coming in way too fast and trying to force it to stay on the runway.

[Bradburger]

I am told the Spitfire and Huricane have the same type brakes, the only difference being the Hurricane having a spring to hold the tailwheel in a cnter detent; not locked fully.
The reason virtually all the British and almost all US pilots make 3 point landings in Merlin Spitfires is as follows: 1. There is no real loss of elevator or rudder authority with flaps down and slow, plenty of control left even at 80 mph. 2. There is little tendency to sharply stall and drop a wing even down to 70, unlike what Mustang pilots say about the 51. 3. The Spitfire is a little hard to slow down, it would be easy to come in too fast if in a level attitude without a flare. 4. The Spitfire flaps are not as effctive as P-51 full flaps, thus less view over the nose at normal approach speed. You need to be used to steering a tailwhel airplane without having to look over the nose. 5. With the tailwheel on the ground the plane is more stable even if the wheel is not lockable. It is not lockable because a lock was not needed, it is good just as Mitchell designed it. 6. If some correction is needed while rolling down the runway, the rudder steering is vey effective down to about 25 mph, brakes are rarely even needed until slowing down. 7. Tailwheel tires last pretty well, and in any even are a lot cheaper than prop blades.
Spitfires can be sucessfully wheel landed especially if it is a mostly held off, tail low type at the correct speed, touching down about 65 mph or so, not coming in way too fast and trying to force it to stay on the runway.

Good and very interesting points as usual Bill, as they pretty much agree with what every other pilot who has been lucky enough to fly one say!

Basically, there is no other fighter in the same class that can touch it for viceless low speed handling and control. Lack of forward view aside, this is one of the reasons why it was suited to carrier operations.

Former RAF Air Marshall and current warbird/historic pilot Sir John Allison wrote a very interesting article for Pilot magazine a few years back comparing the Spitfire, Hurricane, and 109 (Black 6) which covered all the positives & negatives of each. As for landing the Spitfire, he basically said that anyone who can land a Chipmunk sucessfully from the back seat time after time, would have no problems landing a Spitfire!

He also wrote an article on a few years earlier on his first flight in a P40. (This was the former TFC P40M now with Peter Teichman's Hanger 11 Collection). Whilst he wasn't too impressed with the handling & performance, he did make the comment that as far as landing goes, the P40 is the fighter that would flatter you the most!

From most of the P40 landings I've seen today, it seems a taildown wheeler is the prefered option.

Cheers

Paul

[Glenn Wegman]

2. There is little tendency to sharply stall and drop a wing even down to 70, unlike what Mustang pilots say about the 51.

Some of this can be attributed to them carrying power until they are on the runway. If you have the throttle closed, know what your feet are for, and are fairly close to the runway, it will buffett and fall pretty much straight down.

Glenn

[Bill Greenwood]

Glen, an experienced P-51 pilot was just visiting in Aspen and we talked about 51 landings, and the wing drop situation was one he said as why he prefers wheel landings. I have heard others say similar things, in effect, to keep the wing flying until the mains are on the runway.

Years ago I was invited to bring my plane to PAX River NAS to do training with the navy test pilot students as Crazy Horse has done. At the end I let an expeienced instructor pilot fly my Spitfire from the front seat with me in the rear. He was a good pilot, and had no problems until it came time to land and instead of taking any of my suggestions, he came in like a jet, low, flat, flaps down, and with a good bit of power on and sort of hovered above the runway. The last thing I saw was the airspeed going below 60 knots when the wing gave up and stalled pretty sharply. A wheel slamned down and we might have been in trouble, but he was a good enough tailwheel pilot to catch it before damage. It was close though.

[Glenn Wegman]

Bill,

That's what I'm saying, the power contributes to the wing drop when it stalls. No power, no torque.

Also an excellent way to do a gear up landing. The gear warning horn switch is on the throttle quadrant and should be set for 20" hg. Landing with power gives you the opportunity to hit the prop blades on the ground without the horn sounding!

Glenn

[John-Curtiss Paul]

I believe the the reason that we see so many tail high landings in photos of P-40's is attributed to the pilot wanting to see over the nose. Nothing else. A Mustang has WAY better visibility over the nose than a P-40 because of the P-40's intake scoop on the top cowl. It just takes getting used to is all. The best way to land a P-40 is on the mains with the tail low and let the tail come down. It's pretty much the exact same attitude as a 3 point landing in a mustang. The P-40 has split flaps and a much higher angle of attack while in the 3 point position than a mustang. It's not really about rudder authority either, the P-40 has excellent rudder authority, it's about the wing stalling prematurely at a low airspeed with a high angle of attack while trying to land in the 3 point attitude. If it's a little gusty than the sudden lift that can be generated with the split flaps all the way out and at a high angle of attack can be a little annoying as well.

I'm not sure about the early B and C models P-40's that the AVG flew ,but the tail wheel does in fact lock on the other P-40 models.

[marine air]

I used to give a lot of new owner checkouts in antiques and modern types. I used to always tell them "Congratulations, your the new test pilot for the next six to eight months."
In other words there is a time of "discovery" where you are finding out the idiosyncrasies of the airplane and it's avionics. As the new owner is not only getting used to his new plane and learning how to apply his style of flying plus new things his instructor has shown him specific to the airplane, but he also has to be alert for brakes that fade or brake unevenly, carbs that burn more than they are supposed to, tailwheel shimmys, struts that leak air, radios that have problems you name it.
It's impossible to catch everything on the pre purchase inspection and a lot of times the seller isn't even aware of things you may find.
So while, his tail was a little high during landing, he was just getting a feel for the P-40. Unlike when I got my type in the P-51, there aren't any TP-40's available to get some dual.

[Jack Cook]

Two wheels or three?? Keeping it straight and right side up are the important things right? Here's half that equation

[Glenn Wegman]

Thanks John-Curtis!

I've always felt Pitts time (proper power off 3-point, not wheel landings) should be a requirement to break one of the habbit of wanting or needing to see over the nose. (Or see the runway for that matter!) Stearman time is good for that too but it happens at a faster speed in a Pitts for fighter transition.

Glenn

[Chuck Gardner]

This is a great discussion!
Obviously, some well experienced pilots contributing here are correct about tail-low, wheel landings. I did not mean to imply that a perfect three point was the only way to land a P-40. Tail low landings also seem to be the most gentle way to set down. Wheel landings are an option in certain conditions. But, a wheel landing does not mean that the tail has to be jacked up in the air higher than the nose. The picture on the first page shows the plane more tail high than even level! It is actually nose down on landing roll-out. Landing these airplanes is about skill, finesse, and judgment. You use peripheral vision to "see" ahead to get the airplane into a nose high attitude to slow down and arrest the descent for landing, not by shoving the nose down to get a view straight ahead.

[Glenn Wegman]

I'm certainly not stating that 3-point is the only way. Weather the PIC can land or is comfortable landing it 3-point is not the issue. My point is that if it was designed with conventional gear, and is operated in the proper CG range, it'll 3-point.

Glenn

[bipe215]

Thanks John-Curtis!

I've always felt Pitts time (proper power off 3-point, not wheel landings) should be a requirement to break one of the habbit of wanting or needing to see over the nose. (Or see the runway for that matter!) Stearman time is good for that too but it happens at a faster speed in a Pitts for fighter transition.

Glenn

I believe the back seat of a T-6 accomplished the same thing. The Air Corp did it right.

Steve G