How Would a Spitfire Look with Inward Retracting Landing Gear?

Perhaps the Spitfires accident rate on take-off and landing did not warrant modifications to this design weakness. Of course, all designs are a compromise and the landing gear lost out a bit.

Please explain – what leads you to suggest the Spitfire’s outward retracting undercarriage was/is actually a “design weakness”?

Sure the early Spitfire u/c wasn’t up to carrier-operations, but that is a classic case of the original design being put to a use which was not anticipated, and I believe the problem was nothing to do with the retraction direction, but more to do with the higher vertical speeds involved when the aircraft hit a pitching deck – again, the design was being asked to handle a situation for which it was not originally intended.

I am not aware that the Spitfire sufferred a significantly higher accident rate (pro-rata) on take-off or landing than the Hurricane (or any other fighter with inward retraction)? The problems with the Bf 109 design are well known, in that the narrower undercarriage track and “significant” toe-in (or out? My memory has failed me again!) of the wheels tended to cause problems as the pitch attitude changed during takeoff or landing, which was further compounded by any crosswind or rudder- or torque-induced yaw.

However, the fact that the 109 undercarriage was mounted directly onto one of the main fuselage frames probably meant fewer 109’s ended up with their undercarriages “punched” up through the wings during heavy landings than did Spitfires, where the legs are mounted on the wing spars. So how do you define a “weakness”?

When used as intended (i.e. a land-based fighter), and at the original design weights/speeds, I am not sure the Spitfire undercarraige was ever actually a design weakness was it? Have you any proof that proportionally more Spits than say Hurris sufferred accidents due to their undercarriage designs, excepting the early Seafires, where the “weakness” was more down to the incorrect use of the design rather than any inherent weakness? Had carrier-borne operations been envisaged earlier then I am sure the original Spitfire design would have incorporated a much stronger undercarriage, and a rear fuselage strong enough to absorb the arrester wire loading – both aspects had to be redesigned once it was clear that carrier operations had been added to the list of uses.

No doubt the narrower track made the aircraft more challenging for a pilot in any sort of crosswind than a Hurricane, but I’ve never before heard the Spitfire’s undercarriage arrangement being described as “weakness” … As has been said in earlier posts, mounting the undercarriage out-board would have needed a much stronger wing spar and structure, and possibly a thicker wing section overall to accomodate the landing load being applied further out along the wingspan – this may have made ground handling easier, but it would probably have compromised performance due to the thicker, heavier and less effficient wing that would have resulted.

Design optimisation is always about balancing various options to gain the “best” result within a set of “rules” or limitations, and about making the best compromises along the way – the Spitfire was designed to obtain maximum performance within a set of “rules” and using a particular engine, as was the Hurricane. Two outwardly similar designs (i.e. low wing, tail wheeled, monoplanes) resulted, but they were very different in many details. In short, two different solutions to the same set of design challenges were the result – your perceived “undercarriage weaknesses” in one may well have been avoided in the other, but then in other design aspects then maybe the situation was reversed. I would not like to argue that either was better or worse than the other.

Sorry, but I fail to see the Spitfire’s undercarriage as a particular “design weakness”, unlike say that of the Bf 109, which is known to have made that aircraft a real handful on the ground….

Paul F

Tell me aboout it mate, I suffer from the same problem.

Oh no. I can’t believe I typed that (“Believe it!”) I knew that, and thought, ‘Make sure you put .50, get the cal right!’.

That’s getting old fer ya. Thanks Mike 😮

A lttle correction here mate. The P-51 was armed with 6×0.5s. The early variants actually only had 4 in the wings and 2 in the lower nose cowling, I’m not sure if they were .303 or .5 (They would have been American .30 anyway as per the P-40.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Interesting. Nice photos Daz, that was what I had in mind. The smaller prop obviously helped them get away with the shorter length oleo.

I think there would have been compromise on the aramament, Peter, as you suggest. Maybe those cannons would have been a tricky fit. The P51 was .303 equipped but that may have been just as much to do with fitting all the gear into the laminar wing as well as the landing gear fit.

Perhaps the Spitfires accident rate on take-off and landing did not warrant modifications to this design weakness. Of course, all designs are a compromise and the landing gear lost out a bit.

Anyway, I’m sure most if not all of us agree that thank goodness it was made the way it was!

I don’t believe that the wing would be strong enough to mount a pintle type of U/C fixing, further out than it is; where it is located, the spars are virtually solid, whereas, about 3ft outboard the spars are down to 3 tubes, obviously that could be altered, but then the rest of the wing in that general area would also have to be modified, so you might as well go with the Spitedul/ Seafang wing and be done with it.

Duxford – 20 June 1976.

Mark

blimey..that’s over 30 years ago

scarey – where did the time go!

Just wondering how this different undercarriage set up would affect the armament setup of the spit?

Wasn’t the stability of the narrow track U/C a problem on the Seafire leading to the inward retracting of the Seafang?

Unlike the ME-109, I’ve never heard of the outward retractable U/C being a serious problem on Spits, is that true?
And before anyone says, I know it was a problem on Seafires!

Maybe not but if you look at a Spit taking off or landing compared to say a Hurricane or a Mustang the latter two types certainly look a lot easier and less dare I say skittish.

Ive not flown any of these types apart from on flight sims so maybe Im not qualified to speak. :diablo:

After that comment by Cees I sat here thinking about the whole thing. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I think the Mustang wing is no thicker and that U/C does retract inwards so I guess my original thoughts were wrong.

surely spar strength and space in wing was the whole point of it being an outward retractable undercarriage?!

Unlike the ME-109, I’ve never heard of the outward retractable U/C being a serious problem on Spits, is that true?
And before anyone says, I know it was a problem on Seafires!

Now you mention it that’s an interesting thought. I don’t reckon there’s enough space for all the bits and pieces.

Would the wing be strong enough to withstand the loads when an inward retracting undercarriage is fitted, or the wing would be too thin to be able to house the pintles etc.

Just a guess

Cheers

Cees

In a word-wrong. The Spitfire looks just fine outward retracting undercarriage.

was that at Duxford ?

one of the earliest displays there in the late 70s/early 80s before it was regularly open to the public

I seem to recall being present if it was

Duxford – 20 June 1976.

Mark

was that at Duxford ?

one of the earliest displays there in the late 70s/early 80s before it was regularly open to the public

I seem to recall being present if it was

“How Would a Spitfire Look with Inward Retracting Landing Gear?”

Like this…..and it hurts.

Mark

Does this help?

OK, so it’s a replica, a 75% scale MkIa fitted with an air-cooled Ranger, but I suppose it gives an idea as to what the Spit might have looked like with inward-retracting gear.

This gentleman rather liked it…

😉

(pics via James Watson)

Oh yes, Stuart. I don’t know why, but I had the earlier marks in mind, instead of the Griffon beasts. Still though, a worthy starter.

Any advance on Seafang/Spiteful?