Not exactly an important question this,but it’s one that’s been buggin’ me…
I’m just wondering why it is that some warbirds (particularly British ones) with retractable tailwheels have problems with them. For instance,SM832,TFC’s high back Mk.XIV Spit now has a fixed tailwheel,even though it was restored with a retractable one,and I’ve noticed others with tailwheels that dangle during display routines.Similarly RR299,BAe’s Mozzie,had a fixed tailwheel for a number of years in the 80’s and early 90’s.
I’m just wondering what it is about tailwheels that causes such headaches that the operators see fit to fix them in the down position.Is it the locking mechanism or the hydraulics,or both (or niether!)??
By: John B. - 11th November 2003 at 17:59
Hey guys,
Locking tail wheels in the down position has been a common practice for years. The Air National Guard did this on all their F-51’s as a matter of course for safety and maintenance reasons. As down locks, squat switches, etc, begin to age they become less reliable no matter how good the maintenance program is. I can testify to this as one who has helped remove a B-17 from a runway after a tail gear up landing a few years back. No major damage was done but it did cost more than the failed squat switch! For the owner, that was all the reasoning he needed to have the tail gear locked down. Too bad, I think it’s unsightly…on any AC that is supposed to be cleaned up in flight!
The system components and energizing circuitry for the tail wheel, whether it’s electric or hydraulic, are part of the main gear system in every instance I can think of. There would be no reason to have them separated from one another.
John
By: Mark12 - 10th November 2003 at 20:07
Ant,
You could suggest that but I could not possibly say.
Mark
Ant
PS.
My tongue was firmly in my cheek. 🙂
By: Ant.H - 10th November 2003 at 19:51
Previous post edited-I sense that it is somehow a delicate issue for you Mark,so I’ll keep my guesses to myself and spare your blushes 😉
By: Mark12 - 10th November 2003 at 12:53
‘Gravel rash’ 😉
Mark
By: Moggy C - 10th November 2003 at 12:37
A tailwheel failure did all that damage to the paintwork near the serial number?
Who’d have thought it?
😀
Moggy
By: Mark12 - 10th November 2003 at 10:21
Prone to problems! 😡
A well known Spitfire on its first flight some nine years ago.
Mark
By: DazDaMan - 10th November 2003 at 09:04
Not being an expert here, but I would have thought that a tailwheel would be connected to the mains system, and would therefore HAVE to retract with the mains.
I know that Spitfire PRXI PL983 did have a set-up where the tailwheel could not retract by accident, and therefore damage the fuselage in the process.
My guess would be that, if the tails are connected to the mains, there would be some sort of problem with the tailwheel retraction system.
By: Corsair166b - 10th November 2003 at 05:02
Ant-
Well, let’s not forget that even planes with fixed tailwheels have trouble with them also (see the case of the Sea Hurricane at Old Warden which lost its wheel here recently)…I have seen Mustangs, Corsairs, P-40’s, all kinds of planes with retractable wheels being flown with them UN retracted, and I have to guess here….I think the pilots just FORGET to retract them, or the mechanism to retract them is just disconnected so that the tailwheel is not taken up into its bay and forgotten about. Then again, it would seem to me also that these wheels would operate on the same retraction system that takes up the main gear, so how the two mains would retract but the tailwheel not, I can’t explain….something to ask the mechanics on the flightline at DX next year, I guess…
Mark
Sign In
November 10, 2003 at 1:25 am