What is best aeroplane to land with a flat tire – Spitfire or Mustang

harrier jump jet…! there ya go! just land it like a chopper.

The Cessna comes into it only because people say the Spitfire had a narrow undercarriage, but you don’t hear that about the C172 that most pilots are familar with?

Having said that, the question is still out there and is a good one to think about (after all; we have the combined intelligence of the world ponding questions on this forum – smiles)

cheers

Interesting points JDK But how relevant when the question was comparing the u/c track widths and the perception that a Spitfire has a narrow u/c.
Give me the wing span of a C172 and that of a Spitfire

cheers

If you want to go in that direction, consider the B-52, a very narrow main wheel track (because of its bicycle arrangement) considering its wingspan. 🙂

Instead of just comparing relative sizes…consider the weights, the differences caused by the tailwheel vs nosewheel arrangements, dreaded engine torque…all play a role in ground handling and make any comparison between the Cessna and P-51 meaningless.

I’m not sure even the difference in landing speeds between the Spit and Mustang would come into play, a good Mustang pilot could/would knock a bunch of speed off that by the time the wheels make contact.

Anyone know the respective stalling speeds?
All things being equal, I’d still go with the Mustang because of its wider track.

Funny – never had a problem myself!!

= Tim

Amazing number of burst tyres, was your nickname Captian Kangaroo?

Can’t argue with that, give me a Cat any day over a Spitfire

Catalina – an American Beauty!

cheers

How I’ve always longed to fly one of those!

Did do pax up front in a Sunderland en route Calcutta.

= Tim

Gooday All

I shouldn’t bring up the dreadful word “Spitfire” because some people think that is the only decent aeroplane Britian produced EVER. I think they made at least one other?

This is a technical question and I thought would be a good Spitfire vs Mustang debate, there is more to this question than first meets the eye.

cheers

i wouldn’t have any with flat tyres, the best plane to land with a flat tyre would be one of these…..

you just need a puddle long and deep enough.
😆

Ah, Tim! Perhaps we should have come to you first…

Very best wishes

J

Funny – never had a problem myself!!

= Tim

Assuming a skilled pilot…and the undercarrriage leg doesn’t bite into the grass:)

:DAnd i vote for Chuck Norris, cause he eats rubber for breakfast.. so no tire would dare getting flat under his piloting skills

:D(uhm.. didn’t know he was a pilot…) Duh… He is Chuck Norris he can be what he wants to be..

Hi Proctor,

Yes, I see what you’re driving at with regard to turning moments…just out of interest, have you considered actual rudder authority of the types or are you taking guidance from SOPs?

I do find these sorts of discussions interesting because I like to run ‘what if’ scenarios when flying…I’m but a humble T6 instructor but my friend has a couple of hundred hours on Spitfires – we had a chat this morning and his take on it was that if there was any doubt about the integrity of the wheel, a well executed gear up landing would be safest and limit damage, though if it was a simple flattie, a landing into wind on concrete would probably work.

Just a quick edit – post 24 was still considering the normal situation with a 170 and why a Spitfire would be considered to have a narrow track whereas others are not.

Assuming a skilled pilot…and the undercarrriage leg doesn’t bite into the grass:)

Dunbar

Think of it in terms of moments – the length of the arm from the centre line of the aeroplane to the undercarriage leg.

the arm is much shorter in the case of a Spitfire than a Mustang. There is increased kenetic energy as you said and that equates to a force applied to the end of the ram. The turning moment will be greater in the case of the mustang than the Spitfire and the aeroplane will start to turn. This turning force can be offset by a force from the rudder to some degree.

The end result was a Spitfire could land with a flat tire, a Mustang cannot, it cartwheels.

cheers

The other thing is the energy in the system…if we think of kinetic energy (1/2mv squared), an increase in mass and velocity means a significant increase in total energy. Since the heavy taildraggers have much greater energy than the 170 or Tiger Moth (as do the small taildraggers like Pitts Specials, with their high high wing loading and high landing speeds), that energy must be expended somehow…Hopefully it’s just a longer landing roll, but if control is lost or there is sideways drift, that energy is working behind the c of g to swap ends, the infamous ground loop. It can happen with balletic grace at low speed(I had it happen to me in a Cub once, and the Tower assumed it was a graceful manoevre executed to leave the runway expeditiously – they couldn’t have been more wrong, at that point I was just a passenger) or with metal bending violence, which would be the case if a wheel dug in on touchdown in a heavy taildragger.

So I think that total energy plus comparitively narrow track would be why the Spitfire ( and Bf109) would be considered trickier that a Hurricane or P51 etc, and all would be more of a handful that a light, low wingloading taildragger such as the 170 or Tiger Moth, assuming same wind conditions.

Cheers

Used C172 as an example because it is well known, so substitute C170 in there so that is a taildragger. Remember these pilots more than likely trained on Tiger Moths so taildraggers were familar. Mustang a taildragger as well.

however you are correct in the with your C of G comments, however I threw in the flat tyre to alter the normal situation.

cheers

Perhaps not a narrow undercart per se, but certainly when compared to the Hurricane, P-51 etc. The problem with a taildragger of course is that the centre of gravity is behind the mainwheels and so they are inherently directionally unstable as opposed to a tricycle gear where the forward c of g means that is will tend to self correct if the a/c lands with a bit of drift on…a wider undercarriage is certainly a desirable feature on a taildragger, not nearly so significant on a nose wheeler like the 172.

Weight of an empty Cessna 172 – 1,691 lb.
Weight of a dry RR Merlin engine – 1,640 lb.

Interesting points JDK But how relevant when the question was comparing the u/c track widths and the perception that a Spitfire has a narrow u/c.
Give me the wing span of a C172 and that of a Spitfire

cheers

If I remember rightly, there’s something in the SeaFury (similar U/C geometry to Typhoon) pilots notes instructing pilots to bail-out rather than try to attempt to land on the one good leg.

Ironically this was the end result for one of the RNHF Furies, slightly different as it was the U/C not locking down but even so bailing out last option.http://www.stringbag.flyer.co.uk/rnhf/tf956.htm

Using published figure then calculating VSo * 1.3 gives you 85 mph for the Spitfire IX as against 120 mph for the P51D

I suddenly know which I am preferring.

Moggy

120mph is a reasonable approach speed but actual touchdown is around 90mph, still a fair old lick. If you knew the tire was u/s ie spotted by wingman, then a gear up landing might be the safest option.

As a slight aside from the main question, the Hawker Typhoon appears to have had an extremely bad reputation for serious accidents resulting from undercarriage/tyre problems. The wide track undercart and short nose pretty much guaranteed that the thing would turn turtle if a tyre was punctured or a leg collapsed if travelling at any decent speed. I’ve been reading ‘Lost Voices of the RAF’ by Max Arthur, who appears to have been in touch with several 609 Sqn veterans, including the squadron MO. Thier recollections make frequent mention of serious and often fatal accidents resulting from U/C problems, the MO’s recollections being particularly chilling.

If I remember rightly, there’s something in the SeaFury (similar U/C geometry to Typhoon) pilots notes instructing pilots to bail-out rather than try to attempt to land on the one good leg.