4.12 development update discussion and feedback

[SaQSoN]

In most designs the landing gear is held in a terminal position (be it up or down) by a mechanical lock, not by an actuator, no matter is it electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic. The actuating system at the terminal positions of the gear is usually in power off state to save on-board power and not to overstress the system.

So, by damaging the upper lock it is possible to drop down the gear, which is modeled in the recent update.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by Spinnetti

So you've taken it upon yourself to curate the internet now? I have owned a replica FW190, and studied the systems extensively. My particular interest is in landing gear design and I make working (flyable) miniature replica gear also. I have a good working understanding of both electrical and hydraulic systems, text books on gear design etc, and your comments mean nothing to me, nor does your video prove any poorly reasoned explanation you may have. If the FW system to a catastrophic hit in the gear retract motor it would drop like a rock, not motor down. Your video proves nothing other than that that gear was lowering under power. The system uses a highly geared motor that will not drop down with or without the gear uplock being functional. At worst it would just sag an inch or so taking up any gear lash in the mechanism. This is quite unlike virtually any other WWII aircraft, and it would be neat to see it modeled in accordance to the actual function. You are welcome to disagree, but it doesn't make your comments valid, nor does it invalidate my desire to see this unique function modeled.

Ah now I remember, yes you said this over at SAS too.
Great that you owned a replica 190, kudos.
But it was a replica, and you never had a thunderbolt raining .50 into you trying to kill you.
You know the old saying a picture is worth a thousand words. So get to typing or better get some video evidence supporting your claim.

See my favorite part of the video is where the 190 starts getting shot, and then the gear starts to drop miraculously. Amazing coincidence.

But ya he's probably surrendering, cause it's 1916 in the video.

[KG26_Alpha]

Please read the article in the link at the bottom, the FW190 was a electrically geared system I cant see the gear dropping through damage only intentionally via the landing gear electrical switch.
Also there's a large red handle in the cockpit above the gear selection switches which iirc is a manual lock Notzug Fahrwerk lever the schematic operation of this I cannot find to hand at the moment.

Gear Operation
The gear is driven by an electrical motor.
As the gear retracts, a pressurized air bottle is loaded which lowers the gear in the event
of an electrical failure.
The electrical gear switches are located in the left console fairly at the centre in a
combined instrument along with the flap switches
The gear unlock mechanism is located left hand in the lower forward panel,
labelled “Notzug Fahrwerk”.
Retract gear: remove safety cover from switch and press it.
Extend gear: press switch to activate the gear motor,
next pull the lever to unlock the gear.
WARNING!
Always activate the gear motor before pulling the lever except in an
emergency. The gear can no longer be retracted otherwise.

I cannot see even if the electric motor was shot out and the gear locks the gear would drop it would have to be a miraculous shot from the attacker.

Of course I will stand corrected if someone provides evidence otherwise.

Not that any of this is important in the grand scheme of thing .....just for fun

I mean they still never corrected the spelling of the gear lock lever after all this time.

Originally Posted by Spinnetti

looks great! - I know I've irritated people on the mod sites with this, but the FW had an all electric landing gear (one of, if not the first) - unless the motor got hit it wouldn't flop open like hydro systems do with pressure loss... few seem to want to model this correctly

Originally Posted by CWMV

At same mod site, and in same mod thread, I posted this video of an Anton getting shot up, and showing the gear dropping.

I don't recall you responding there but please, just stop.

Originally Posted by Treetop64

Not only damage to the motors, but damage to the uplocks and any of the joints could cause them to drop as well. Just because the gear actuation was electric doesn't mean they were impervious to damage. Electrical systems are beneficial because they save weight and complexity, not because they are indestructible.

Originally Posted by Spudkopf

To me the footage is quite inconclusive in regards to determining if the gear dropping is due to damage or as a deliberate act by the pilot (like a sign of surrender), the fact that the pilot does not seem to take any evasive action at all just raises far too many questions as to the true circumstances of whats actually happening here. Further you can only see the starboard wing at the moment the gear begins to drop so it is also unclear what is happening on the port wing.

I'm not in any way disputing the possibility or non-possibility of a gear failure drop and do not have an opinion either way, but I do have to question the validity of the video evidence presented.

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Um, that was not a clip from a video game. It's war, no real combat pilot would take the gear comming down to have any meaning other than system failure due to damage.

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

I've once seen a different vid, showing a hit Fw190 extending its one gear. Dunno where to find though.

Originally Posted by Treetop64

...In a naive, fairy tale world.

In the video, it is the real world, in a real war. The pilot doing the shooting doesn't have time to assume that the gear dropping is a sign of surrender. His job is to destroy the aircraft, and he sees signs of that occurring.

What if he thought "Oh, his gear is dropping. That means he surrenders. I'll leave him be now.", only to end up being shot at by the guy he just left alone after he had a change of heart. Kinda silly.

On the other hand, fighter vs. bomber situations over western Europe could sometimes play out differently, as there have been documented cases fighter pilots escorting badly damaged enemy bombers home, though that occurred very seldom.



Yes, it does raise questions. The pilot could already be wounded and unable to maneuver. He could have panicked and "froze". Maybe it's a novice pilot and he has no idea what to do. Maybe he's just given up to the apparently inevitable.

However, what is obvious is that a pilot in his aircraft is being shot down. No reason to imply that something else is going on here. It's war, and it's hell.



So, what?



Well, you're certainly free to do so. No real reason to bring the video footage to the fringes of conspiracy theory, however. It's fairly straight-forward.

Originally Posted by Spudkopf

No need to treat me like I'm some three year old Hollywood inspired moron........I'll admit the surrender thing is probably fantasy and a wrong call, but there are numerous documented accounts of the dropping of gear including by mistake.

That aside my point is that as evidence, this clip on its own is next to useless without some knowledge as to the circumstances in which it was taken so unless there is an after action report or other data available or unless you are an expert in such things, then the only two people who really knew what happened in that clip are the pilots.

Sorry to be so negative.

Again I have no issues with the possibility that the gear could drop on the Fw-190 as a result of battle damage, just the assumptions made about this particular clip.

Originally Posted by DuxCorvan

Maybe... he realized he was near the ground and released the gear for a desperate landing (stupid, but who knows what we'd do in a panic)... Too many assumptions, we really don't know what was happening in there.

Originally Posted by Spinnetti

So you've taken it upon yourself to curate the internet now? I have owned a replica FW190, and studied the systems extensively. My particular interest is in landing gear design and I make working (flyable) miniature replica gear also. I have a good working understanding of both electrical and hydraulic systems, text books on gear design etc, and your comments mean nothing to me, nor does your video prove any poorly reasoned explanation you may have. If the FW system to a catastrophic hit in the gear retract motor it would drop like a rock, not motor down. Your video proves nothing other than that that gear was lowering under power. The system uses a highly geared motor that will not drop down with or without the gear uplock being functional. At worst it would just sag an inch or so taking up any gear lash in the mechanism. This is quite unlike virtually any other WWII aircraft, and it would be neat to see it modeled in accordance to the actual function. You are welcome to disagree, but it doesn't make your comments valid, nor does it invalidate my desire to see this unique function modeled.

Originally Posted by felix_the_fat

regarding possible reasons for gear drops:
Johnnie Johnson ["Wing Leader" Penguin edn 1959 p301] wrote this about some 190s in the act of surrendering to some Spitfires:
"The Huns waggled their wings, dropped their undercarriages, and generally behaved in a nervous manner..."

As he described it, this happened in the last few days of the war.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I don't think the gear drops due to damage - I think the Fw190 pilot is on a landing approach. Would explain the lack of reaction to beeing fired upon.

And on the ground in the distance, ther are some white specs that COULD be parked planes. They could be anything else that is light coloured and of roughly 10-50m size though (BIG white elephants)...

And the speeds the planes have seem to be slow, based on the wobbling both planes do.
And if the video speed is realtime, then they seem to travel slow, but without knowing for sure and by "eyeball measure" that's rather guesswork.

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

In most designs the landing gear is held in a terminal position (be it up or down) by a mechanical lock, not by an actuator, no matter is it electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic. The actuating system at the terminal positions of the gear is usually in power off state to save on-board power and not to overstress the system.

So, by damaging the upper lock it is possible to drop down the gear, which is modeled in the recent update.

Originally Posted by CWMV

Ah now I remember, yes you said this over at SAS too.
Great that you owned a replica 190, kudos.
But it was a replica, and you never had a thunderbolt raining .50 into you trying to kill you.
You know the old saying a picture is worth a thousand words. So get to typing or better get some video evidence supporting your claim.

See my favorite part of the video is where the 190 starts getting shot, and then the gear starts to drop miraculously. Amazing coincidence.

But ya he's probably surrendering, cause it's 1916 in the video.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/f...dinggear_1.htm

[The_WOZ]

From reading the page linked by Alpha, and the translated Fw 190-A8 manual here: http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/fw190a8.pdf

My conclusions are these:

- If the uplocks are shot, the landing gear will gently drop down (the sealed air piston will force the gear down, but the high geared motor will make this a slow process), would probably need some shaking to completely lock down.
- The same will happen when the pilots tries to lower the gear if the electric motor is damaged.
- A damaged reduction gear will most probably made impossible to lowering that landing gear leg.
- A completely destroyed reduction gear will made the landing gear drop like a stone (when either the pilot tries to lower the gear or the uplocks are damaged), but it will never lock on the low position, and will collapse on touch down.

[stugumby]

photo 8 in that link had a dora 9, are those bomb or x4 racks under its wings?

[Spinnetti]

Originally Posted by The_WOZ

From reading the page linked by Alpha, and the translated Fw 190-A8 manual here: http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/fw190a8.pdf

My conclusions are these:

- If the uplocks are shot, the landing gear will gently drop down (the sealed air piston will force the gear down, but the high geared motor will make this a slow process), would probably need some shaking to completely lock down.
- The same will happen when the pilots tries to lower the gear if the electric motor is damaged.
- A damaged reduction gear will most probably made impossible to lowering that landing gear leg.
- A completely destroyed reduction gear will made the landing gear drop like a stone (when either the pilot tries to lower the gear or the uplocks are damaged), but it will never lock on the low position, and will collapse on touch down.

Yep, you got it. If I remember right, it's geared 144:1, so it might come down slowly, part way or not at all. Of course if the retract arm is hit, down it falls. The uplock isn't actually required, but it takes the load off the electrical system which would constantly have to put load on the motor without it (eventually burning out the motor).

[nic727]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

Be sure.

And now

[Spudkopf]

Originally Posted by CWMV

But ya he's probably surrendering, cause it's 1916 in the video.

I've already agreed that the idea of surrender was an unlikely romantic notion so please stop harping on about that point and try if you can to be respectful to others and constructive when expressing your opinion.

[Buster_Dee]

Bruce Carr was shot down in his P51, hid in a forest, stole a Fw190 from a nearby German airfield, and raced back to his base, figuring out the airplane as he went. Two days after bellying it in (and suffering his AA gunners' attention), a friend pulled on one of the "unexplained" controls, whereby the landing gear dropped down.

I know, pointless. But it's still funny.

The Fw190 landing gear, being electric, isn't going to "drop" unless the uplock is unlocked (a separate control Carr didn't know about) and the electric motor's gearbox is somehow damaged. The uplock is only needed for such a situation as the gear is otherwise quite immobile with power off. It might be that battle damage could short some circuits resulting in motoring an individual leg down, but the uplock would also have to be similarly damaged or previously unlocked.

(I've had to deal with some bizarre intermittent electrical problems on planes that resulted from somebody inadvertently running a drill bit into a wire bundle - lol. One had a DC-10 grounded for a week.)

Also, as the right leg moves the tailwheel moves as the two are cabled together, there being no separate tailwheel actuator.


Just doing my part to help build a potentially record setting thread.