Interesting bit from butch on 109 landing accidents...

[Kurfürst]

This I found on another forum, where the often cited figure of 1/3 of all 109s lost in landing/takeoff accidents was brought up again.

Butch noted that :

FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

and

An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a lanfing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.

less than 1000 / 26000 = 3.8%, which is quite near to the 4% or 5% figure I see qouted here and then.

[Kweassa]

Then where does the "1/3rd destroyed during takeoff/landings" quote come from?

 There is no way a reasonably operating airforce would ever employ a plane that would attribute whole 30%+ of its damages due to accidents alone, so I've never believed that figure... but I've also seen some people quote such.

 Been always wonderin' where it comes from..

[Tony Williams]

It would also be interesting to track down the source of the statement I've seen that 1,500 trainee pilots were killed trying to learn how to fly the thing (presumably, mainly in take-off/landing accidents).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[gripen]

AFAIK the only reliable dataset I know about the Bf 109 take off and landing accidents is from FAF; roughly about one third of Bf 109s in the FAF service suffered some sort of landing or take off accident. Naturally planes were not written off in most cases and some of the planes might have suffered more than on accident.

gripen

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Then where does the "1/3rd destroyed during takeoff/landings" quote come from?

 There is no way a reasonably operating airforce would ever employ a plane that would attribute whole 30%+ of its damages due to accidents alone, so I've never believed that figure... but I've also seen some people quote such.

 Been always wonderin' where it comes from..

I think I may have an answer. They probably messed up understanding German strenght report`s that broke down the unit`s losses to

- due to the enemy action
- due to non enemy action
- aging, overhauls and repairs

These are roughly equal amounts, 1/3-1/3-1/3. I guess they somehow though that all non enemy action is takeoff accident. But then, if someone crashed into the parking plane, or there was an inflight engine or other failure, fuel ran out etc. was also non-enemy action. Moreover, I compared the statisics for the Bf 109 vs the FW 190, and there was no meaningful difference, and this rate was quite typical for other airforces as well.


I doubt the 1500 trainees killed figure. The LW`s fighter arm lost some 7000 dead in all for a start. Other than that, I`d need some explanation for the 109 vet`s absolute enthusiasm toward the plane that allegadly killed them en masse. And it would be nice to track down the source for the 1500 pilots killed figure too.


As for the source, I`d trust Butch in this regard, mos likely he has loads of 109 loss reports - 26 000 could be almost complete btw, and far more than enough to get a reliable statictics. One source I can guess is the finnish researcher Matti Salonen. He gathered over 30 000 German loss reports with cause, etc. and digitalized it into a database. Punka also used it for his work, and a few years ago, I gave his email address to butch.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by gripen
AFAIK the only reliable dataset I know about the Bf 109 take off and landing accidents is from FAF; roughly about one third of Bf 109s in the FAF service suffered some sort of landing or take off accident. Naturally planes were not written off in most cases and some of the planes might have suffered more than on accident.

gripen

Is this period is for the entire service of the Bf 109 in Finnland, ie. 25 years from 1942 to 1967? It wouldn`t surprise me that much that in such long time, so many planes would be effected, as there was no replacements at all.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Then where does the "1/3rd destroyed during takeoff/landings" quote come from?
 

one word : vulch.

(I'm half serious)

[Angus]

From Tony Williams:
"It would also be interesting to track down the source of the statement I've seen that 1,500 trainee pilots were killed trying to learn how to fly the thing (presumably, mainly in take-off/landing accidents)."

5% is what I have seen, which would be very close to this number.
There were better aircraft than the 109 in this regard, and worse.

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Is this period is for the entire service of the Bf 109 in Finnland, ie. 25 years from 1942 to 1967?

First G-2's were flown to Finland in March 1943.
Last flight of the 109 was 13.3.1954

[gripen]

Originally posted by TimRas
First G-2's were flown to Finland in March 1943.
Last flight of the 109 was 13.3.1954

It should be also noted that in the beginning of the FAF service the Bf 109 was flown by experienced pilots (LeLv 34) who got training in the Germany. After war the strenght of the FAF was restricted to 60 combat planes and for a good reason the FAF earned nickname "Tyyppilentoilmavoimat" during that period.

gripen

[FalconSix]

I have no idea what "Tyyppilentoilmavoimat" means.

[LLv34 Jarsci]

Tyyppilentoilmavoimat means roughly profiency check flight air forces. It comes from the fact that 60 planes aren´t so much and after the war pilots didn´t get to fly very much. Also ragtag plane collection gave some ring to the name...