Originally posted by Whisky58
Corsair was infamous for its tendency to yaw on t/o & landing and this has been modelled in AH.
Me 109 was also notorious in this respect & more 109s were lost in t/o & landing accidents than in combat, but this is not modelled in AH and the 109s don't seem to have any landing vices.
Anyone know why please?
5% of 109s were lost in takeoff/landin gaccidents. I'm pretty certain more were lost in combat...
Besides...
Bf 109 D:
"The controls, sensitive ailerons, and tail group were fully effective to the time the wheels touched the ground. So much for that."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.
Me 109 E:
"Stalling speeds on the glide are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. Lowering the flaps makes the ailerons feel heavier and slightly less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment, readily corrected owing to the juxtaposition of trim and flap operating wheels. If the engine is opened up to simulate a baulked landing with flaps and undercarriage down, the airplane becomes tail-heavy but can easily be held with one hand while trim is adjusted. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph the glide path is reasonably steep and the view fairly good. Longitudinally the airplane is markedly stable, and the elevator heavier and more responsive than is usual in single-seater fighters. These features add considerably to the ease of approach. Aileron effectiveness is adequate; the rudder is sluggish for small movements.
(Landing) This is more difficult than on the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. Owing to the high ground attitude, the airplane must be rotated through a large angle before touchdown, and this requires a fair amount of skill. If a wheel landing is done the left wing tends to drop just before touchdown, and if the ailerons are used to lift it, they snatch, causing over-correction. The brakes can be applied immediately after touchdown without fear of lifting the tail. The ground run is short, with no tendency to swing. View during hold-off and ground run is very poor, and landing at night would not be easy."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.
Me 109 E-4:
"I established a speed of 200 kmh to enter the downwind leg, 150 at the end of the downwind, a curving final approach aiming to reduce speed to 130 kmh halfway around, 120 kmh with 30 degreed to go to the centreline and a threshold speed of 110 kmh with a dribble of power to stabilise the rate of speed decay.
Compare this with Black 6 (109 G) where I aimed to be at 200 kmh at the end of the downwind leg and not less than 165 kmh at the threshold."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.
Me 109 G:
"Once the tailwheel was firmly on the ground the brakes could be applied quite harshly, thus giving a short landing run, but care had to be taken to prevent any swing as the combination of narrow-track undercarriage and minimal forward view could easily result in directional problems."
- Eric Brown
- That is the only mention about the narrow undercarriage. Take notice that even this is just an objective note and Brown doesn't say anything else about it.
Landing battle damaged Me 109 G-2:
"I did my best landing ever. Wind blew from the right and the plane tends to veer to that direction. I hit the left brake but it was all slack. No response, but giving brief bursts of power with the engine I managed to create enough slipstream to keep the plane in straight course. Then I saw I cannot use any more power or I shall hit the tree stumps at the far end of the runway. I cut the ignition and said to myself, here we go.
By the by the plane began to veer to the right, at an ever faster rate and then the tail went up, the soil off the runway was soft. The tail went up, then the plane began to tilt to the left, the left wingtip, a 50cm piece hit the ground with a crunch and was bent. The plane was just about to nose over, but not even the prop did contact the ground, and the plane stopped there in the normal position."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- Pokela has told me that he took special care to teach the proper take-off and landing on the Me. How about the Germans, I've heard they didn't believe you could fit the planes in our small fields?
"They spoke of how the final approach speed should be 220 km/h. That would overshoot the field, we said. We landed at 180. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.
Me 109 G-6:
In landing the Me was stable. The leading edge slats were quick and reliable, and they prevented the plane from lurching in slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to short fields. The problem in landings was the long nose, so the plane was partly controlled by touch in the final seconds of landing.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"-Was the Messerschmitt difficult to land?
She was not difficult to land but after touchdown you must not let her curve. In Malmi there was a 10 by 10 m spot where German night fighter pilots broke at least six of their Messerschmitts. After touchdown they had veered to the right and the plane tilted to the left until the wingtip and prop contacted the ground. Yet they had logged thousands of hours with the Messerschmitt. In the night they flew like angels and landed without any veering, but in daytime they couldn't do anything."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-6:
"The Me was stable on landings. The quickly reacing automatic wing slats negated any swaying on slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to small fields. The problem in stall landings was the long nose, which hindered visibility forward. Because this controlling at the last stages of landing was done partly by sense of touch on the controls."
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Interview of Torsti Tallgren by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
