Actually the 109's rate of accidents in operational units was exceptionally high. Accidents, both operational and training were and are simply a reality. All aircraft suffer from both. I have no interest in continuing this type of exchange. I could document well over 1000 109 operational accidents with ease. doing so add's nothing.
This is your statement above....
Documented by whom? Surely not by anyone who's actually flown the plane. I simply posted a few comments specific to the elements in this thread that clearly document the inherent difficulties involved in successfully flying the 109. Including comments from an ace with 174 kills who crashed a 109 twice on takeoff within a single week. Again I can easily document over 50 "expertain" who suffered takeoff/landing accidents severe enough to require hospitalization.
This is a comment from a current warbird pilot qualified in the 109 (among many others) that was part of a thread discussing the the crash of "red 7" (typical landing mishap)...
"
While the Bf109 has poor directional stability characteristics on take-off and landing, a pilot who is experienced on the Spitfire or similar is quite capable of flying a Bf109. Like any aircraft, the 109 needs to be understood in order to fly it safely. The biggest aspect of this understanding is whether a given runway and the wind are suitable or not. Strong crosswinds, tailwinds, wheeled landings, high speed taxy tests are all guaranteed to cause problems. One of the problems is that, as with any other unstable response, the 109 on take-off and landing is "cliff-edged". If you fly from long, wide, flat grass strips with no tailwind and less than 10 kts of crosswind, it is no worse than most other warbird fighters. But, confidence grows and may lead a pilot to try short, concrete runways in a crosswind and suddenly it all goes wrong! The 109 is not a straightforward aircraft on take-off and landing but there are warbird pilots who do have the capabilities to fly it safely. Therefore, we should "keep 'em flying". This is a quote regarding the 109 that mirrors my thoughts to a strong degree from another seasoned member of the warbird community...
"No more flawed than the Spitfire, being the same basic configuration. The aircraft had reached the end of it's development life in it's current configuration by mid-1943 with the G-6/AS and G-14/AS; note that the K retained the same exact configuration, with only minor internal equipment arrangement differences (and of course more horsepower). To put it in parallel with the Spitfire, the Mark IX would probably be a close equal in terms of development; note that the Mk XIV retained only the basic fuselage and horizontal stabilizer form from the earlier Spit models, with a completely different engine, wing, and vertical stabilizer designed to cope with the gobs of torque produced by that massive Griffon.
The 109 was the finest fighter in the world through early 1943, with the development peaking with the G-2... only the Mark 21 Zero would have a legitimate claim for equal greatness in the same time period. Every 109 model afterwards was a reactive development rather than proactive, including the /AS models. The basic G-6 was a step backwards in many ways, sacrificing manouverability and performance for firepower, and the K-4, while a very capable aircraft, still lacked a number of features which were considered standard on Allied combat aircraft at that time, including cockpit adjustable aileron and rudder trim, gyro-stabilized gunsights, and much more reliable all-weather capability. Credit the Allied bombing campaign for creating such a pressure-cooker environment that Messerschmitt and it's various satellite factories were forbidden to explore any significant developments as it might interfere with production of the current models.
The 190 was a fine aircraft as well, but the BMW 801 crapped out above 18,000 feet or so... lots of work took place to try and rectify this through the war, but it wasn't until the lashed-up D-9 entered service that the 190 got any kind of decent high-altitude performance."
Here is a summary of the accident in question....
Albstadt
According to police statement the accident happened at 2.45pm as follows:
After a 15min. practice flight of the experienced 69 year old pilot with the legendary Messerschmidt Me 109 from "Luftsportverein
Degerfeld", the plane banked during the landing, tuched the runway with one gear, tipped to the other gear and touched with the wing
on that side the unsecured ground of the runway.
Thereupon the plane tipped to the front and the propeller went into the ground. A complete rollover did not happen. The engine was
almost pulled out of the fuselage.
Mr. Manfred Birk, the chairman of the areo club is close to tears, some of his colleages are nearly speechless: "It was blessing in disguise;
the most important is that the pilot is unhurt!". Accoring to Birk, the pilot is an old stager, extremely experienced and worldwide
one of the most accepted specialists for this old german fighter plane.
The MTs had a lot of takeoff and landing incidents. During takeoff the Messerschmitt tended to yaw because of the propeller torque. MT-483 flown by ensign E. Marttinen flipped over during takeoff on the 23rd of Feb 1953."With the slotted flaps lowered to 20 degree, the take-off run was remarkably short and, the mainwheels being positioned well forward of the center of gravity, fierce braking was permitted inmediately on touchdown, resulting in a short landing run and fast taxiing. However, the tendency to swing on take off and landing, that had first manifested itself during tests with the early prototypes, continued to plague the Bf 109 E and contributed substantially to the Luftwaffe's high accident rate, some 1500 Bf 109 fighters being lost between the beginning of the war and the autumn of 1941 in accidents caused by unintentional swings. Only after the tailwheel had been fitted with a locking device which operated when the throttle was fully opened did the tendency to swing lessen."
"During the spring and summer of 1942 the assembly lines began to switch to the production of the Bf 109 G, deliveries of which commenced in the late summer of 1942 and which was appearing on all war fronts by the end of that year. With the phasing out of the Bf 109 F-series , the basic Bf 109 design might be considered to have passed the peak of its development, for with the introduction of the Bf 109 G-series the constant opertional demands for increased fire pwer and additional equipment brought with them a serious deterioration in the fighter's flying characteristics. The Bf 109 G could not be flown in a landing circuit with flaps and undercarriage down other than at full throttle, and experienced German operational pilots have described its landing charactreistics as malicious. Nevertheless, some 70 per cent of all the Bf 109 fighters produced during the war years were of the Bf 109 G-series."
Again all you need to do is look with an open mind and some objectivity....
