Black 6 crash cause?

[Angus]

The topic is the speculation of the cause of Black 6's landing accidents, so I cannot see it as off topic to point out that many 109's had those. And I am willing to consider that landing accidents would be more likely above 50% than takeoff.....
I did have that number from somewhere, so landing and takeoff may be correct.
Now, what would be the main reason to a takeoff accident in a 109 into such an extent that taking off in a 109 is more risky than landing it, - or any powerful taildragger in general...?

[Wmaker]

The topic is the speculation of the cause of Black 6's landing accidents,

There is no room or need to speculate anything what so ever regarding the accident of the Black 6. An official accident investigation has been made and a raport about it has been written by The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch and is readily availabe for everyone to read. That's where all the "speculation" should end unless someone actually has some valid reason to question AAIB's accident investigation regarding Black 6.

The topic is the speculation of the cause of Black 6's landing accidents,
Now, what would be the main reason to a takeoff accident in a 109 into such an extent that taking off in a 109 is more risky than landing it, - or any powerful taildragger in general...?

Relatively rearward CoG and a small rudder combined with wrongly/miss performed take-off technique.

Considering your (almost disturbing) foundness on the faults of the Bf 109 fighter aircraft I do wonder why you haven't heard about this fairly commonly mentioned "flaw" already? Anyway, lucky for you, you're in for a hot satuday night!

Just start reading the link below, but remember to keep your hand cream and paper tissues close by!!

http://www.k-silmailumuseo.fi/?action=arkisto&RYHMA=27&ID=

[Angus]

Do you fly, and did you try taildraggers with a stick? Just curious.
It was a nice link there, however there is also a break issue which may have saved the Spittie. I think Hannah quoted on that, I can probably find it somewhere.
Then there is the rudder.
But basically....taking off a field is easier than landing, especially when dealing with aircraft that only need 200 yards or so...well that's my feel anyway...

[morfiend]

 Let me preface this,I'm no expert.

 But it looked to me that the pilot came in alittle steep,why??? many reasons read report.
 This steep approach caused alittle excess speed and he overshot,as someone said"thankfully he saved it,for the most part". Such a rare bird is almost worth the risk of loss of life!!

[Bodhi]

Save a few posts that can't really be taken seriously anyway, has anyone here really "crusified" him?

The reason why I asked if you had read the accident report or not was this bit:


I'll say it again, most likely he was himself reponsible for letting the emergency situation to develop in the first place by mismanaging the plane. Had he had the switch which operates the cooling gills in the correct position no emergency situation would have developed in the first place and he would have most likely flown a rutine display.

From this quote from you it is very easy to think that the plane was suffering from a technical failure that had nothing to with how the pilot flew the plane. He would not have had to do "this world a favor" if he had managed the plane correctly. In this light I find you comment: "He should be commended for that." odd to say the least.

That said,

Someone has said (might be from the bible) "To err is human, to forgive is divine." The pilot was a normal human being just like any of us and human's tend to make mistakes, that's humane. I'm sure he felt bad enough about it afterwards whether he thought it was his fault or not.
If you never do anything or never step out the door nothing bad will probably happen...at least not outside. But that isn't really a way to live you life. So if this guy got to a point of flying a rare aircraft like the Black 6 he was definately one of those guys that actually did something with their lives. Accidents and sh*t happen, that is life. But again, saying that I don't agree at all with the talks that "he should be commented for it" if his actions caused the whole situation in the first place.

How the hell do you know if the crash did not move the cooling doors levers?

[Wmaker]

How the hell do you know if the crash did not move the cooling doors levers?

I don't really understand what you are on about but...

If you've read the accident report you know that it discusses about video evidence which shows the cooling flaps in unnormal position during the display and in many instances at closed position. And there is also visual evidence of cooling liquid discharge which suggested that the cooling liquid was hotter than what is normal. All that combined with the found position of the lever there is more evidence suggesting that the lever was off of the correct position during the display than that it was knocked off of its correct position during the accident/recovery.

[Angus]

So the pilot did this deliberatly in order to blacken the reputation of the 109 

[glock89]

Yes he did here your pie.

[Angus]

Well, what brass he has, as well as skill to cover up 

[Schlowy]

That was only some pie, heres the rest:
The radiator levers...? pathetic, if he didn't know how to opperate the plane then he had no business being in such a rare plane. The 'news clipping' said the pilot had 18 hours on the plane. He probly already read the pilot handbook, but also had a proceedures check list with him, and he would have been in radio contact with someone whom also would have been fully read on the plane with a proceedures/check list book in hand.

Giving it a bad rep about landing was, in a way, a 'wonderful bonus.' The myth was the primary 'leg to stand on' for the 'accident reason' to wreck it. Its like killing two birds with one stone - destroy the 'source' and add to the lies at the same time.

The true reason for destroying the craft was so that the plane wouldn't be able to be tested for flight stats. The news clip said something about 'this was its last flight anyways.' They didn't want the plane to ever be recomissioned and used as a 'source.'

About landing: when on retreat, pilots sometimes have to quickly learning new airfields, lots of reasons for wrecking more than plane design or pilot error. How about battle damage to cause crash landings, like the gear shot out? Check Galland's Book about after D-day in france, many Luftwaffes, that were based in germany to protect german industry from b17 and b24, were flying west to find bombed out or capped airstrips. Sometimes they had to land at crowded smaller secondary bases. The plane wasn't any more difficult to land than any dam thing else. They lied to kill a stat source.

[Die Hard]

Is this guy retarded or what?

[Furball]

That was only some pie, heres the rest:
The radiator levers...? pathetic, if he didn't know how to opperate the plane then he had no business being in such a rare plane. The 'news clipping' said the pilot had 18 hours on the plane. He probly already read the pilot handbook, but also had a proceedures check list with him, and he would have been in radio contact with someone whom also would have been fully read on the plane with a proceedures/check list book in hand.

Giving it a bad rep about landing was, in a way, a 'wonderful bonus.' The myth was the primary 'leg to stand on' for the 'accident reason' to wreck it. Its like killing two birds with one stone - destroy the 'source' and add to the lies at the same time.

The true reason for destroying the craft was so that the plane wouldn't be able to be tested for flight stats. The news clip said something about 'this was its last flight anyways.' They didn't want the plane to ever be recomissioned and used as a 'source.'

About landing: when on retreat, pilots sometimes have to quickly learning new airfields, lots of reasons for wrecking more than plane design or pilot error. How about battle damage to cause crash landings, like the gear shot out? Check Galland's Book about after D-day in france, many Luftwaffes, that were based in germany to protect german industry from b17 and b24, were flying west to find bombed out or capped airstrips. Sometimes they had to land at crowded smaller secondary bases. The plane wasn't any more difficult to land than any dam thing else. They lied to kill a stat source.

You really are special.  How lucky we are to have you on these boards.

[Angus]

Schlowy:
"The true reason for destroying the craft was so that the plane wouldn't be able to be tested for flight stats. The news clip said something about 'this was its last flight anyways.' They didn't want the plane to ever be recomissioned and used as a 'source.'"

There are quite some authentic flight stats on paper, made by the LW in WW2 available online.
There are also some old 109 sticks (with killing status) still alive and fit enough to answer a question or two.
There are also RAF pilots that flew the captured 109's and issued their opinions.
In short, the flight performance of the 109 or it's characteristics were of no such a nature that TODAY they muzzt be crached so they cannot be tested.
I guess Skuzzy is going to spank my fingers soon, but I still say that think you are completely ignorant on the subject, - yet another 109 worshipper hot-headed enough to make conspiracy theories like this. I would advise you to look up the aircraft's performance through books and the net as well as the words of the pilots, then dabble a bit with comparing it to other aircraft of the era.
In short, not much to hide...just another WW2 plane.

[glock89]

You really are special.  How lucky we are to have you on these boards.

[Schlowy]

There are also RAF pilots that flew the captured 109's and issued their opinions.

You mean like the lieing liar Eric Brown? I say that the English don't tell the truth, and you quote me an English!

Get 10 sources, and you probly get 10 different stats anyways.