Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Charge on September 10, 2008, 06:36:21 AM
-
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiYs_zqnOoQ&feature=related"
Old event but what I find strange is that what was going through pilots head in this situation and could the disaster be prevented somehow?
I have understood that the plane simply did not slow down so it had to "hop" over a motorway and as it landed on a soft field it turned on its back.
Judging from the video the landing speed looks kinda high so why didn't the pilot slowly apply power and decide to abort the landing?
Was there mechanical failure like the propeller governor failure so that the propeller remained in "coarse" setting preventing the a/c slowing down properly when the throttle was closed? But this would not prevent applying power and finding a longer runway for emergency landing, or would it?
After seeing a few of these videos I find it strange that there seems to be all kinds of habits of bringing down a plane with such a difficult reputation.
I have understood that Bf109 could be brought down safest with slats out and at rather slow speed on a three pointer where as high speed landing on a concrete runway had a high risk of developing into an uncontrolled bouncing where there was a high risk of a wing-over.
Mark Hanna probably had confidence of flying Bf 109 near its edge but that one time it surprised him -with fatal consequences.
-C+
-
Judging from the video the landing speed looks kinda high so why didn't the pilot slowly apply power and decide to abort the landing?
The reason was that the pilot thought the engine was going to seize at any moment. That is the reason why he didn't attempt to do a go-around. He had most probably accidentially left the radiator cooling gills to shut position (The switch was found to be in that position in the investigation after the accident.). Because of this the coolant overheated and started to expand/boil and flow out of the radiators via the overflow vent. When the pilot saw this white smoke pouring behind the plane he thought the engine was about to seize. He also reported oil haze/smoke in the cockpit but as the engine was dismantled nothing was found to be wrong in it.
So in short, a pilot error.
EDIT/Well, saying for sure that it was pilot error is actually a bit harsh, sorry about that. It really isn't as clear cut./EDIT
There is a complete accident report online, don't have the link off-hand but it should be fairly easy to find.
-
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501760.pdf (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501760.pdf)
-
looks like pilot error to me. the 109 had a narrow landing gear set up and was difficult to land. it looks like he was coming in too fast and tried to abort.
-
The reason was that the pilot thought the engine was going to seize at any moment. That is the reason why he didn't attempt to do a go-around. He had most probably accidentially left the radiator cooling gills to shut position (The switch was found to be in that position in the investigation after the accident.). Because of this the coolant overheated and started to expand/boil and flow out of the radiators via the overflow vent. When the pilot saw this white smoke pouring behind the plane he thought the engine was about to seize. He also reported oil haze/smoke in the cockpit but as the engine was dismantled nothing was found to be wrong in it.
So in short, a pilot error.
EDIT/Well, saying for sure that it was pilot error is actually a bit harsh, sorry about that. It really isn't as clear cut./EDIT
There is a complete accident report online, don't have the link off-hand but it should be fairly easy to find.
That sounds almost exactly what ive seen in every book/report that has mentioned the accident. Pilot error.
-
The report says the propeller control was set to manual and it was in coarse setting. I'm not at all sure it that is a normal setup in landing configuration but it would certainly provide less drag if the engine seized but would probably also cause a too long landing run.
Of course the pilot had to make decisions in a few seconds and fortunately he survived without injury, although the choices were not necessarily the most optimal ones. Also the function of the cooling flap selector falls into category that you just have to know that it does not necessarily work correctly if you just turn it about there where it should be, but it may need some jiggling to set correctly or it needs to be just exactly in the right position to work correctly. Of course he could have just set the cooling flaps to full open position and get rid of the problem providing he had made a correct conclusion of the origin of the haze and white smoke.
-C+
-
Also found a report of the Mossie accident discussed earlier in a couple of occasions:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf
-C+
-
looks like pilot error to me. the 109 had a narrow landing gear set up and was difficult to land. it looks like he was coming in too fast and tried to abort.
Lots of WW2 planes had narrower landing gear or were more dangerous to land. Spitfire for example.
Pilot error is totally different thing from any technical features of any plane.
-
Lots of WW2 planes had narrower landing gear or were more dangerous to land. Spitfire for example.
Pilot error is totally different thing from any technical features of any plane.
The Bf-109 was notoriously difficult to land though. While she wasn't the unforgiving beast she is often made out to be, there WAS a bit of a steep learning curve.
-
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
-
I read that fully 1/3rd of 109s were lost in landing accidents.
-
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
:rolleyes: Is the Norwegian back posting?
No AS, that is a myth. Something around 1500 Bf109s were wrecked in landing accidents.
-
I read that fully 1/3rd of 109s were lost in landing accidents.
I read that Hitler still lives, nazis had secret base at Antarctica and they escaped to moon.
But not everything that is written on paper or internet is correct.
-
I read that fully 1/3rd of 109s were lost in landing accidents.
Nope. Thats a common myth, but it wasn't really that bad. They WERE tough to land for begginers, but accidents weren't that common, nor that severe.
-
MiloMorai said:
-------------------------------------
:rolleyes: Is the Norwegian back posting?
No AS, that is a myth. Something around 1500 Bf109s were wrecked in landing accidents.
-------------------------------------
Norwegians? A racist comment against blondes?
"AS"? Disguising the word bellybutton maybe?
MiloMorai = typical 'Gold Member?'
-
LOL Schotz is back. How many PNGs has he been given?
AS = AquaShrimp.
-
LOL Schotz is back. How many PNGs has he been given?
AS = AquaShrimp.
lol that was quick milo. :aok
-
I read that fully 1/3rd of 109s were lost in landing accidents.
That might be some a sort of missunderstanding of the actual data. In Finnish Airforce service there was 55 take off or landing accidents where the plane was damaged (usually the plane was repaired and some planes suffered multiple such accidents) and that is roughly one third of number of Bf 109s in Finnish service. I believe that the Luftwaffe experience was quite similar and that is the origin of the 1/3 claim, the data is just misunderstood. The most believeable number I have seen for the write offs due to take off and landing accidents in the LW service is about 1500 ie about 5%.
In the beginning of the service, the Bf 109 was flown by experienced pilots and that time most common reason for the accidents was engine problems. However, at summer 1944 large number of new pilots were hurriedly trained for the Bf 109 and most of the take off and landing accidents happened in that period. Notable thing is that some times pilots coming from the easier types like the MS.406 had trouble with the Bf 109, IIRC one Morane pilot had three accidents when transitioning to the Bf 109.
-
And now Bronk has arrived, a platinum member, to come mess up the thread since he too hates the 109s.
SKUZZY, are you going to take away their posting privilidges or only mine if i call them names back???
Oh and hows your woman Urchin doin? You knock him up again? Does he even know if he's a man or a woman anymore! HAHAHA
Now that you have to fix my post, fix theirs too, SO WE CAN DO THE DISCUSSION WITHOUT NAME CALLING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS.
-
"AS"? Disguising the word bellybutton maybe?
AS is short for AquaShrimp
-
AS is short for AquaShrimp
Well HHF to all of Skuzzys women... hamburger helper forever! ":=)
HHF to you Bronk, HHF to you MiloMorai, HHF to you too Urchin.
Btw Urchin, hows your AS? Skuzzy been taking care of ya? LOL
-
Well HHF to all of Skuzzys women... hamburger helper forever! ":=)
HHF to you Bronk, HHF to you MiloMorai, HHF to you too Urchin.
Btw Urchin, hows your AS? Skuzzy been taking care of ya? LOL
Please bend over and drop your pants, the PNG stick is commin for ya...
-
Skuzzy, incase u don't notice, Serenity is 'back seat moderating'... guessing he too would like some of your luvin HAHA, maybe give uchin a break, take of serenity now? HAHAHA
-
Skuzzy, incase u don't notice, Serenity is 'back seat moderating'... guessing he too would like some of your luvin HAHA, maybe give uchin a break, take of serenity now? HAHAHA
So, by warning you that there will probably be repricutions to your statements is backseat moderating? No. Im not trying to enforce anything. I am not telling you to do or not to do anything. I am simply stating that you will not be here much longer
-
So you're just a good citizen?
Prove it!
Tell Milo the same thing about bending over and the png stick... or admit you are full of it.
BTW all, notices how these cowards 'tag team' to not bring too much heat on themselves and keep most of it on me. I'll get booted probly but none of them just like last time.
Drama Drama Drama but wait and see... the 109 and 190 will still sux in here so its a win for these fewls.
-
So you're just a good citizen?
Prove it!
Tell Milo the same thing about bending over and the png stick... or admit you are full of it.
BTW all, notices how these cowards 'tag team' to not bring too much heat on themselves and keep most of it on me. I'll get booted probly but none of them just like last time.
Drama Drama Drama but wait and see... the 109 and 190 will still sux in here so its a win for these fewls.
I didn't see anything from Milo that seemed so offensive, otherwise I would be getting on his case for being a hothead too.
-
I'm not sure but it could be that since the weight of the 109 slowly went up the difficulties in landing could become more pronounced leading to higher landing speeds and thus, along with inexperienced pilots, to a bigger risk of accidents in landing.
I'm not sure if the increased weight made take offs easier but more torque probably did not...
With this I mean that 109E would be a different beast in landing to, say, 109K.
-C+
-
I'm not sure but it could be that since the weight of the 109 slowly went up the difficulties in landing could become more pronounced leading to higher landing speeds and thus, along with inexperienced pilots, to a bigger risk of accidents in landing.
I'm not sure if the increased weight made take offs easier but more torque probably did not...
With this I mean that 109E would be a different beast in landing to, say, 109K.
-C+
I think its mostly the torque, similar to the Corsair. I don't have it saved on this computer, but there is a website out there dedicated solely to debunking this myth. They have testimony from actual Bf-109 pilots as well as hard scientific and mathmatic evidence. GREAT read. If we're still arguing about this by thursday I can post the link.
-
And now Bronk has arrived, a platinum member, to come mess up the thread since he too hates the 109s.
SKUZZY, are you going to take away their posting privilidges or only mine if i call them names back???
Oh and hows your woman Urchin doin? You knock him up again? Does he even know if he's a man or a woman anymore! HAHAHA
Now that you have to fix my post, fix theirs too, SO WE CAN DO THE DISCUSSION WITHOUT NAME CALLING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS.
LMAO oooh yes I hate 109s. ooooh bad...bad... 109. pfffft
Please... point out where I called you names Schlowy.
If that's who you are. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
LMAO oooh yes I hate 109s. ooooh bad...bad... 109. pfffft
Please... point out where I called you names Schlowy.
If that's who you are. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
wtf? I am lost. :huh :huh
-
Heh, I find it amusing that Milo see me behind every post he disagrees with. Talk about paranoia *lol*. Oh I AM indeed around here still, but Schlowy I am not. :lol
-
Heh, I find it amusing that Milo see me behind every post he disagrees with. Talk about paranoia *lol*. Oh I AM indeed around here still, but Schlowy I am not. :lol
Eh, names are close enough! lol. :D
-
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
Some 5% of 109's were lost in landing accidents, - however that doesn't necessarily have to be a worse % than on similar aircraft from the era.
That said, german aces quoting on the landing of Spitfires and Hurricanes that they got to test, well they claim them to be much easier in that respect.
Oh, Scholzie, you're back? If you are, I'd appreciate your help on something...norse ;)
-
Oh, Scholzie, maybe Schlowy is ...Izzy? :devil
-
Naw, if I had to venture a guess I'd say Schlowy is from an English speaking country.
What Norse problem do you need my help with? :)
-
Don't want to hijack, so to all I humbly excuse.
The Norse issue, you solved for me before, but I lost it from my HD.
I was once looking for seeds for a flower meadow, - "Blomsterenge", and you did provide me with some N-Norwegian links.
Now I have found some english connection for this, but N-Norwegian species are much more hardy, and maybe some sorts are available that are not in the UK.
Can I PM you?
-
Heh, you can try ... I don't know how long until Skuzzy gives Gunter the boot again. ;)
(Don't you have my email?)
-
uhmmm...can check.
Just behave, and no boot :D
-
No, I fear Skuzzy and me are beyond that now.
-
Well, we know the viking blood can be a tad hard to keep...calm :devil
-
Indeed ;)
-
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
-
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
What are you smoking? You know the 109 was hard to land every 1 dose stop making up lies. The 109 was one of the best fighters of WW2 but it had it problems every plane dose.
-
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
Do you write for Rosie ODonnell? :rofl
-
Do you write for Rosie ODonnell? :rofl
:lol :lol
-
Rossie Odonald? Chalenge, why don't you ask her? She is your mom, right? :rofl
What are you smoking? You know the 109 was hard to land every 1 dose stop making up lies. The 109 was one of the best fighters of WW2 but it had it problems every plane dose.
Glock everyone says 'landing probs' too much and too often.
I'm sure Urchin would, but he also says "190s just weren't good planes"
Understanding yet?
-
Rossie Odonald? Chalenge, why don't you ask her? She is your mom, right? :rofl
Glock everyone says 'landing probs' too much and too often.
I'm sure Urchin would, but he also says "190s just weren't good planes"
Understanding yet?
No im saying 109s are hard to land every 1 knows that. Did you even look at the landing gear of a 109? It very narrow 1 wrong turn and you can flip it.
-
I build me models with the gear up, so ya gota point there, still, you mention repeatedly 'bad landing characteristics' but you don't mention fast speed and roll rates! Which is why they crashed it!
-
I build me models with the gear up, so ya gota point there, still, you mention repeatedly 'bad landing characteristics' but you don't mention fast speed and roll rates! Which is why they crashed it!
Because of the landing gear speed and roll rates are for dog fights not for landing. God get it right. :noid
-
The 109 wasn't hard to land. The problem started when the wheels touched the ground because of the toe out.
-
"The problem started when the wheels touched the ground because of the toe out."
That was allegedly one source of problems and another that was mentioned was the landing gear attachment point which was considered too weak. I'm not sure why exactly it was considered too weak because in certain situations it is better that the gear just bends back and snaps loose, but not if you happen to touch down a bit too fast or on bad or soft surface...
What exactly is the effect of the toe out in Bf109? Similar feature can be seen in Morane Saulnier 406, where as in FW190 there is no toe out but the gear axle is bent to keep the wheel aligned almost straight with ground.
I have understood that the bad effect of toe out is especially when you touch down with rather fast speed on hard surface which may induce veering because of rather stiff shock absorber (compare to e.g. Spit).
If the wheel profile is rounded the momentum to which direction it forces the wheel is rather curious. With this I mean what you do in a motorcycle, which has the same kind of rounded profile, and in fast turns the shift of drivers weight is not enough for direction change but the front wheel is forced to the opposite direction from the actual desired turn direction.
So the touch down on a three pointer in a Bf109 may indeed be much easier to control than coming down on main wheels only. However, I also remember reading that the 109 consumed wheels more than other planes with different landing gear configurations.
-C+
-
"The problem started when the wheels touched the ground because of the toe out."
That was allegedly one source of problems and another that was mentioned was the landing gear attachment point which was considered too weak. I'm not sure why exactly it was considered too weak because in certain situations it is better that the gear just bends back and snaps loose, but not if you happen to touch down a bit too fast or on bad or soft surface...
What exactly is the effect of the toe out in Bf109? Similar feature can be seen in Morane Saulnier 406, where as in FW190 there is no toe out but the gear axle is bent to keep the wheel aligned almost straight with ground.
I have understood that the bad effect of toe out is especially when you touch down with rather fast speed on hard surface which may induce veering because of rather stiff shock absorber (compare to e.g. Spit).
If the wheel profile is rounded the momentum to which direction it forces the wheel is rather curious. With this I mean what you do in a motorcycle, which has the same kind of rounded profile, and in fast turns the shift of drivers weight is not enough for direction change but the front wheel is forced to the opposite direction from the actual desired turn direction.
So the touch down on a three pointer in a Bf109 may indeed be much easier to control than coming down on main wheels only. However, I also remember reading that the 109 consumed wheels more than other planes with different landing gear configurations.
-C+
No the RAF shot it down. :D
-
Because of the landing gear speed and roll rates are for dog fights not for landing. God get it right. :noid
How is the landing gear speed important for a dog fight in a 109???
-
Ohh, I just wanted to mention this to the rest of ya'll that have been busting on the pilot of "Black 6".
I am no expert by any means when it comes to flight. I have been around warbirds almost exclusively since I was 19. I do know there are two things I am afraid of when it comes to flying them.
1. Fire
2. A sudden crosswind gust when landing a T-6.
Fire is perhaps the most uncontrollable, unpredictable, and scary aspect in an aircraft. If you ahve reason to believe that the aircraft is on fire or in imminent danger of being on fire, you generally have two choices.
A: Get the hell out of the aircraft, which generally means a total loss of the airframe when it plummets in.
B: Try to get the SOB onto the ground as fast as possible.
It looks to me that the pilot chose option B believing a fire to be imminent. In that case, we did the world a favor by getting her on the ground and in relatively one piece. He should be commended for that. Lesser people would have pointed it away from the crowd and jumped.
-
The 109 has a narrow track just like the Spitfire. For some reason pilots that flew both rather are in favour with the Spitty.
One thing mentioned is wing dipping.
However, the wheel mounting on the 109 is actually a cool one...on the fuselage. And yet, that will support a "stiffer" touchdown.
The Hurricane has been mentioned for flexing the wings on landing. But she was onel ady though....bear in mind that land based Hurricanes were landed successfully (a squadron) on a (British) CV with no hook, modded with a sanbag aft in the fuselage, and with completely no training on that job, without a mishap!
(that one came...later)
The Spitfires were flown of (British) CV's with a full load and an extra tank made for 600 miles of sea crossing.
I'd love to see if the 109 would copy those....but I think it would be a hair away from them....
-
Ohh, I just wanted to mention this to the rest of ya'll that have been busting on the pilot of "Black 6".
Did you read the accident report? It is concluded with pretty high certainty that the pilot himself caused the situation which was the reason why he thought the engine was going to seize/catch fire.
-
Try to imagine you in the pilot's boots where everything is starting to smoke :O
-
I saw the black6 in flight, it was so beautifull, it's a great loss for the aviation history
-
Try to imagine you in the pilot's boots where everything is starting to smoke :O
Yes, not a pleasant moment for sure. Has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, though.
-
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
What is with you and your Eric Brown vendetta?
-
What is with you and your Eric Brown vendetta?
He the guy who rape him while he was a little kid. :lol
-
Did you read the accident report? It is concluded with pretty high certainty that the pilot himself caused the situation which was the reason why he thought the engine was going to seize/catch fire.
I have read the accident report. Did you read my post?
-
Did you read my post?
Yes, I'll repeat myself...
It is concluded with pretty high certainty that the pilot himself caused the situation which was the reason why he thought the engine was going to seize/catch fire.
-
I'll repeat myself when I say that every one in 20 109's definately fell in landing accidents...
-
Yes, I'll repeat myself...
It is concluded with pretty high certainty that the pilot himself caused the situation which was the reason why he thought the engine was going to seize/catch fire.
Again, go back and read my post. It is not right to crucify this guy over this, he was PIC, made the decision to put her down immediately where as another might well have just jumped.
-
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
Son... are you retarded?
-
Son... are you retarded?
I think he is.
-
No, i'm brilliaint (spelling?) :rofl
-
No, i'm brilliaint (spelling?) :rofl
No your dumb. :lol
-
See, Saurdaukar only asked...
No your dumb. :lol
But you, Glock89, you did a personal attack! Pulls the personal attack alarm, sirens turn on! :O
Now i'll just ask a question, whom is dumb now? :rofl
I'm having way to much fun!
-
See, Saurdaukar only asked...
But you, Glock89, you did a personal attack! Pulls the personal attack alarm, sirens turn on! :O
Now i'll just ask a question, whom is dumb now? :rofl
I'm having way to much fun!
Son... are you retarded?
[/quote]Do you even read what you say? National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
-
Hehe, sclowy,you're one troller. I think you have the 109 variant of the Luftwobble disease, and it's only cured with lots of reading, that is if you can understand what you read :D
-
Nice history of the aircraft here: http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/collections/aircraft/aircraft_histories/X001-2501%20BF109G%20'Black%206'.pdf
from: http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/collections/aircraft/messerschmitt-bf-109g-2.cfm
-
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:
It looks to me that the pilot chose option B believing a fire to be imminent. In that case, we did the world a favor by getting her on the ground and in relatively one piece. He should be commended for that. Lesser people would have pointed it away from the crowd and jumped.
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.
-
I'll repeat myself when I say that every one in 20 109's definately fell in landing accidents...
Why do you insist on posting these useless one liners that have nothing what so ever to do with the topic at hand?
Are you trying your best to hijack this thread?
5% of the 109's were damaged/written off in landing and take-off accidents. And I'm willing to bet that the percent of the take-off accidents in that figure is well over 50. And again, none of this has anything to do with the subject of this thread. You almost managed to parrot what other people were posting but then your reading comprehension (or the lack of) got the better of you.
-
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...?
-
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! :D
Just start reading the link below, but remember to keep your hand cream and paper tissues close by!! :aok
http://www.k-silmailumuseo.fi/?action=arkisto&RYHMA=27&ID= (http://www.k-silmailumuseo.fi/?action=arkisto&RYHMA=27&ID=)
-
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...
-
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!!
-
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?
-
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.
-
So the pilot did this deliberatly in order to blacken the reputation of the 109 :noid
-
Yes he did here your pie. :aok
-
Well, what brass he has, as well as skill to cover up :D
-
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.
-
Is this guy retarded or what? :huh
-
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.
-
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.
-
You really are special. How lucky we are to have you on these boards.
:rofl :rofl
-
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!
:rolleyes:
Get 10 sources, and you probly get 10 different stats anyways.
-
You mean like the lieing liar Eric Brown? I say that the English don't tell the truth, and you quote me an English!
:rolleyes:
Get 10 sources, and you probly get 10 different stats anyways.
:huh
-
You mean like the lieing liar Eric Brown? I say that the English don't tell the truth, and you quote me an English!
:rolleyes:
Get 10 sources, and you probly get 10 different stats anyways.
Was thinking more like Jeffrey Quill and such, - a distinguished test pilot who both was dogfighting 109's with LW pilots at the steer as well as flying them himself.
Or LW sticks like Gunther Rall who was primarily a 109 pilot, but also flew captured aircraft from the Allies in mock fights against 109's....
And about landing events when a squadron of land based Hurricanes (no tailhook, no naval experience) was landed on a British carrier (shorter than U.S.) without a mishap...
Yes, I am telling you to read up. That "LIES" crap reminds me of Izzy, and I raise you with the word "IGNORANCE"
-
Furball is the only player taht I was able to look up data on, mostly he flies f4u's, but he does have some time in 190a8s... rest of you guys hide your bias. Post your game id so we all can see what you fly.
Glock89, Angus... wth is your id, what do you fly? :uhoh
-
Used to fly as Angus, not more.
Nowadays normally as Daimler :D
Fly offline tests as well.
Favourite aircraft is the Spit VIII at the moment, but the Macchis sometimes give me a blast. Some bombings as well. Missions are usually quite suicidal
-
. Post your game id so we all can see what you fly.
ERROR: Player Schlowy did not fly in Late War Tour 104
-
Furball is the only player taht I was able to look up data on, mostly he flies f4u's, but he does have some time in 190a8s... rest of you guys hide your bias. Post your game id so we all can see what you fly.
Glock89, Angus... wth is your id, what do you fly? :uhoh
Ummmmmmm it 666. :D
-
(http://texasholdemblogger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/do-not-feed-the-trolls.jpg)
-
I fly 109's most of the time. I have no problem spanking any spitfire I run across. What's the problem with them again?
-
The problem might be that I'm not behind the stick :t
-
Stang, you're worthy of me repeating this stuff.
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics) :lol
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was better than their 1001 documentaries report. :aok
Now, what part don't ya understand? Did I go too fast for you? About your 'aceship' maybe the rest of us don't have scaling set up yet. Besides, its not like your call sign is Messer or Schmitt, yours is Stang! ;)
-
Stang, you're worthy of me repeating this stuff.
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics) :lol
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was better than their 1001 documentaries report. :aok
Now, what part don't ya understand? Did I go too fast for you? About your 'aceship' maybe the rest of us don't have scaling set up yet. Besides, its not like your call sign is Messer or Schmitt, yours is Stang! ;)
:huh :huh :huh :huh WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?
-
Glock89,
In that statement you imply that I am smoking a mind altering drug... you 'beg the question' that I am smoking something.
You also 'beg the question' that my post has no intelectual thought because of the implication that I smoked something.
You also 'attack the person instead of the argument.'
Three falacies in one statement, Shame on you.
Verbally attacking a player is in roc. So is attemting to create 'flame'. So is overly using smilies icons.
Three roc's in one statement also... Shame on you twice.
Bronk
In game i'm schlowy3
Can we get back to topic now?
-
Schlowy, I don't mean to be rude but I think you need a bit more practice in game before you can make an accurate assessment on the 109s in Aces High. They can be very good, but they are not the sort of plane a new guy can easily pick up in a short space of time. You may want to try spending a bit longer in the 109F - that is a brilliant plane. As is the 109G2. Give it a go and see how you get on, i suspect you may be more successful in that before progressing onto the later 109s.
You gotta remember too that lots of us have been playing AH for years - it is not an easy learning curve.
I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit too...
Good luck <S>
-
You mean the learning curve that a hurri with 3k higher alt pwns?
You mean the curve that an La7 can do its supposive 'topspeed' for its whole fligth instead of 1min probly?
The only real learning curve is learning the modeling. And every version of these games has different modeling! Even the AW1,2,3 and AH1,2 are different.
I don't mean to be rude either but you don't know my background either.
*Edit, i looked your stuff up for 'kills in' you fly some luft sometimes, compare to Lynx, he hates luft, hundreds of kills but none in any 190, 109, 110... Glock and Angus here won't say their names, but they attack and jumble up the thread... they attempt to bury the truth. Prove me wrong Angus, Glock89, put your game call sign.
Mine is Schlowy3, I'm pro-luft yep, but i'm no liar.
-
You mean the learning curve that a hurri with 3k higher alt pwns?
You mean the curve that an La7 can do its supposive 'topspeed' for its whole fligth instead of 1min probly?
The only real learning curve is learning the modeling. And every version of these games has different modeling! Even the AW1,2,3 and AH1,2 are different.
I don't mean to be rude either but you don't know my background either.
In answer to the above: -
Any aircraft with a 3k alt advantage and a decent pilot should 'pwn' you.
All aircraft can run continuously at full power.
I don't need to - it is a different game. Playing Warbirds/Air Warrior/Whatever else does not automatically mean you will be good at AH.
-
*Edit, i looked your stuff up for 'kills in' you fly some luft sometimes, compare to Lynx, he hates luft, hundreds of kills but none in any 190, 109, 110... Glock and Angus here won't say their names, but they attack and jumble up the thread... they attempt to bury the truth. Prove me wrong Angus, Glock89, put your game call sign.
Mine is Schlowy3, I'm pro-luft yep, but i'm no liar.
Just seen your edit. I just fly whatever i feel like at the time. The 109G-2, 110G-2, 262, 109F-4 are amongst my favourite aircraft in the game, don't fly them that regularly though.
-
Might be a long reading schlowy, - how long do you think I was in AH? :devil
BTW out of 109's the 109F is my favourite. Second comes the G14 or the G2, G-6 doesn't like me.
My main problem is being jumped by a good stick in a Spitfire :D Or due to my suicidal missions (like radar porking along the lines) I get jumped by more bandits than one. In that world, I prefer the Spit VIII above all.
Then the c.202 makes a blast, I fly it light with 2 guns, and frequently people laugh so hard when they see me that I shoot them :t
Now here is a conspiracy theory. Last year the world's only flyable Fairey Firefly pancaked into the ground. Me thinks that some Luftwobble cut the elevator cables so it couldn't be analysed better :noid
-
You mean the curve that an La7 can do its supposive 'topspeed' for its whole fligth instead of 1min probly?
Erm no it can't but you don't know where the wep key is. So you just think it is running at full power.
its W or W for extra power,
:rofl :rofl
-
ROFL :rofl
By the way, the 109 runs much longer on "W" power than the Spitty although in real life that would perhaps not be so :cry
-
Glock89,
In that statement you imply that I am smoking a mind altering drug... you 'beg the question' that I am smoking something.
You also 'beg the question' that my post has no intelectual thought because of the implication that I smoked something.
You also 'attack the person instead of the argument.'
Three falacies in one statement, Shame on you.
Verbally attacking a player is in roc. So is attemting to create 'flame'. So is overly using smilies icons.
Three roc's in one statement also... Shame on you twice.
Bronk
In game i'm schlowy3
Can we get back to topic now?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl Go outside stop making up lies that they crash the 109 for a reason.
-
No the topic is the allied conspiracy to eliminate the possibility of showing the 109's uberness!
:noid
-
Ok, this thread has clearly been under attack by some of you, repeatedly going off topic and making personal attacks. And theres no mods... so fine, I'll put it back on topic.
The following is everything these ROC VIOLATORS have attacked.
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
-------------------------------------------
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
--------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics)
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was
Lets dance
-
Ok, this thread has clearly been under attack by some of you, repeatedly going off topic and making personal attacks. And theres no mods... so fine, I'll put it back on topic.
The following is everything these ROC VIOLATORS have attacked.
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
-------------------------------------------
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
--------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics)
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was
Lets dance
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl. Learn how 2 spell.
-
Ok, this thread has clearly been under attack by some of you, repeatedly going off topic and making personal attacks. And theres no mods... so fine, I'll put it back on topic.
The following is everything these ROC VIOLATORS have attacked.
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
-------------------------------------------
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
--------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics)
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was
Lets dance
Grammar queening now Glock89? Destorying the thread are we? ok :)
-
Grammar queening now Glock89? Destroying the thread are we? ok :)
I love how you write all neat trying to prove your point by saying the made the 109 crash. :lol :lol :lol Get over it the 109 had landing problems.
-
Ok, this thread has clearly been under attack by some of you, repeatedly going off topic and making personal attacks. And theres no mods... so fine, I'll put it back on topic.
The following is everything these ROC VIOLATORS have attacked.
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
-------------------------------------------
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save their butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And of course England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
--------------------------------------------
That was only some pie, heres the rest:
The radiator levers...? pathetic, if he didn't know how to operate 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 procedures 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 procedures/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.
----------------------------------------------
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics)
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was
Lets dance
Getting back to topic...
-
Getting back to topic...
About the 109 that crash due to landing problems. :huh
-
About the 109 that crash due to landing problems. :huh
Even the 'official' report says it was pilot error, only question is was it on purpose. ;)
-
Even the 'official' report says it was pilot error, only question is was it on purpose. ;)
Sure is that what the voices say in your head? :huh :lol
-
Schlowy, basically all cessna-sized aircraft with 7 times the Hp and 4 times the weight, as well as being taildraggers...are trickier to land than a ...Cessna :D
That's why the 109 had the slats, - as Gunther Rall once told me, he didn't prefer them in combat, because in a rough turn they would throw off his aim, but WITHOUT them the landing would have been unacceptably high.
(Yipppee, this sommer I tried tail draggers and also with slats, so I know what he is talking about)
As for your conspiracy theory, I completely pee on it, - and BTW there are some (and increasing) 109's flyable in the world right now.
As for the performance, there are quite some archives from the Reichsluftministreum available, - real performance tests. I can quote some nice ones from the 109G6 from 1944 if you like :D
In short, you have a case of the luftwobble virus, and it causes you to draw conclusions from the bliss of ignorance.
-
Oh, you must give the Engliche agent some credit for his brass, for he got very close to killing himself in the crash. Most 109 pilots who flopped over like that would either break their necks or burn to death,,,,or break and then burn.
He must have been a fanatic taking revenge on Hannah's death in a luftwobble saboutaged P38 :furious
-
Schlowy, basically all cessna-sized aircraft with 7 times the Hp and 4 times the weight, as well as being taildraggers...are trickier to land than a ...Cessna :D
That's why the 109 had the slats, - as Gunther Rall once told me, he didn't prefer them in combat, because in a rough turn they would throw off his aim, but WITHOUT them the landing would have been unacceptably high.
(Yipppee, this sommer I tried tail draggers and also with slats, so I know what he is talking about)
As for your conspiracy theory, I completely pee on it, - and BTW there are some (and increasing) 109's flyable in the world right now.
As for the performance, there are quite some archives from the Reichsluftministreum available, - real performance tests. I can quote some nice ones from the 109G6 from 1944 if you like :D
In short, you have a case of the luftwobble virus, and it causes you to draw conclusions from the bliss of ignorance.
You got my point thank you. :aok
-
Welcome :aok
-
Welcome :aok
:D :D :D
-
Snip
Schlowy pointing out your blatantly obvious mistakes is not an attack...... It's a community service. :aok
-
Most 109 pilots who flopped over like that would either break their necks
Wasn't Black 6 a Gustav? The Gustav had the heavy-duty canopy frame to alleviate that problem.
-
It was a F model. :huh
-
No, if I remember correctly it was a G-2 Tropo.
(http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Me109G2black6.jpg)
-
Wasn't Black 6 a Gustav? The Gustav had the heavy-duty canopy frame to alleviate that problem.
It is a 109G-2 Trop
-
No, if I remember correctly it was a G-2 Tropo.
(http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Me109G2black6.jpg)
Oh look like a F model.
-
Schlowy, basically all cessna-sized aircraft with 7 times the Hp and 4 times the weight, as well as being taildraggers...are trickier to land than a ...Cessna :D
That's why the 109 had the slats, - as Gunther Rall once told me, he didn't prefer them in combat, because in a rough turn they would throw off his aim, but WITHOUT them the landing would have been unacceptably high.
(Yipppee, this sommer I tried tail draggers and also with slats, so I know what he is talking about)
As for your conspiracy theory, I completely pee on it, - and BTW there are some (and increasing) 109's flyable in the world right now.
As for the performance, there are quite some archives from the Reichsluftministreum available, - real performance tests. I can quote some nice ones from the 109G6 from 1944 if you like :D
In short, you have a case of the luftwobble virus, and it causes you to draw conclusions from the bliss of ignorance.
First part, Spit is a tail dragger, and is heavier than a 109, which is why the spit needed bigger wings.
I'll take slats, better turning to get into firing position to begin with. (not represented in AH)
From your logic, the spits bigger wings were ONLY for landing.
Gunther didn't tell you anything anyways.
Maybe there are some flyable (and increasing) but not in England.
Sources? That would be rare this game doesn't post any sources.
Comon Angus, why don't you post your game name so we can find out what you fly?
-
Schlowy, Angus is (or was) Angus in game. Not sure if he has flown for a while though.
IIRC he flys the Spitfire in game, probably because his uncle was an Icelandic Spitfire pilot (Thorsteinn Jonsson?) and he really has spent a fair bit of time with Gunther Rall.
It really is irrelevant what people fly as their main ride. Most people here have an unbiased view of the aircraft and have no motive behind their opinions of them.
Just out of curiousity, where are you from Schlowy? How old are you?
-
109`s in game are ok. Not as easy to get kills as spits, but performance seems to be ok.
Ingame i am puujiiko.
-
Sclowy, you must be young and it shines from your lack of understanding and arrogance.
"First part, Spit is a tail dragger, and is heavier than a 109, which is why the spit needed bigger wings."
It still has somewhat lower wingloading and similar power leading to a higher ROC, but less topspeed for each hp. Did I say it was easy to land? No. Although famous for the lack of tendency of dipping a wing...
"I'll take slats, better turning to get into firing position to begin with. (not represented in AH)"
This is in AH and even visually represented. (it was already in the FM before you could see it.) I presume that you actually fly the 109 every now and then.
"From your logic, the spits bigger wings were ONLY for landing."
How on earth did you come to that. Ok, lower wingloading allows slower speed vefore stall for instance, as well as tight turns and a better ROC. Which is basically what the designer had in mind, this is a defensive aircraft.
"Gunther didn't tell you anything anyways."
Don't have a picture of us together, but I assure you I call him every now and then and ask about WW2 stuff. We also spent some time together some years back. Last autumn I planned to see him, but he had to go to an operation on the estimated day on arrival....
Maybe there are some flyable (and increasing) but not in England.
Sources? That would be rare this game doesn't post any sources.
"Comon Angus, why don't you post your game name so we can find out what you fly?"
I already did, you missed it . Fly for rooks mostly. Hehe, Furball shot me down the other day :furious
It's a shared account so take it with a grain of salt. Name is sarcastically "Daimler". (Yes the 109 had a Daimler-Benz engine)
And here is some icing on the cake, a brand new 109 landing crash, flown by a German pilot in Berlin:
(there was another 109 crash in Germany in April AFAIK) Both landing accidents. :cry
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/44838-bf-109-crash.html
:noid
-
Cleary Vati Molders was a british agent: It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons
-
Angus, you really need to put your sig back up.
-
How nice of you to remember, I hadn't noticed. BRB :D
-
Oh, I was tempted to use Mölders quote. He also added that the Spitfire was a hopeless fighter (due to the carb-cutout), however he was soon spanked hard by one flown by Adolph Malan. (The S-African killer who would lead an agression from inferior altitude all the time)
-
What Angus put:
That's why the 109 had the slats, - as Gunther Rall once told me, he didn't prefer them in combat, because in a rough turn they would throw off his aim, but WITHOUT them the landing would have been unacceptably high.
What I put in reponse:
"From your logic, the spits bigger wings were ONLY for landing."
What Angus put in response:
How on earth did you come to that.
ARE YOU BIASED OR JUST STUPID? (SEE BELOW, PROOF)
MOre examples of your logic, could be shown in the game:
-Narrow undercarraige was only for crashing, not rolling.
-Wing slats were for landing and messing up aim.
-wing slats were not turning, not flaring.
And you pretend to be neutral
Thanks Furball for the info:
I didn't check the whole list, I hopped around and found...
Angus in tour 23 (dec 01-jan02)
Hurri IIC... 39 kills
Seafire..... 24 kills
Yak 9U..... 24 kills
Spit IX..... 18 kills
LVTA4...... 16 kills
B-26........ 15 kills
TBM-3...... 09 kills
F4U-1C..... 06 kill
C205........ 05 kills
A6M5b...... 04 kills
etc etc,
NO KILLS IN A 190
NO KILLS IN A 109
NO KILLS IN A 110
So Angus and LYNX both HATE THE LUFTWAFFE, PROVEN!
STOP PURPOSELY MESSING UP THIS THREAD!
-
Player X did not kill in model Y in tour Z therefore they are a model Y hater. That's a weak argument. Actually "argument" is being too generous. Weak implication would be more accurate.
-
What Angus put:
That's why the 109 had the slats, - as Gunther Rall once told me, he didn't prefer them in combat, because in a rough turn they would throw off his aim, but WITHOUT them the landing would have been unacceptably high.
What I put in reponse:
"From your logic, the spits bigger wings were ONLY for landing."
What Angus put in response:
How on earth did you come to that.
The Spitfire's wings did not cause instability during the fight like the 109's slats did.
-
It is not the slats causing instability, it is the pilot who pulls his stick back ;) Without the slats getting deployed the wing(s) would already be stalling. Slats are just fine when one gets used to them. There have been and still are slats in many planes.
-
Schlowy, you quoted one tour from years ago.
(Actually I had 2 other names...hehe)
"NO KILLS IN A 190
NO KILLS IN A 109
NO KILLS IN A 110
Yep, the Spits caught me :D
-
No, Angus, I caught you.
You claimed all this and all that, but never stated your bias.
Btw, thanks for bringing up 10 years ago!
I flew spits in game for two weeks, when Princess Diana died...
Btw, MANY ENGLISH BELIEVE SHE WAS MURDERED BY THE SAME SECRET SERVICE...
THAT PROBABLY GOT THIS PLANE CRASHED. BUSTED!
-
Skuzzy could as well close this thread now.
-C+
-
Than I hand my hats off to the British intelligence who also caused the two recent (year 2008) crashes in Germany where the pilots were German.
Seriously, you are completely full of vegetables in yer head Schlowy....
And for the Bias (which I often get accused on, since I dally debating people like you), - I was actually in contact with Rall because of the slats. Another story. Anyway, his words were much stronger than what is written...
Blauk, I tried a slatted plane this summer. Delightful. And for landing, ohh yes.
However, when I yanked it a wee, the nose went off center.
Rall said that if you were in a ROUGH turn, it would go outboard (if I recall right). So the aircraft basically stabilizes itself quite roughly, but you have lost your turning and your aim.
I really really am going to ask more about this, because actually trying opened my eyes to what he meant.
-
Skuzzy could as well close this thread now.
-C+
Sure?
Let's say I'll duke it out with him :t
Furbie, ready as wingman :O
-
No, Angus, I caught you.
You claimed all this and all that, but never stated your bias.
Btw, thanks for bringing up 10 years ago!
I flew spits in game for two weeks, when Princess Diana died...
Btw, MANY ENGLISH BELIEVE SHE WAS MURDERED BY THE SAME SECRET SERVICE...
THAT PROBABLY GOT THIS PLANE CRASHED. BUSTED!
GET SOME AIR.
-
who?
-
who?
Not you. Thy guy with the voices in his head. :lol
-
Than I hand my hats off to the British intelligence who also caused the two recent (year 2008) crashes in Germany where the pilots were German.
TWO 109's lost in Germany this year alone???
-
TWO 109's lost in Germany this year alone???
And your point is what.
-
It's a question, not a "point". Speaking of questions, you need to put a "?" after yours.
-
It's a question, not a "point".
No to the quote that you had in your question.
-
I want to know if two 109's actually were lost in accidents in Germany this year like Angus said. Is that clear enough for you Mr. Glock89?
-
I want to know if two 109's actually were lost in accidents in Germany this year like Angus said. Is that clear enough for you Mr. Glock89?
No it not now were is my cookie at?
-
NO COOKIE FOR YOU!!! ;)
-
NO COOKIE FOR YOU!!! ;)
:cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry
-
Trying to mess the thread up again Glock89?
Let me help ya out here...
Glock89, take off your momies shoes, wipe her lipstick off your face, pull her shaky thing out of yer <cough>, wash it, and put it back in her dresser. I think MrDieHard is asking for souces.
<is having too much fun again! :rofl
-
Trying to mess the thread up again Glock89?
Let me help ya out here...
Glock89, take off your momies shoes, wipe her lipstick off your face, pull her shaky thing out of yer <cough>, wash it, and put it back in her dresser. I think MrDieHard is asking for souces.
<is having too much fun again! :rofl
Talking about your self again? :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Doing excessive smiles again, you just can't follow rules can ya?
-
Doing excessive smiles again, you just can't follow rules can ya?
You bet the secret service told me to. :D :O
-
No Schlowy, I'm not asking for sources, and please keep me out of your insane fantasies. I'm simply wanting to know if two 109's were actually lost. I'm also starting to fear that whatever is wrong with Mr. Schlowy is somehow contagious, or perhaps his posts are causing brain damage in other people here.
-
No Schlowy, I'm not asking for sources, and please keep me out of your insane fantasies. I'm simply wanting to know if two 109's were actually lost. I'm also starting to fear that whatever is wrong with Mr. Schlowy is somehow contagious, or perhaps his posts are causing brain damage in other people here.
I bet you 2 109s did crash and he going 2 make up some story about it. Have fun reading it. :lol
-
2 landing accidents and I think none is destroyed. Neither was Black 6 for that sake.
In one case it was a UC failiure.
This happens to old warbirds of many sorts, and has caused some to say that they shouldn't be allowed to fly. I'd feel sad if they'd stop, and hope to see a 109 some day in the air.
I have seen for instance F4F,F6F, F7F, F8F, F4U, P47, P51, Hurricane and Spits off many marks. The only ones of those to do wild aerobatics were Spits. And quite some.
The F4U was also impresive.
So, I look forward to seeing the 109 and 190.
-
2 landing accidents and I think none is destroyed. Neither was Black 6 for that sake.
In one case it was a UC failiure.
This happens to old warbirds of many sorts, and has caused some to say that they shouldn't be allowed to fly. I'd feel sad if they'd stop, and hope to see a 109 some day in the air.
I have seen for instance F4F,F6F, F7F, F8F, F4U, P47, P51, Hurricane and Spits off many marks. The only ones of those to do wild aerobatics were Spits. And quite some.
The F4U was also impresive.
So, I look forward to seeing the 109 and 190.
I saw a two P-51 ram into 1 on the ground.
-
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/29/224294/video-eads-messerschmitt-bf-109-undercarriage-collapse-and-groundloop-at-ila-berlin.html
This looks like a mechanic forgot something, one colapsed, other didn't even under extra stresses of the accident... different from this threads 109, guy didn't know how to operate the radiators supposively... and a really poor landing approach.
-
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/29/224294/video-eads-messerschmitt-bf-109-undercarriage-collapse-and-groundloop-at-ila-berlin.html
This looks like a mechanic forgot something, one colapsed, other didn't even under extra stresses of the accident... different from this threads 109, guy didn't know how to operate the radiators supposively...
It can still fly.
-
Good that they survived. Not many left, and even fewer 190's. That's what happen when you lose a war I guess. (On that note: On a Discovery show some historian or whatever claimed that the 109 had such appalling landing characteristics that it was no wonder there were so few of them left today. I on the other hand find it appalling that some people can be so stupid as to not understand that a nation that lose a war does not have much surplus military equipment after the war.)
-
Good that they survived. Not many left, and even fewer 190's. That's what happen when you lose a war I guess. (On that note: On a Discovery show some historian or whatever claimed that the 109 had such appalling landing characteristics that it was no wonder there were so few of them left today. I on the other hand find it appalling that some people can be so stupid as to not understand that a nation that lose a war does not have much surplus military equipment after the war.)
That happened to the last flying He-111 i think it flew into a hill or something :salute. You can see why there not alot of 109s or 190s only 6 Me-262 are still around Got to see 2 of them pretty nice plane so big when you see it in real life.
-
The 109 was produced and used after the war, and that by quite some numbers.
Some of the ones are made from their airframe.
Wonder how the stats for the "Buchon" were. It was used for the shooting of "The Battle of Britain" in the 60's since they already didn't have an "original" even back then.
So, the sabouteur must be an old man by now :noid
-
The 109 was produced and used after the war, and that by quite some numbers.
Some of the ones are made from their airframe.
Wonder how the stats for the "Buchon" were. It was used for the shooting of "The Battle of Britain" in the 60's since they already didn't have an "original" even back then.
So, the sabouteur must be an old man by now :noid
:noid
-
The 109 was produced and used after the war, and that by quite some numbers.
Not compared to allied types. 128 Gustavs survived in Finnish service, a handful in Swiss service, 25 in Spanish service and only 171 HA-1112 were made. Avia produced somewhere between 550 and 600 S-99's and S-199's. So all in all about a 1000 109's survived/were produced after the war. That's a tiny figure compare to the number of allied fighters that survived the war, even if we discount allied post war production.
-
1000 is a four digit number ;) Mostly for peactime use, although there were scruffles.
Spits and Seafires were produced after the war as well.
Were 109's scrapped post war?
-
Sure?
Let's say I'll duke it out with him :t
Furbie, ready as wingman :O
Sure.
This guy reminds me a little of Reynolds when he first came to AH. I ended up going to the DA with him so he could "show me what german steel tastes like".
Reynolds, once over his original hostile 109 boner, became one of the nicest people i have run into in the game.
-
Ahh, I remember that one. Didn't you hose his 109 down in a TBM or something?
-
Ahh, I remember that one. Didn't you hose his 109 down in a TBM or something?
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/hahaedit.jpg)
:noid
-
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/hahaedit.jpg)
:noid
:lol :lol :lol Nice picture. :lol
-
I am sure he started with a TBM. Anyway, as a sidenote I had a scruffle with a 109 vs Spits today. I got killed, but I did get them into serious trouble though. I think that practically all of my 109 deaths were caused by a spit..........
-
Odd....no reply from old schlowy. I have not succeeded in finding him/her online so far as well :devil
-
Ok, this thread has clearly been under attack by some of you, repeatedly going off topic and making personal attacks. And theres no mods... so fine, I'll put it back on topic.
The following is everything these ROC VIOLATORS have attacked.
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
-------------------------------------------
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
--------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics)
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was
Lets dance
FO
-
Odd....no reply from old schlowy. I have not succeeded in finding him/her online so far as well :devil
FO
-
Would you mind to ponder on recent GERMAN crashes of 109's flown by GERMAN pilots in GERMANY?
Or would you want to ponder on GERMAN documents from GERMANY done by GERMANS promoting 109 data from flight tests done in GERMANY in WW2?
I do have some opinion on 007, but this one is too much :rofl
edit:
BTW, Black 6 was not the last flyable 109 in the world, and new are being built as well as some restored. And also there are old pilots still alive. I guess it means a lot of work for the 00 gang, killing the old geezers and destroying remaing uber 109's.
You really are absolutely full of bricks Schlowy, soooo sorry.
-
After watching the video of the 109 "crash" in Berlin I must say that if anything it shows how safe the 109 is to land if done correctly. It was completely controlled and even when one wheel didn't lock into place the prop didn't strike the ground and the damage looks minimal. Fix the gear, replace a few wing panels and it should be good as new.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a46_1211965193
-
What other 109 crashed this year Angus?
-
Would you mind to ponder on recent GERMAN crashes of 109's flown by GERMAN pilots in GERMANY?
Or would you want to ponder on GERMAN documents from GERMANY done by GERMANS promoting 109 data from flight tests done in GERMANY in WW2?
I do have some opinion on 007, but this one is too much :rofl
edit:
BTW, Black 6 was not the last flyable 109 in the world, and new are being built as well as some restored. And also there are old pilots still alive. I guess it means a lot of work for the 00 gang, killing the old geezers and destroying remaing uber 109's.
You really are absolutely full of bricks Schlowy, soooo sorry.
He full of !%^& to.
-
Amazing how similar these two accidents are:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a46_1211965193
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUnDJEIoquw
But in this case it seems the 109's tail-heavy configuration helped to keep the plane from nosing over like the new-built Spitfire did. Historically the Spitfire was far more prone to prop-strikes and nose-overs.
-
But in this case it seems the 109's tail-heavy configuration helped to keep the plane from nosing over like the new-built Spitfire did. Historically the Spitfire was far more prone to prop-strikes and nose-overs.
No, the nose over was actually so common in the 109 that the German pilots had a name for it, the 'Fliegerdenkmal'. Actually I've even seen 109's that completely went over and landed on their backs. Can't figure out why it can't happen in Aces High.
-
Just like the 109 the Spitfire had to be landed in a 3-point attitude to avoid problems. The 109 suffered from directional instability if landed on two wheels. The Spitfire suffered from ground clearance problems if landed on two wheels. Prop strikes are by far the most common Spitfire take-off or landing accident, followed by noseovers (even on take-off). Directional instability is of course a far worse vice and the 109 would easily KILL YOU if you didn't land it right. But you ARE supposed to land a plane RIGHT. Most (if not all) modern fighters are in fact more dangerous to land than the 109 and Spitfire if you are not in a proper landing configuration because of the higher speed and forces involved. Similarly WWI planes were far safer to land badly.
F-18 flat tire = groundloop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCA9GYmS17E
F-15K groundloop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0irpy7nC84 (very similar to the 109 and Spit posted earlier)
-
No, the nose over was actually so common in the 109 that the German pilots had a name for it, the 'Fliegerdenkmal'. Actually I've even seen 109's that completely went over and landed on their backs. Can't figure out why it can't happen in Aces High.
Ya i saw 109 on there backs during the war still there some of them.
-
No, the nose over was actually so common in the 109 that the German pilots had a name for it, the 'Fliegerdenkmal'. Actually I've even seen 109's that completely went over and landed on their backs. Can't figure out why it can't happen in Aces High.
'Fliegerdenkmal' is German slang for nose-over. It is not Me109 specific. Fliegerdenkmal actually means pilot-monument.
-
'Fliegerdenkmal' is German slang for nose-over. It is not Me109 specific. Fliegerdenkmal actually means pilot-monument.
Still the 109 has landing problems well all know that.
-
Still the 109 has landing problems well all know that.
Not if it is landed in a proper landing configuration. If landed not in a proper landing configuration (correct speed, rate of decent, crosswind etc.) the 109 was less forgiving than many other WWII fighters.
-
Not if it is landed in a proper landing configuration. If landed not in a proper landing configuration (correct speed, rate of decent, crosswind etc.) the 109 was less forgiving than many other WWII fighters.
Ya but if you turn 1 way it has a good chance of rolling over while your trying 2 land.
-
Here's a nice safe modern fighter making a perfect landing WHOOPS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgTQ3eDkCn0
-
Ya but if you turn 1 way it has a good chance of rolling over while your trying 2 land.
What do you mean "turn 1 way"? You're not supposed to turn on landing, that's why runways are straight.
-
What do you mean "turn 1 way"? You're not supposed to turn on landing, that's why runways are straight.
I mean when your lining it up 2 go in straight.
-
IMHO they didn't have so much between them (Spits...109's etc)
109 made some reputation about ground loops and nose-overs. (Somewhere I have one fine picture of one...on a fine runway). Gunther Rall quoted on the slats as necessary, for without them the aircraft would have been too difficult to land.
What I know of the nose-over is that it would normally kill the pilot. The Pilot of Black 6 did get stuck in the cockpit untill the aircraft was lifted off him. Must have been a nice though having all the petrol around and not being able to get out. Some balls that those double-O agents have :t
-
IMHO they didn't have so much between them (Spits...109's etc)
109 made some reputation about ground loops and nose-overs. (Somewhere I have one fine picture of one...on a fine runway). Gunther Rall quoted on the slats as necessary, for without them the aircraft would have been too difficult to land.
What I know of the nose-over is that it would normally kill the pilot. The Pilot of Black 6 did get stuck in the cockpit untill the aircraft was lifted off him. Must have been a nice though having all the petrol around and not being able to get out. Some balls that those double-O agents have :t
:lol :lol :lol :lol
-
I mean when your lining it up 2 go in straight.
The tail wheel was lockable which is why it was important to 3-point it. If you 3-point it the 109 will go straight with no more rudder corrections needed than any other tail-dragger.
@Angus: :rofl
-
The tail wheel was lockable which is why it was important to 3-point it. If you 3-point it the 109 will go straight with no more rudder corrections needed than any other tail-dragger.
@Angus: :rofl
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
This is how you should land a 109 (same pilot as in the Berlin accident btw): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO9mEv5Ve54
Pay close attention to the rudder corrections.
Here's a perfect Spitfire landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3YuwerLCQ
Again look at the rudder corrections.
They are very similar despite the 109 having considerable crosswind and landing on rolling terrain.
-
This is how you should land a 109 (same pilot as in the Berlin accident btw): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO9mEv5Ve54
Pay close attention to the rudder corrections.
Here's a perfect Spitfire landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3YuwerLCQ
Again look at the rudder corrections.
They are very similar despite the 109 having considerable crosswind and landing on rolling terrain.
Well you made your point and you made me cry are you happy? :cry :cry :cry :cry :lol
-
Yes I am happy, but not because I made you cry. Why are you crying? :huh
-
Yes I am happy, but not because I made you cry. Why are you crying? :huh
Hahah you fell for it. :P :P :P
-
Are you by any chance diagnosed with bipolar disorder? ;)
-
Are you by any chance diagnosed with bipolar disorder? ;)
Nope. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :furious
-
lol :lol
-
lol :lol
K so did we solve the 109 problems? :noid
-
Theres a thing called a crosswind?
Was the wind coming from the left or the right side of the 109?
Hence, fo.
And btw, we been thru this, stronger engines on lighter planes tend to cause more need of rudder.
We have more rudder without more engine! Lufts knew not to jam the thottle back and forth.
Hence, fo anyways.
-
Crosswind? What's crosswind :rofl
BTW the 109 did not have a rudder trim but the rudder was told to be good. And mostly LW pilots knew about not pressing the "W" button when landing :rofl
-
The 109 landing, do they always fly thru the air sooo sideways? whatever.
And still you wont admit, more power + lighter plane = ability to flip...
All you do is turn everything into a circus, if you can't add constructively to a thread, then sthu.
-
Of course. And bear in mind that the 109 was heavier in the air (wingloading) while being smaller than a Spit, with equally narrow undercarriage and a tendency of groundlooping.
The Spitty had narrow carriage but was very stable on the end phase with no tendency of wing dipping, however it would float, - didn't want down.
The Hurricane had a wide UC but it could dip a wing.
But there is no way you're going to convince me that the Black 6 pilot was an agent and did this on purpose to hide the true performance of the 109......there is simply no point in it....
-
I'm pretty sure that the one that posted this data on the net is about to get hit by a 00 agent because here is performance data on the 109G
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html
:noid
Anyway, for operating on aircraft carriers, the 109 was built in a special model, the 109T, and I belive with increased wing area. Now why would that be.....
-
More work for our 00 agent:
http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/aero/bf109_sobrevive.htm
:noid
-
Angus, you're starting to sound like Schlowly's mirror image.
-
In reverse......
-
please let this thread die. :salute
-
Not before the last 109 is dead :devil
-
Not before the last 109 is dead :devil
Quick call M and send in the 00s. :noid :rofl
-
Not sure if I have the number. Doesn't matter, this thread is definately being inspected by MI6 :noid
-
The 109 landing, do they always fly thru the air sooo sideways? whatever.
And still you wont admit, more power + lighter plane = ability to flip...
All you do is turn everything into a circus, if you can't add constructively to a thread, then sthu.
Someone act like a kid here. :lol
-
constructive data is mentioned.
Now I did bring links vs a conspiracy theory. Hmm. It was not enough.
M is going to have me in trouble for this, "Double-oh angus, can't you even silence THAT" :noid
-
Schlowy, after reading the 15 pages, all I can say is :
Here's a 109 pilot :
(http://www.arga-nl.nl/Luftwaffe%20piloot%20Me109G-6.jpg)
Here's you.
(http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs16/300W/f/2007/199/1/5/Male_Pin_up_1_by_celesse.jpg)
Yes ... You are fabulous
-
Schlowy, after reading the 15 pages, all I can say is :
Here's a 109 pilot :
(http://www.arga-nl.nl/Luftwaffe%20piloot%20Me109G-6.jpg)
Here's you.
(http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs16/300W/f/2007/199/1/5/Male_Pin_up_1_by_celesse.jpg)
Yes ... You are fabulous
:lol :lol
-
Were they so small to fit the cockpit?
-
Oh, Schlowy got png'd, that's why.
Anyway, speaking of 109's, I think the list of airworthy ones I posted (linked) may not be complete. Wondering if there are any airworthy ones in England or Germany at the moment, and scheduled to fly.
Have seen so many birds, but not a 109 yet. (I did see a 108).
I'll be in Germany in November....
-
Wonder what he did to finally get PNG'd. I'm honestly surprised it took so long.
-
Wonder what he did to finally get PNG'd. I'm honestly surprised it took so long.
I think insulting HiTech and Skuzzy in another thread is what did it.
ack-ack
-
I think insulting HiTech and Skuzzy in another thread is what did it.
ack-ack
wow.