Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on May 12, 2014, 07:03:40 PM
-
Almost an hour and a half long. A couple of restored 109's
Good stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbeRn1rgoIo
-
I read, somewheres..there were two dentists in Minn who built identical 1:1 Bf109Es...and decided they would both be donated to a museum so they wouldn't worry of someone else flying and dying in them...can't find diddly on them now.
JGroth
-
BTW..nice post.
JGroth
-
awesome frigging video!!! great find!
-
Nice!
I especially liked the interview with one of the guys who worked on the restoration.
-
I read, somewheres..there were two dentists in Minn who built identical 1:1 Bf109Es...and decided they would both be donated to a museum so they wouldn't worry of someone else flying and dying in them...can't find diddly on them now.
JGroth
Was one of the dentists named Zell? ;)
-
Gonna look for that...
JGroth
-
Thanks for posting :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
Assume video. Love the engine sounds
-
What I found interesting was his description of landing. He noted that once the bird touched down a great deal of flight control was lost. The technique was to do a 3-point landing, with a fixed tailwheel it kept the bird point straight down the runway.
If I remember correctly about 1/3 of all Me-109s crashed on takeoff or landing. Makes sense!
-
'Some' have stated the 1/3 lost was a buncha BS... one guy said moving around a splayed wheel early 109 resulted in scretching tires and marks on floor of hanger...
JGroth
-
He noted that once the bird touched down a great deal of flight control was lost.
I'm just wondering why you'd need a great deal of flight control once you've touched down. Doesn't touching down imply you've stopped fllying? :headscratch:
-
The 1/3 accident losses claim is complete bollocks.
-
A 109 should always be three-pointed. Its wheel geometry isn't designed for tail-high landings. And never operate a 109 from tarmac, only from grass or dirt fields.
Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO9mEv5Ve54
In Russia the Luftwaffe operated in terrible conditions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp4ChYkkGSg
Here's a 109F taking off in mud and snow somewhere in Russia in the spring of 1942:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/109F_Russia_spring1942.jpg)
Still their losses to take off and landing accidents were low, around 5% for both the 109 and 190.
-
Still their losses to take off and landing accidents were low, around 5% for both the 109 and 190.
Source? I have also read that the Luftwaffe accident rate was dreadful, even worse than the Allied rate (which was bad enough and well over 1/3).
- oldman
-
The guys over at virtualpilots.fi made an article about how the number was misinterpreted. The often quoted 11,000 Bf 109s lost in TO/landing accidents is actually the total number of accidents with the 109, regardless of degree of damage or what situation the aircraft was in (i.e. not only during TO or landing). It would be correct to say the 109s suffered 11,000 accidents of some sort resulting in varying degrees of damage. However the same aircraft could have been involved in multiple accidents, and most returned to service after repairs.
From virtualpilots.fi 109 myths page:
"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.
"11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.
-
From virtualpilots.fi 109 myths page:
I went to that page and saw that quote. The author doesn't give the source of his superior knowledge.
- oldman
-
You state that allied accident rate was "well over 1/3", but not only in take off and landing accidents. The 109 myth is that 1/3rd of them were lost in take off and landing accidents alone. That is incredulous and no air force would accept such an aircraft into service, let alone keep it in service for more than ten years with the landing gear largely unchanged. It's just silly.
-
I went to that page and saw that quote. The author doesn't give the source of his superior knowledge.
- oldman
Btw. has anyone ever provided a source to the " 1/3 of all Me-109s crashed on takeoff or landing" claim? No. Yet it persists.
-
Btw. has anyone ever provided a source to the " 1/3 of all Me-109s crashed on takeoff or landing" claim? No. Yet it persists.
According to the "109 Myths" page, at least one source is Flight Journal magazine. We'd need to read that article to find out what their source was.
- oldman
-
According to the "109 Myths" page, at least one source is Flight Journal magazine. We'd need to read that article to find out what their source was.
However, I do have a copy of Williamson Murray's "Luftwaffe" (Nautical & Aviation Publishing Co. of America, Inc., Baltimore, 1985, ISBN 0-933852-45-2). I consider Murray to be one of the best WWII aviation historians. At page 177 we find this:
The disastrous rate of attrition was a reflection both of combat losses and numerous aircraft losses through noncombat causes. In fact, the Luftwaffe seems to have almost been in a race with its opponents to see who could destroy the most German aircraft. After a fairly respectable showing in 1940, from 1941 through 1944 the Luftwaffe lost between 40 percent and 45 percent of its total losses through noncombat causes. [footnote 1, which I'll type below.] The surprising element in such an accident rate is the fact that until the spring of 1944, few in the general staff seem to have been particularly worried about the implication of such a level of noncombat losses. At that point, however, a number of authorities awoke and began to examine the problem in detail. [footnote 2] The German safety record, however, deserves no smugness from an American audience. The Army Air Forces managed in 1943 to have no less than 20,389 major accidents in the continental United States with 2,264 pilots and 3,339 other aircrew members killed. The record for 1944 was not much better with 16,128 major accidents (1,936 pilots and 3,037 other aircrew killed. [footnote 3]
Footnote 1: Based on the figures in BA/MA, RL 2 III/1025, Gen. Qu. 6 Abt. (IIIA), "Front-Flugzeug-Verluste," 1941-1944. The percentages of noncombat losses work out as follows: Jan-Jun 1941, 44.5 percent; July-Dec 1941, 39.5 percent; Jan-Jun 1942, 45 percent; July-Dec 1942, 40.9 percent; Jan-Jun 1943, 45 percent; July-Dec 1943, 44.6 percent; Jan-Jun 1944, 37.2 percent. The decrease in the last period seems to have been the result of the fact that Allied fighters were shooting down German aircraft faster than their pilots could crash them.
Footnote 2: Among other items, see BA/MA, RL 2 II/181, OKL, Fuhrungsstab,, Ia/Ausb. Nr. 999/44, 11.4.44., "Herabsetzung von Flugzeugunfallen"'; Ia/Ausb., 25.7.44., "Verhutung von Flugzeugverlusten ohne Feindeinwirkung"; OKL Generalquartiermeister, A2 52 b 10 Nr. 1370/44, "Tote und Verletzte der Luftwaffe im Flugbetrieb ohne Feindeinwirkung"' Ia/Ausb. (IIIA), "Studie, Herabsetzung der Flugzeugverluste ohne Feindeinwirkung," 30.9.44.
Footnote 3: I'll type it tomorrow, have to leave the office now.
- oldman
-
And therein lies the crux of the problem and the 109 accident myth. Front-Flugzeugverluste reports includes damaged aircraft as well as destroyed; German definition of "loss" was any plane which could not be repaired within 3 days using the squadron's facilities. In western-Allied reports the term non-serviceable would have been used instead. Western historians often misunderstand German reports; I don't know if it's a language issue or if they're just not familiar with German procedures. For example it is often claimed that the Luftwaffe lost 560 aircraft during Fall Rot (invsion of Poland). The Flugzeugverluste reports for those four months list total losses as 565 planes. However by examining maintenance reports as well, the real losses were a total of 276 aircraft, the other planes were in repairable condition.
More recent publications like those of Polish historian Jerzy B. Cynk seem to be much better at this, as long as they don't just quote some earlier effort by someone who really didn't understand what they were reading.
-
German loss was also 60% or more damaged.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg27.html
ohne Feindeinw. = non combat loss which could be for any reason
A guy on another board looked the losses of JG26 when it was flying both the Bf109 and Fw190. The Fw190 had a worse landing/take off accident loss. :O
-
German loss was also 60% or more damaged.
It depends. In the Flugzeugverluste reports anything above ~20% damage would be recorded as a loss since the aircraft had to leave the unit to be repaired. Below 20% damage could usually be fixed at the squadron or Gruppe workshop. Above 60% and the aircraft would be scrapped (recycled if possible).
-
It depends. In the Flugzeugverluste reports anything above ~20% damage would be recorded as a loss since the aircraft had to leave the unit to be repaired. Below 20% damage could usually be fixed at the squadron or Gruppe workshop. Above 60% and the aircraft would be scrapped (recycled if possible).
I don't mean to seem irritable, but one of us has been citing sources....
Moreover, whether one counts them as "totally destroyed" or "damaged," it seems plain that the Luftwaffe had a dreadful accident record.
- oldman
-
The USAAF lost a total of 19,586 fighters. Of that number 17,839 were combat and accident losses. Now the USAAF didn't lose that many a/c in combat so most of those losses would be from accidents.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf
-
The USAAF lost a total of 19,586 fighters. Of that number 17,839 were combat and accident losses. Now the USAAF didn't lose that many a/c in combat so most of those losses would be from accidents.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf
Agreed. We had this discussion about a year ago, I think.
- oldman
-
That is not in dispute. Only the claim that 1/3rd of all 109s were destroyed in take off and landing accidents.
-
Interesting. I did state '1/3 crashed on take off or landing' which appears to be inaccurate. So then it shifts to damaged in non-combat operations. In any case, it appears the 109 was a tough bird to control.
-
It wasn't a tough bird to control. However, on the ground it was unforgiving if you made a mistake. There's a difference. There was no two-seat version of the 109 until the G-12 entered service in December 1944, so the vast majority of Luftwaffe pilots flew their first flight in the 109 solo after only 10-15 hours of flight training in advanced trainers like the Bf 108.
-
James Bradley's Fly Boys cited that you would have to be nuts to be a WWII pilot - the planes were very unreliable usually due to how fast they were introduced into Service without real environmental testing. A lot of pilots were lost from non-combat accidents... I thought he mentioned it was almost 1 to 1.
-
It was the same before WWII and also after the war. Even today flying combat aircraft is a dangerous occupation, especially if it is a new design. F-16s were dropping out of the skies in the 1980s to all kinds of technical problems, and of the 187 F-22s produced two have already crashed due to malfunctions. 129 helicopters and 24 fixed-wing aircraft have been reported lost in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Only 46 of these have been attributed to hostile action.
-
There's a difference. There was no two-seat version of the 109 until the G-12 entered service in December 1944, so the vast majority of Luftwaffe pilots flew their first flight in the 109 solo after only 10-15 hours of flight training in advanced trainers like the Bf 108.
The G-12 was delivered at least from 12/43 so your date is slightly off. And yes, if a pilot doesn't handle the throttle properly while on the ground it could easily swing to one side. It may have become a bit easier with G-10/-14/-K4 having less take-off power available than G-6 (unless you want to waste your MW-50 supply for take-off).
-
I must have gotten the year wrong then. Still only about 100 G-12s were converted from old Gustavs, and they didn't see much actual use. "On the job training" was all the Luftwaffe had time for in 1944-45.
-
Make this 403 and you are correct. All made by Blohm & Voss between 12/43 and 1/45
-
Is that the number of G-12s actually accepted by the Luftwaffe? I've always thought is was around one hundred.