Originally posted by 1K3 I guess they were trying to talk about later 109s but there are no examples of them now
Originally posted by mussie More lost on takeoff and landing than in the air....CRAP!!!!!!
Originally posted by humble It's funny but everytime I brought that up in the "expertian" forum it was never addressed. More frontline luftwaffe 109 pilots died in accidents then in combat.
Originally posted by humble As a side note the guy who did all the flying in saving private ryan died shortly after filming was completed during a landing accident in a 109 during clear sunny weather in spain....
Originally posted by Viking Ummm … no. If you want me to believe that you'd better back that up.If you're talking about Mark Hanna … he died in a Buchon (Spanish 109) when its Merlin engine caught fire in flight. He crash landed the burning plane at an airfield and died later in hospital from being severely burned. The Buchon was burned beyond repair.
Originally posted by Krusty Another source erronously reporting the cannon was in the engine (and not mentioning the 2 very visible cannon barrels sticking out of the wings).Cool to see all the war-time footage, though.
Originally posted by humble It was a very very difficult plane to handle. Probably the single most difficult piston engine fighter ever built in this regard.
According to witnesses testimonies, the statements received later on, and what is deduced from communications with Sabadell airport control tower, once at the airport, and when both aircraft were performing a pass at a low height and speed over runway 31/13, the aircraft abandoned the formation to the left, making part of the left approach pattern and performed a pass at a low altitude (estimated at 10-20 meters) and high speed (estimated at 260-270 knots) that ended approximately 200 meters from the end of the runway, in a climb (estimated at a 5g «pull») with a barrel roll in the direction of Tarrasa, returning to carry out the left approach pattern to enter on runway threshold 31. The figure estimates correspond to the comments sent later on the aforementioned first-degree relative of the pilot, which are considered to match other testimonies and comments received and analysed.During the pattern, the pilot requested authorisation to land on runway threshold 13. The controller authorised him to use any one of the thresholds, at his choice. In order to proceed with this manoeuvre through runway threshold 13, the aircraft had to cross the field and carry out two steep turns to the left, the last one of which, at least, was carried out at a very low speed and very low height, in landing configuration, with the landing gear down.All the available data, witnesses testimonies, the times stated by the tower controller and the images on the aforementioned fan videotape, lead to conclude that the final turn of the manoeuvre to face runway end 13 was too tight, possibly because the aircraft had overshot the runway threshold and the pilot, wanting to be positioned for the landing, had to look back. According to the pilot’s relative, the manoeuvre should have been made with 35-40 banking degree, while the controller estimates it to have been between 50-60 degrees.The result was that the aircraft suffered a left wing-drop during the manoeuvre, losing height quickly. Although the pilot tried to recover it by increasing power and stepping on the right rudder to the maximum, he was able to climb a little, but not enough to avoid the accident......Regarding the accident itself, several hypotheses have been considered to explain how an experienced aerobatic pilot, like the one in command, could have entered into a stall condition in the final turn.a) Possible momentary distraction when looking back to locate the runway threshold that had been overshot.b) An erroneous estimate of the height of the bank or slope located at the runway end and, when attempting to correct it, the increase of power and rudder, causing a bigger banking due to the effect of the propeller slipstream and torque.c) The aforementioned relative of the pilot suggests as a probable cause the possible persistence of the vortexes generated in the quick pass and the «pull» previously exerted. In this case, when crossing the vortex, an increase in angle of attack would be induced with the resulting stall condition. This hypothesis cannot be discarded completely. However, it is impossible to know the effect and condition of these vortexes more than two-and-a-half minutes after the pass, as deduced from the times stated in communications with the tower, and, additionally the pilot’s experience makes it plausible to presume he would be aware that the airfield is short.It is therefore concluded that it is not possible to accurately determine the exact cause of the accident.
