Bf 109 video

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by humble
go back and look at the original comments....

However they do propagate a number of myths and errors about many planes (typical Discovery), among them the 109's "one-third destroyed in landing accidents" myth. The actual number is about 5%, which is typical for WWII fighters. It was a difficult plane to handle on the ground, but not that difficult.

Humble, not every landing/take-off incident/loss was due to the plane handling. Blown tires, landing gear failures, low visibility, engine failures, human errors, bad runways, you name it. If you add all those to your numbers separately then Germans would lose the war right in 1939. If not and are already accounted for in your percentage than my numbers are accurate.

You have convinced yourself that because of poor ground directional stability (which nobody denies) "the 109 was, is and will continue to be one of if not the most difficult piston engine planes in the world to fly". That's your statement few posts back and is simply not true.

Either those who flew 109s were all absolutely superior pilots or 109 wasn't as bad as some wants it to be.

[Xjazz]

Originally posted by Panzzer
Me 109 G-2:
"It felt dangerous when we were flying the introductory flights in the Messerschmitt. It was winter and the runway in Suulajärvi was just a narrow strip ploughed in the snow. Then we set about it. It was an insecure feeling, can I stay on the strip. There was no interim types between Brewster and 109 G-2.
You just had to remember to keep her in contact with the ground long enough, you did not try to use too little speed. Then you could control her."
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories.

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Seems to support the idea that it [109] was nothing like an 'easy plane to fly'.
bat

BatfinkV,

I don’t see any support for it.

The ex-Brewster (~950hp) pilot was feeling pretty uncomfortable before his very first take-off from snow/ice(?) covered airstrip with complete new powerful plane type (~1450hp) only ground training under his belt.

[MIShill]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
and I think you better rewatch the film and take a closer look at the nose of the AC with the big cannonbarrel hole in it LMAO

Wonder how good it felt for that old 109 pilot to climb back in one of those again

They had to drag him out of the plane screaming "Sieg Heil!" and "Filthy Americanisher Schwein!" over and over, lol.
-MI-

[straffo]

Humble ,from the start you completely eclipsed one important variable : the pilot.

When speaking about the operational career of a plane you should take this into account.

I guess that a fresh new 1939 German pilot will have far less take off/landing trouble with his 109D/E than a 1945 trainee in a 190G10/K4.
Just because of the quality of the training.

[JG_Sunbird]

Give Me Operations

Author unknown, Air Force traditional



CHORUS:
Give me operations way out on some lonely atoll
For I am too young to die; I just want to grow old

Don't give me a P-38; the props, they counter-rotate
She's smattered and smitten from Burma to Britain
Don't give me a P-38

CHORUS

Don't give me a P-39; the engine is mounted behind
She'll tumble and roll, and she'll bore a deep hole
Don't give me a P-39

CHORUS

Don't give me a Peter-four-oh; it's a hell of an airplane, I know
A ground-looping bastard, you're bound to get plastered
Don't give me a Peter-four-oh

CHORUS

Don't give me an old Thunderbolt; she gave many pilots a jolt
It looks like a jug, and it flies like a tug
Don't give me an old Thunderbolt

CHORUS

Don't give me a P-51; the airplane that's second to none
She'll loop, roll and spin, but she'll auger you in
Don't give me a P-51

CHORUS

Don't give me an F-82; that monster from out of the blue
You won't understand just who's in command
Don't give me an F-82

CHORUS

Don't five me an old Shooting Star; she goes, but not very far
She'll rumble and spout, and will surely flame out
Don't give me an old Shooting Star

CHORUS

Don't give me an F-84; her pilots they ain't here no more
They bombed in that crate, but they all pulled out late
Don't give me an F-84

CHORUS

Don't give me an 86D, with rockets, radar, and AB
She's fast, I don't care; she blows up in mid-air
Don't give me an 86D

CHORUS

Don't give me a One-Double-Oh to fight against friendly or foe
That old Sabre dance made me crap in my pants
Don't give me a One-Double-Oh

CHORUS

Don't give me McDonnell's Voodoo; there's nothing that she will not do
She'll really pitch up, she'll make you throw up
Don't give me McDonnell's Voodoo

CHORUS

Don't give me an F-104; she's faster than lightning fer shore
But after one pass there's no bullets, no gas
Don't give me an F-104

CHORUS

Don't give me an F-105, 'cause I like being alive
She's great for attack, she soaks up mach-mach flak
Don't give me an F-105

CHORUS

Don't give me an old F-4C, with a navigator flying with me
Her dihedral's neat, but she's got a back seat
Don't give me an old F-4C

CHORUS

Lalalala...

[Viking]

lol Sunbird. Good one!

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Krusty

G-2 was faster, climbed better than or equal to the spit9 up to 20k, turns almost as tightly as it did, and it's no secret that the LW pilots were better trained and skilled at this point of the war (1942). [edit: those that survived the BOB]

In fact, the G-2 is better in every way over the F-4, including armament options, speed, climb, with a nearly identical turn radius (only slightly larger).

The biggest difference between the F-4 and the G-2 is that the F-4 WILL turn inside a Spit IX, and a G-2 WONT turn inside a Spit IX (at least according to Gonzos charts it wont).  I don't see the G-2 as being better in "every way" - nearly identical turn radius (only slightly larger) means, in english, that the F-4 turns better than the G-2.    

That said, the G-2 is a fine ride - it's faster than an F-4, climbs better, and yes, you can get the 20mm gondolas if you are going buff hunting.  The G-6 is actually a step back in performance vs the G-2, but you get the big guns in the cowling and that 30mm option if you really want it.  The G-14 and the K-4 are really a matter of preference to me - if I need speed I take the K-4, and if I need 20mms I take the G-14.  

You can make the argument that the 109 series peaked at the F-4, or at the G-2 as far as fighter vs fighter performance goes - its close either way and probably more a matter of pilot preference than anything else.  After that point though, it seems the 109 designs were all geared towards killing bombers and they became less competitive vs the more modern allied fighters.  

EagleDNY
$.02

[Kweassa]

No more MK108 for the G-6s, Eagle.

[humble]

I have no desire beating this horse to death. I think there is simply a huge misconception about the realities of flying an airplane....any airplane. As you advance in complexity the concepts involved become more complex. This is one reason for the signicifcantly higher accident/mortalitiy rates in complex singles. Another jump oocurs once you hit multiengine aircraft.

Above and beyond all of these exist 23 piston driven planes that require a "Letter of Authority" (LOA). The LOA is issued in accordance with FAA 8700.1 but the underlying authority is thru the warbirds section of the EAA. Basically ALL warbirds fit under this. So any such plane (even a JU-52) is considered exceptionally difficult....however if you take the time and research the topic you'll find among those who hold an "unlimited endorsement" and are quailifed to endorse an LOA the 109 is the most difficult. While the single driving incident was the F-86 accident in Sacremento the reality is that they're were significant warbird related accidents. (as an example oct,1977 had both a 109 and mustang II accident (both non fatal). These were the result of relatively experienced pilots "stepping up" to high performance planes (almost invariably "warbirds" without fully comprehending the underlying complexities. I will leave you with another NTSB report that illustrates the reality

FTW78FQD30


This is a 60 yr old pilot with over 20,000 hrs who pranged his 109 trying to takeoff....

So we have documentation that it got wrecked alot....documentation that the best warbird pilot of our era (or one of them) died trying to land it. That another regarded as possibly the most experienced warbird pilot in type dumped it and that even a 20,000 pilot cant safely land it....


Believe it or dont believe it.....but unless your very very good....dont try to fly one:D

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by humble
This is a 60 yr old pilot with over 20,000 hrs who pranged his 109 trying to takeoff....

NTSB Identification: FTW78FQD30
HOURS 12 IN TYPE
FACTOR(S)
           PILOT IN COMMAND - LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH AIRCRAFT

[humble]

have before he can land a 109?. The guy had 12 hours in type so he probably has 20+ cycles seperate from any touch and go's. Given the lack of trainers I'm guessing he has a significant amount of time in other high performance singles (not to mention he's more then likely former military).

[Charge]

"the best warbird pilot of our era (or one of them) died trying to land it"

Are you referring to Mark Hanna? What has his accident to do with landing/take-off characteristics on 109? Have you read the report?

-C+

[humble]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
From the official report:

chalenge....2bighorn posted the particulars earlier in the thread....

IMO it fits very well with the overall consensus on the plane. Very docile within the envelope but harsh and onforgiving to any transgression. The left wing drop is sudden and unforgiving. Recovery almost invariably results in over correction and the plane lacks enough control surface authority to manage power increases on final. My understanding is that this is a plane with a very narrow "sweetspot" in both the takeoff and landing configuration. In calm weather with ample room and a very conservative flight profile its as docile as any other high preformance single. But it gives no notice of departure at all, the left wing just drops. This is apparently very sudden and very difficult to "catch" without creating osillation. Any sudden application of power is uncontrollable with full deflection and is highly discouraged. Normally an experienced pilot will successfully mangage this condition to touchdown but the instability makes final correction impossible and the plane ground loops....with varied results. In this case he was unable to reestablish enough control to actually land and the plane burned on impact.

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Kweassa
No more MK108 for the G-6s, Eagle.

LOL - see how much I look at the G-6 these days.  I guess we didn't hear a lot of whining about the loss of the 30mm option since not many people fly it.

[Charge]

According to illustration of flight path just before the accident Mr Hanna made a steep turn (abt. 50 deg) wheels down which resulted in loss of control at low altitude which he was unable to correct in time.

The description of left wing stall is accurate and fits the description in books and to me the behaviour seems rather normal except that the drop happens in really slow speed which should be avoided if the flaps and slats have not been deployed properly. A propellor driven a/c tends to stall at some point and 109 was no different to any other a/c in that sense.

So the incident of Mr Hanna was not actually because of any certain deficiency in landing or take-off of 109, but getting into a situation where the margin of error was so small that even a small disturbance could well cause a disaster. And if the vortex speculation is true, that is just what happened.

I don't know  if it is advisable to do such tight turns in any plane in landing form and gear down but obviously he was confident enough to try it in a 109. So in general the 109 is very easy in stalls that happen with speed, and the recovery is immediate, although the margin is non existent at such low speeds and altitude and the stall is unforgiving, as in any other plane. The experiences during the war were passed on to new pilots in Finland and of all the five accidents after the war none happened because of pilot error in landing/take-off -they were all mechanical failures typical of tired war weary a/c.

The slats gave better control in landing if used correctly. The Finnish pilots wondered why the Germans landed the plane at such high speed, and I can see why. At high speed as the speed decays after the touchdown the rudder starts to lose effectiviness and you need to get the tail down quickly. If that does not happen any oscillation at landing can develop into a groundloop. It may well be becuse of too stiff shock absorption of landing gear. E.g. the Spit has a looser setting, and as it is less prone of serious ground looping, it leads me to think that when the leg gives in more, the oscillation, while the weight is on landing gear, is not able to throw the weight over certain point when the a/c would raise over the leg and tumble over if the leg does not collapse before that. AFAIK the 109 usually ended on its back in these situations. So if 109 groundloops it most probably first raises on its right leg and tubles over of its right wing and engine and from there on its back. AFAIK Spits do groundloop, but they rarely end on their backs even if the plane should be more prone to do so because of different weight distribution over the landing gear.

So what I'm claiming here is that although the 109 was more demanding than most other a/c in landing/take-off it did not possess vices which would make the pilot a "passenger" if you knew how the plane was flown safely. I'm sure there were planes which were safer and easier to land because of wide landing gear or low wingloading which assisted in keeping the accident rate low, especially among the novices, but once mastered the 109 provided no additional "quirks" to the pilot and it could be landed and flown as safely as any other a/c of that era.

-C+