from eric Browns article....
The Spitfire had a similar, narrow-track landing gear, but it was not splayed out like that of the Bf 109, and the Spitfire didn't show any ground-looping propensities. In 1939, these problems caused damage to 255 Bf 109s (only 14 percent were damaged during training). Sixty-three percent of the damaged aircraft were Emils, and as a result, a tailwheel lock was fitted to later models.
Owing to the Bf 109's limited forward view and the tendency of its wing slats to snatch in and out near the stall, any flare to land that was held too long and made too high above the ground could result in a wing drop: in severe cases, this could end in a cartwheel when a wingtip dug into the ground. his comment is specific to night flying but mirrors other identical comments that generalized this to daytime flight as well...
Because of the frequency of the accidents, a tandem, two-seat, trainer version was eventually developed, and in mid-1945, I had the opportunity to fly this Bf 109G-12.
From the handling viewpoint, the Bf 109E had two pluses and four minuses. On the credit side, it had a steep angle of climb that made it difficult to follow, and it could also bunt into a dive without its direct-injection engine cutting out under the negative G, thus leaving a pursuing British fighter behind as its carburetor-fed engine faltered. On the downside, the 109 had poor harmony of control: no rudder trimmer, which meant it was easy to inadvertently pick up skid and ruin one's sighting aim; in tight turns, the slats snatched open, giving lateral twitching and again ruining the pilot's aim. Finally, when the speed was allowed to build up rapidly in a dive, the elevators became increasingly heavy until at 440mph, they became virtually immovable.
he landing approach was quite steep, but elevator felt very positive, which was just as well, for a substantial change of attitude was called for in the flare before touchdown. Even after ground contact, the lift did not spill rapidly, and on rough terrain, ballooning or bouncing were common. This is fairly consistant with Mark Hanna's comments....
The 109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow, it is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right. The only problem is getting too slow. If this happens, you very quickly end up with a high sink rate and with absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands!
Once down on three points, it tends to stay down, but be careful; the forward view has gone to hell, and you cannot allow any swing to develop. Initial detection is more difficult-- the aircraft being completely unpredictable-and can diverge in any direction. Sometimes the most immaculate three-pointer will turn into a potential disaster halfway through the landing roll
These are just snippets from both articles specific to the takeoff/landing characteristics of the plane. Both articles clearly show different overall opinions but are consistant in the reality that it is a plane that can easily "get away" from you with potentially devestating results...
