Black 6 crash cause?

[Charge]

"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+

[Wmaker]

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.

[Wmaker]

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501760.pdf

[valdals]

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.

[Serenity]

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.

[Charge]

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+

[Charge]

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+

[Grendel]

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.

[Serenity]

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.

[Schlowy]

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.

[AquaShrimp]

I read that fully 1/3rd of 109s were lost in landing accidents.

[MiloMorai]

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.

Is the Norwegian back posting?

No AS, that is a myth. Something around 1500 Bf109s were wrecked in landing accidents.

[Grendel]

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.

[Serenity]

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.

[Schlowy]

MiloMorai said:
-------------------------------------
  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?'