Black 6 crash cause?

[Schlowy]

Rossie Odonald? Chalenge, why don't you ask her? She is your mom, right? 

What are you smoking? You know the 109 was hard to land every 1 dose stop making up lies. The 109 was one of the best fighters of WW2 but it had it problems every plane dose. 

Glock everyone says 'landing probs' too much and too often.
I'm sure Urchin would, but he also says "190s just weren't good planes"
Understanding yet?

[glock89]

Rossie Odonald? Chalenge, why don't you ask her? She is your mom, right? 

Glock everyone says 'landing probs' too much and too often.
I'm sure Urchin would, but he also says "190s just weren't good planes"
Understanding yet?

No im saying 109s are hard to land every 1 knows that. Did you even look at the landing gear of a 109? It very narrow 1 wrong turn and you can flip it.

[Schlowy]

I build me models with the gear up, so ya gota point there, still, you mention repeatedly 'bad landing characteristics' but you don't mention fast speed and roll rates! Which is why they crashed it!

[glock89]

I build me models with the gear up, so ya gota point there, still, you mention repeatedly 'bad landing characteristics' but you don't mention fast speed and roll rates! Which is why they crashed it!

Because of the landing gear speed and roll rates are for dog fights not for landing. God get it right.

[MiloMorai]

The 109 wasn't hard to land. The problem started when the wheels touched the ground because of the toe out.

[Charge]

"The problem started when the wheels touched the ground because of the toe out."

That was allegedly one source of problems and another that was mentioned was the landing gear attachment point which was considered too weak. I'm not sure why exactly it was considered too weak because in certain situations it is better that the gear just bends back and snaps loose, but not if you happen to touch down a bit too fast or on bad or soft surface...

What exactly is the effect of the toe out in Bf109? Similar feature can be seen in Morane Saulnier 406, where as in FW190 there is no toe out but the gear axle is bent to keep the wheel aligned almost straight with ground.
I have understood that the bad effect of toe out is especially when you touch down with rather fast speed on hard surface which may induce veering because of rather stiff shock absorber (compare to e.g. Spit).

If the wheel profile is rounded the momentum to which direction it forces the wheel is rather curious. With this I mean what you do in a motorcycle, which has the same kind of rounded profile, and in fast turns the shift of drivers weight is not enough for direction change but the front wheel is forced to the opposite direction from the actual desired turn direction.

So the touch down on a three pointer in a Bf109 may indeed be much easier to control than coming down on main wheels only. However, I also remember reading that the 109 consumed wheels more than other planes with different landing gear configurations.

-C+

[glock89]

"The problem started when the wheels touched the ground because of the toe out."

That was allegedly one source of problems and another that was mentioned was the landing gear attachment point which was considered too weak. I'm not sure why exactly it was considered too weak because in certain situations it is better that the gear just bends back and snaps loose, but not if you happen to touch down a bit too fast or on bad or soft surface...

What exactly is the effect of the toe out in Bf109? Similar feature can be seen in Morane Saulnier 406, where as in FW190 there is no toe out but the gear axle is bent to keep the wheel aligned almost straight with ground.
I have understood that the bad effect of toe out is especially when you touch down with rather fast speed on hard surface which may induce veering because of rather stiff shock absorber (compare to e.g. Spit).

If the wheel profile is rounded the momentum to which direction it forces the wheel is rather curious. With this I mean what you do in a motorcycle, which has the same kind of rounded profile, and in fast turns the shift of drivers weight is not enough for direction change but the front wheel is forced to the opposite direction from the actual desired turn direction.

So the touch down on a three pointer in a Bf109 may indeed be much easier to control than coming down on main wheels only. However, I also remember reading that the 109 consumed wheels more than other planes with different landing gear configurations.

-C+

No the RAF shot it down.

[Bodhi]

Because of the landing gear speed and roll rates are for dog fights not for landing. God get it right.

How is the landing gear speed important for a dog fight in a 109???

[Bodhi]

Ohh, I just wanted to mention this to the rest of ya'll that have been busting on the pilot of "Black 6".

I am no expert by any means when it comes to flight.  I have been around warbirds almost exclusively since I was 19.  I do know there are two things I am afraid of when it comes to flying them.

1. Fire
2. A sudden crosswind gust when landing a T-6.

Fire is perhaps the most uncontrollable, unpredictable, and scary aspect in an aircraft.  If you ahve reason to believe that the aircraft is on fire or in imminent danger of being on fire, you generally have two choices. 

A: Get the hell out of the aircraft, which generally means a total loss of the airframe when it plummets in.
B: Try to get the SOB onto the ground as fast as possible.

It looks to me that the pilot chose option B believing a fire to be imminent.  In that case, we did the world a favor by getting her on the ground and in relatively one piece.  He should be commended for that.  Lesser people would have pointed it away from the crowd and jumped.

[Angus]

The 109 has a narrow track just like the Spitfire. For some reason pilots that flew both rather are in favour with the Spitty.
One thing mentioned is wing dipping.
However, the wheel mounting on the 109 is actually a cool one...on the fuselage. And yet, that will support a "stiffer" touchdown.
The Hurricane has been mentioned for flexing the wings on landing. But she was onel ady though....bear in mind that land based Hurricanes were landed successfully (a squadron) on a (British) CV with no hook, modded with a sanbag aft in the fuselage, and with completely no training on that job, without a mishap!
(that one came...later)
The Spitfires were flown of (British) CV's with a full load and an extra tank made for 600 miles of sea crossing.
I'd love to see if the 109 would copy those....but I think it would be a hair away from them....

[Wmaker]

Ohh, I just wanted to mention this to the rest of ya'll that have been busting on the pilot of "Black 6".

Did you read the accident report? It is concluded with pretty high certainty that the pilot himself caused the situation which was the reason why he thought the engine was going to seize/catch fire.

[Angus]

Try to imagine you in the pilot's boots where everything is starting to smoke 

[Odisseo]

I saw the black6 in flight, it was so beautifull, it's a great loss for the aviation history

[Wmaker]

Try to imagine you in the pilot's boots where everything is starting to smoke 

Yes, not a pleasant moment for sure. Has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, though.

[bongaroo]

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.

What is with you and your Eric Brown vendetta?