PDA

View Full Version : Why the Spitfire was Better than the Me 109..interesting Logic!



MB_Avro_UK
05-24-2008, 05:52 PM
Hi all,

A British RAF Battle of Britain pilot stated that the Spitfire was better than the Me 109 because, 'Any idiot could fly a Spitfire, but it took a lot of training to fly a 109'.

Here's a clip of his comments:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg&feature=related

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Lt_Letum
05-24-2008, 06:10 PM
Fw190 vs Spit

Novice pilots: Spit will win more often
Veteran pilots: Fw190 will win more often

DKoor
05-24-2008, 06:15 PM
Meh... I saw that link some time ago... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Still it's good to hear things simplified, because they really were that way.
Once in the air you either live and come back home or die...

No charts and other fancy performance stuff to worry about.

M_Gunz
05-24-2008, 06:29 PM
Arcade sims from over 10 years ago proved that you can make the planes easy to fly but that
still doesn't mean that any idiot will win just by picking the "best".

SeaFireLIV
05-24-2008, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Arcade sims from over 10 years ago proved that you can make the planes easy to fly but that
still doesn't mean that any idiot will win just by picking the "best".

Yes, it`s a relative term. relative to fighter pilots who have some experience in flying aircraft.

I very much doubt that the pilot was talking about the inexperienced man from off the street or a flight simmer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

julian265
05-24-2008, 06:51 PM
Regarding our IL2 world I thoroughly agree. Think about how much turning almost all new pilots do... They're much safer in spits than 109s.

leitmotiv
05-24-2008, 07:02 PM
In IL-2 World it works. Took me months to get a grasp of any 109---I was constantly smashing into the ground with surprise stalls, and I could not stand the coffin-like cockpit. I found the Spitfire V and Yak-1 made even a complete tyro, such as I was, feel like a pro whether I used vertical or turning tactics. The real 109 had a vicious reputation in the training schools. That pilot is dead right. Better to have a superb-handling airplane which is not formidable to less experienced pilots than a superb-handling airplane which was difficult for those without much experience. Still, tactics were the key to air fighting, and even a well-trained pilot in a superb airplane who was not tactically proficient was a dead duck.

M_Gunz
05-24-2008, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Arcade sims from over 10 years ago proved that you can make the planes easy to fly but that
still doesn't mean that any idiot will win just by picking the "best".

Yes, it`s a relative term. relative to fighter pilots who have some experience in flying aircraft.

I very much doubt that the pilot was talking about the inexperienced man from off the street or a flight simmer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As opposed to rookies just out of flight school with perhaps 10 whole hours in type and zero
combat experience?

ADD: in that case I'm sure that the Spit pilot will have a better chance of surviving.

DKoor
05-24-2008, 09:19 PM
Those young ones needed luck more than anything http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif .
Even seasoned veterans could use it here and there http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif .

Badsight-
05-25-2008, 02:06 AM
Hans Hannig

over 100 kills

flying a FW-190 with a wingman , they were jumped by a lone Spitfire Mk5

in minutes , both were shot down . neither survived

Manu-6S
05-25-2008, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
Hans Hannig

over 100 kills

flying a FW-190 with a wingman , they were jumped by a lone Spitfire Mk5

in minutes , both were shot down . neither survived

1) FW190s were visible above the terrain
2) Spit wasn't visible as a black dot in the sky
3) FW190s pilots cound not listen at Spit's engine ehind them.

Probably 90% of the kills in WW2 were from bounces... in il2 is not so easy to bounce someone.

Pirschjaeger
05-25-2008, 03:19 AM
In game, I've always felt the Spit had less over all maneuverability than the 109. I like both but you can't fly them the same.

From my POV the Spit has a better gun platform and is easier to get on and off the ground. But the 109 has more tricks up it's sleeve.

I've flown both online and against the same people. I may have to change my tactics but the end results were always the same. With the Spit, I could easily take down the 109s. With the 109, I could easily take down the Spits. But if I were to fly them with the same tactics, the results would have been different.

The Spit is often called a 'noob-plane' but I think that is a misrepresentation. It is a 'noob-plane' only in the sense that new pilots choose it for its ease of landing and take off.

Although what the pilot in the clip said was pretty accurate concerning this sim, I'm quite sure it was only coincidental. I doubt he has a clue about this sim just as we have nothing more than conflicting testimonies from pilots who flew the real thing.

Manu-6S
05-25-2008, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
It is a 'noob-plane' only in the sense that new pilots choose it for its ease of landing and take off.


Agree for the stall feature, but but Spit's undercarriage was problematic as the 109's one since the landing gear were installed in the body of the plane and weren't wide enough...

Pirschjaeger
05-25-2008, 03:30 AM
The only problems I've had with the Spit regarding landing and take off was hitting the prop on the ground while landing.

That really annoyed me after a successful mission. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

DKoor
05-25-2008, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
Hans Hannig

over 100 kills

flying a FW-190 with a wingman , they were jumped by a lone Spitfire Mk5

in minutes , both were shot down . neither survived

1) FW190s were visible above the terrain
2) Spit wasn't visible as a black dot in the sky
3) FW190s pilots cound not listen at Spit's engine ehind them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Eh eh

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I think I remember reading about this guy...

DKoor
05-25-2008, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The only problems I've had with the Spit regarding landing and take off was hitting the prop on the ground while landing.

That really annoyed me after a successful mission. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I had really trouble time with an I-185!
That fighter was a nightmare to take off in at some point.... IIRC MiG-3U had similar probs... dunno why... perhaps large prop? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Most of my probs were on taking off when tailwheel leaps off of the ground...

Tully__
05-25-2008, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
...but but Spit's undercarriage was problematic as the 109's one since the landing gear were installed in the body of the plane and weren't wide enough...
Both had narrow gear but the 109 was still worse with regard to undercarriage. In addition to being too narrow, the 109 gear was also endowed with considerable "toe-out" (the wheels were angled such that both wheels were trying to roll away from the aircraft centerline when the aircraft was taxiing forward). This is an inherently unstable arrangement, should the aircraft not be perfectly aligned with the direction of travel, this arrangement will tend to increase the deviation making ground loops all too easy to achieve. The Spitfire on the other hand had parallel or "toe-in" alignment on the main wheels and was consequently easier to maintain directional stability while taxiing.

DKoor
05-25-2008, 05:53 AM
Nice to see you Tully hanging around here more often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .

Kurfurst__
05-25-2008, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

A British RAF Battle of Britain pilot stated that the Spitfire was better than the Me 109 because, 'Any idiot could fly a Spitfire, but it took a lot of training to fly a 109'.

Here's a clip of his comments:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg&feature=related

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Here`s what the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) had to say on the subject in September, 1940:

The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Bf 109E] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

stalkervision
05-25-2008, 06:50 AM
going along with this post I have read over and over by many aviation experts.

"The 109 was the better offensive fighter and the spit a better defensive one."

DKoor
05-25-2008, 06:52 AM
Is that something like difference between offensive and defensive hand grenade or...?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-25-2008, 01:53 PM
Hi all,

By definition, most fighter pilots in WW2 were 'Average'.

Therefore perhaps,the Spitfire was suited to most pilots.

Yes, landing in a Spitfire was hairy for a novice pilot but a flawed landing was unlikely to kill you. Maybe strong words from the CO would be almost as bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Maybe it's better to cater for the 'Average' fighter pilot rather than the 'Ace' in the long run?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Airmail109
05-25-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
In game, I've always felt the Spit had less over all maneuverability than the 109. I like both but you can't fly them the same.

From my POV the Spit has a better gun platform and is easier to get on and off the ground. But the 109 has more tricks up it's sleeve.

I've flown both online and against the same people. I may have to change my tactics but the end results were always the same. With the Spit, I could easily take down the 109s. With the 109, I could easily take down the Spits. But if I were to fly them with the same tactics, the results would have been different.

The Spit is often called a 'noob-plane' but I think that is a misrepresentation. It is a 'noob-plane' only in the sense that new pilots choose it for its ease of landing and take off.

Although what the pilot in the clip said was pretty accurate concerning this sim, I'm quite sure it was only coincidental. I doubt he has a clue about this sim just as we have nothing more than conflicting testimonies from pilots who flew the real thing.

Funny i regard the Spitfire as more manuverable and the 109 as the better gun platform

Airmail109
05-25-2008, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

A British RAF Battle of Britain pilot stated that the Spitfire was better than the Me 109 because, 'Any idiot could fly a Spitfire, but it took a lot of training to fly a 109'.

Here's a clip of his comments:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg&feature=related

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Here`s what the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) had to say on the subject in September, 1940:

The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Bf 109E] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Likewise a lot of rookie 109 pilots thought "oh ****" when the auto-wing stabs deployed and slackened the turn.

There are repored cases of Jugs outurning 109s on the deck, so I suppose again....It depends on the pilots skill level and energy state

JSG72
05-25-2008, 03:24 PM
Nice to see a thread including "Pilot state of mind./Training/Tactics/Stable gun platforms/Defensive and offensive useage.

Makes a darnsite more realisic insight into War situations. Than any CHART! I have seen.

BTW. 7yrs on this Sim and never flown a Spitfire! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-25-2008, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Nice to see a thread including "Pilot state of mind./Training/Tactics/Stable gun platforms/Defensive and offensive useage.

Makes a darnsite more realisic insight into War situations. Than any CHART! I have seen.

BTW. 7yrs on this Sim and never flown a Spitfire! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

7 years on this Sim and never flown a Spitfire?

But you and I have been crazy enough to have flown in the Rapide from Duxford?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

JSG72
05-25-2008, 04:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

stalkervision
05-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Is that something like difference between offensive and defensive hand grenade or...?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
05-25-2008, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

A British RAF Battle of Britain pilot stated that the Spitfire was better than the Me 109 because, 'Any idiot could fly a Spitfire, but it took a lot of training to fly a 109'.

Here's a clip of his comments:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg&feature=related

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Here`s what the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) had to say on the subject in September, 1940:

The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Bf 109E] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Likewise a lot of rookie 109 pilots thought "oh ****" when the auto-wing stabs deployed and slackened the turn.

There are repored cases of Jugs outurning 109s on the deck, so I suppose again....It depends on the pilots skill level and energy state </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read that the 109's slats controled one of the most dangerous tendencies in fighter aircraft. A high speed/ high g turn/wing snapping stall.

Is this modeled in Il-2 correctly and is this type of stall modelled for ww 2 aircraft known to have this problem in the game? Anyone know?

JSG72
05-25-2008, 05:02 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Try! doing the same manouvres in the FW. 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-25-2008, 05:04 PM
Hi all,

From memory,were the Me 109 wing slots created by the British Company Handley Page?

I could be wrong though for the first time in my life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ali19891989
05-25-2008, 05:07 PM
I think they were designed by Handley Page; not sure if they actually made the ones for the 109 though

leitmotiv
05-25-2008, 05:32 PM
Veteran British bomber company Handley-Page invented the leading edge slat.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=...at&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=handley+page+leading+edge+slat&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Kurfurst__
05-26-2008, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I have read that the 109's slats controled one of the most dangerous tendencies in fighter aircraft. A high speed/ high g turn/wing snapping stall.

Is this modeled in Il-2 correctly and is this type of stall modelled for ww 2 aircraft known to have this problem in the game? Anyone know?

All wings stall when a certain angle of attack is reached and the wing cannot 'grasp' the boundary layer any longer.
The slats - when open - simply energize the boundary layer and it will stay attached, enabling a higher maximum AoA without stall. When even that AoA is exceeded, the wing will stall just like any other, but in general slats allow for more jerky operation of the controls. The selected wing profile`s qualities can also help a lot, but I suspect the good controllability of the 109 can be attributed to its elevator gearing and the execution of the controls, which was considered optimum by RAE at low speeds - the amount of input could be controlled very precisely, in contrast the Spitfire`s elevator control was critized by everybody who tested it in this respect. The elevator was very light and sensitve, requiring only 4 lbs force per G, and a mere 3/4 inch of pull induced the stall (NACA). Obviously while this allowed for effortless flying (very little muscle work required for manouvers), at the same time it was demanding task for the pilot in the heat of combat to precisly control his aircraft with milimeter motions on the stick, it made the aircraft longitudally unstable as a gunnery platform (Rechlin), and could easily lead to overstressing and breaking the airframe in pullouts (RAE).

Consequently, the 109E pilot manuals instruct the pilot to leave the elevator trim in neutral position and DO NOT trim INTO the dive (which in the end makes pullout difficult as the piloast needs to apply greater deflection to overcome the nose-heavy trim effects as well), while the Spitfire manuals instruct the pilot to trim into the dive (thus basically increasing the forces needed to be applied to the controls), avoiding the possibility of carelessly overloading the airframe with a too abrupt pullout.


Originally posted by MB AVRO UK:
Hi all,

From memory,were the Me 109 wing slots created by the British Company Handley Page?

I could be wrong though for the first time in my life.

A WW1 German fighter pilot, Lachmann invented it first on sick leave and got an German panent for it; Sir Handley Page also came up with it independently a bit later IIRC, while Hugo Junkers came up with his trailing edge slats.

After WW1, Lachmann joined Handley Page and sold/ceded the rights of his patent to the H-P company, where he worked afterwards. Since the H-P Company now owned the rights, commercially they were known as H-P slats. I believe Messerschmitt payed some fee to H-P for using them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
05-26-2008, 04:14 AM
Wing leading-edge devices such as slots, slats, and flaps can significantly improve the autorotative resistance of unswept wings at stall, and early research at Langley by the NACA demonstrated the effectiveness of these devices.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_resistance.html

That slats can be thought of as training wheels for the wing.

My personal aircraft has them. Once you get used to them, you wonder how you ever got along without them.

It is very difficult to get an aircraft with slats to spin. The slat placed on the outboard portion of the wing is a very large stabilizing factor.

All the best,

Crumpp

Airmail109
05-26-2008, 05:52 AM
Jeff Ethell on the Spitfire

"The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.

The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub. Though a wing tends to drop, there isn't the slightest mean streak in it unless you cob the power, which produces a very violent torque roll. Power off, gear and flaps down, main fuel tanks full, it stalls at 65 kts, which is ridiculously slow. Add a slight bit of power and that drops to 60 kts. With that enormous snout, I try to make a curving approach to landing at about 100 kts in order to keep the runway in sight as long as possible. By the time I'm rolling out across the field boundary, if at max landing weight, I should be no faster than 85 kts with power and 95 kts in a glide. At lighter weights these speeds can be reduced by 5 kts.

All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop. Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life."

Interestingly a Spitfire pilot at duxford once told me if I want to fly Spitfires, learn on a Piper Cub as they are somewhat similar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kettenhunde
05-26-2008, 08:46 AM
Interestingly a Spitfire pilot at duxford once told me if I want to fly Spitfires, learn on a Piper Cub as they are somewhat similar

Probably good advice although it is amazing peoples perceptions of airplanes.

From AIAA Library on stall spin accidents:

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1314/historicaloverviewstallmj1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1314/historicaloverviewstallmj1.ad8cdd8af8.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=239&i=historicaloverviewstallmj1.jpg)

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2090/pipercubstallspinaccideuo4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2090/pipercubstallspinaccideuo4.1397e246b2.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=379&i=pipercubstallspinaccideuo4.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-26-2008, 02:50 PM
Compare the tameness of the Cub to sayyyyyyy an Me-109E-4.

Kettenhunde
05-26-2008, 03:07 PM
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5764/1095n2ph3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5764/1095n2ph3.4e0e183752.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=370&i=1095n2ph3.jpg)

Kettenhunde
05-26-2008, 03:12 PM
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9490/spinning1xz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9490/spinning1xz1.deaf6a19c5.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=338&i=spinning1xz1.jpg)

Kettenhunde
05-26-2008, 03:16 PM
Compare the tameness of the Cub

In the NASA study, the Piper Cub is ranked number 28 out of 31 with Number 1 being the aircraft aerodynamically the safest to spin and most immune to a stall spin accident.

There are only three airplanes in the study more dangerous than the Piper Cub.

I found that pretty interesting myself as I have friends who fly Cubs and given the popular reputation of the design. Goes to show you that perception is not always a fair representation of reality.

All the best,

Crumpp

DIRTY-MAC
05-26-2008, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
going along with this post I have read over and over by many aviation experts.

"The 109 was the better offensive fighter and the spit a better defensive one."

+1
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Xiolablu3
05-26-2008, 04:02 PM
The SPit isnt 'better' than the Bf109, each has their good points.

As for performance, some times they were about equal and sometimes each one jumped ahead of the other at different times in the war.

Eg, my own personal performance rating :-

1940 - Spit 1/Bf109E - even stevens

Early 1941 - Spitfire II/V beats Bf109E

Late 1941/early 1942 - Bf109F beats Spitfire V

Late 1942 - Bf109F4/Early Gustavs beat Spitfire IX Merlin 61+Spitfire V

1943 - Spitfire IX Merlin 66 beats Bf109G6

1944 - Spitfire IX/Bf109 MW50 even stevens?

1945 - SPitfire XIV/25lbs IX's beat Bf109G10/K4


Just my opinion from reading/documentries/pilot accounts etc, obviously some peoples will differ. But it shows the point I am trying to make.

MB_Avro_UK
05-26-2008, 04:29 PM
Hi all,

My original post relates to a BoB RAF Spitfire pilot expressing his sense of humour and should not be taken too seriously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This guy has survived WW2 and now in his 80's is entitled in my view to make a comment tinged with humour. Fair credit to him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks for the information guys regarding the HP slats.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Bremspropeller
05-26-2008, 04:55 PM
The slats are actually patented on "Handley Page/ Lachmann".

I had a lecture about the entire Bf 108 programme today and the professor (whose father once flew his own 108 - after the war...) called them that way.
It's funny how the frenchies took over the 108 production-line, scratched off the paint that said "Messerschmitt", called thw whole thing "Nord 1000", painted french markings on it (including invasion stripes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ) and sold them... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Airmail109
05-26-2008, 05:13 PM
Now kettenhunde work out where the Cub lies in that table compared to other dual seat, low wing, single engine monoplanes.

Many of those are bound to have safer stalling characteristics as they are high wing trainers, although I am suprised about the Mooney.

Bremspropeller
05-26-2008, 05:53 PM
The Bonanza and the Cherokee have low wings as well.
I wonder if they spinned the V-tail Bonnie or the conventional model.

The Cub is that nasty b/c it has it's two seats in tandem.
If the guy in the back is too heavy (he sits slightly behind COG), spin-recovery is impossible.

I've heard some pretty nasty stories by an IP of mine...

DKoor
05-26-2008, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The SPit isnt 'better' than the Bf109, each has their good points.

As for performance, some times they were about equal and sometimes each one jumped ahead of the other at different times in the war.

Eg, my own personal performance rating :-

1940 - Spit 1/Bf109E - even stevens

Early 1941 - Spitfire II/V beats Bf109E

Late 1941/early 1942 - Bf109F beats Spitfire V

Late 1942 - Bf109F4/Early Gustavs beat Spitfire IX Merlin 61+Spitfire V

1943 - Spitfire IX Merlin 66 beats Bf109G6

1944 - Spitfire IX/Bf109 MW50 even stevens?

1945 - SPitfire XIV/25lbs IX's beat Bf109G10/K4


Just my opinion from reading/documentries/pilot accounts etc, obviously some peoples will differ. But it shows the point I am trying to make. Disagree 22,5%.

M_Gunz
05-26-2008, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Compare the tameness of the Cub

In the NASA study, the Piper Cub is ranked number 28 out of 31 with Number 1 being the aircraft aerodynamically the safest to spin and most immune to a stall spin accident.

There are only three airplanes in the study more dangerous than the Piper Cub.

I found that pretty interesting myself as I have friends who fly Cubs and given the popular reputation of the design. Goes to show you that perception is not always a fair representation of reality.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

28th out of the 31 tame GA planes selected. Note what planes are not on that list at all!

To be able to compare a fighter to -any- plane on that list says a lot for the fighter.
I don't see Spitfire or 109 anywhere on that list.

Bremspropeller
05-26-2008, 06:31 PM
28th out of the 31 tame GA planes selected.

Even a tame tiger can bite you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's all up to the pilot, not up to the plane.

Kettenhunde
05-26-2008, 07:45 PM
It's all up to the pilot, not up to the plane.


Exactly.

If the pilots had been equally trained the Bf-109 would have had a completely different reputation.

Put a bunch of poorly trained pilots in any airplane and the plane will look dangerous.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-26-2008, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">28th out of the 31 tame GA planes selected.

Even a tame tiger can bite you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's all up to the pilot, not up to the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes! Respect the danger any time you go up!
There's too many idiots daily proving they can't handle cars let alone airplanes!

Xiolablu3
05-27-2008, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's all up to the pilot, not up to the plane.


Exactly.

If the pilots had been equally trained the Bf-109 would have had a completely different reputation.

Put a bunch of poorly trained pilots in any airplane and the plane will look dangerous.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Errm, in the early war 1939-42 when the Bf109 was most prevelant (ie the ONLY/MAIN fighter in the Luftwaffe) the Luftwaffe was the best trained outfit in the world.

M_Gunz
05-27-2008, 07:16 AM
With the possible exception of the IJN.

Xiolablu3
05-27-2008, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The SPit isnt 'better' than the Bf109, each has their good points.

As for performance, some times they were about equal and sometimes each one jumped ahead of the other at different times in the war.

Eg, my own personal performance rating :-

1940 - Spit 1/Bf109E - even stevens

Early 1941 - Spitfire II/V beats Bf109E

Late 1941/early 1942 - Bf109F beats Spitfire V

Late 1942 - Bf109F4/Early Gustavs beat Spitfire IX Merlin 61+Spitfire V

1943 - Spitfire IX Merlin 66 beats Bf109G6

1944 - Spitfire IX/Bf109 MW50 even stevens?

1945 - SPitfire XIV/25lbs IX's beat Bf109G10/K4


Just my opinion from reading/documentries/pilot accounts etc, obviously some peoples will differ. But it shows the point I am trying to make. Disagree 22,5%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interested into which 22.5% you disagree with, mate? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
05-27-2008, 07:45 AM
Breaking News:

"Rote 7" just had another eventful forced landing:

I just watched on TV; LH gear is down, RH obviously not.

The red 7 flew a display together with the 262 of EADS heritage on Berlin's ILA.
262 came down w/o trouble, 109 didnit.
Thats the third landing-accident.


EDIT: appears to be "Black 2", instead of "Red 7".

Bremspropeller
05-27-2008, 08:13 AM
Looks like nobody really cares....

Bremspropeller
05-27-2008, 08:21 AM
http://mjtom.homepage.t-online.de/Bilder/we.jpg

Xiolablu3
05-27-2008, 08:38 AM
Your pic doesnt work Brems.

Its so obvious that the 109 has serious landing problems/issues, even today they constantly crash and the owners are trying to be so, so careful.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is just kidding themselves IMO.

Kurfurst__
05-27-2008, 11:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy5NfpCoprQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmaX_aM7LMs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWSvKT6h3ro&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgIhS9jgxfg&feature=related

luftluuver
05-27-2008, 11:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zklpKd2fBLI

Low_Flyer_MkIX
05-27-2008, 11:28 AM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/party.jpg

Xiolablu3
05-27-2008, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy5NfpCoprQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmaX_aM7LMs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWSvKT6h3ro&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgIhS9jgxfg&feature=related


I dont see a single SPitfire crashing on landing or takeoff in that clip.

The only clip which shows a plane crashing on landing is a replica Spitfire with a car engine!!


In the last YEAR I have seen 3 bf109's crash on landing in the news. How many flyable 109's are there in the world? Very very few.

There are about 40 Spitfires flying , I believe?, and NONE that I know of have had serious crashes on landing that I can remember over the past year or more.

leitmotiv
05-27-2008, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/party.jpg

HAW!!!!

leitmotiv
05-27-2008, 01:42 PM
Actually, I was eyewitness to a Spitfire landing gear incident. I was at Duxford early on a winter morning. Above us a late model Spitfire was putting on an incredible aerobatics display. The few people around and I watched agog. Finally, the Spitfire landed. At this point we were informed by the mechanics we nearly witnessed a Spitfire make a wheels up landing. What we thought was an exuberant display of flying skill was the pilot desperately using high Gs to try to throw down an l.g. leg jammed in the up position! Appearances are never what they seem.

Kettenhunde
05-27-2008, 02:01 PM
Actually, I was eyewitness to a Spitfire landing gear incident. I was at Duxford early on a winter morning. Above us a late model Spitfire was putting on an incredible aerobatics display. The few people around and I watched agog. Finally, the Spitfire landed. At this point we were informed by the mechanics we nearly witnessed a Spitfire make a wheels up landing. What we thought was an exuberant display of flying skill was the pilot desperately using high Gs to try to throw down an l.g. leg jammed in the up position! Appearances are never what they seem.


That is very common in all complex aircraft. Landing gear fails to extend frequently.

How that becomes a characteristic of the "geometry" of the 109's gear escapes me.

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
05-27-2008, 02:05 PM
IIRC there was this German hi-score experte who visited one Italian unit and took a Macchi fighter for a spin... when he was landing he forgot to deploy landing gear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif .

Eh, happens to the best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

leitmotiv
05-27-2008, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Actually, I was eyewitness to a Spitfire landing gear incident. I was at Duxford early on a winter morning. Above us a late model Spitfire was putting on an incredible aerobatics display. The few people around and I watched agog. Finally, the Spitfire landed. At this point we were informed by the mechanics we nearly witnessed a Spitfire make a wheels up landing. What we thought was an exuberant display of flying skill was the pilot desperately using high Gs to try to throw down an l.g. leg jammed in the up position! Appearances are never what they seem.


That is very common in all complex aircraft. Landing gear fails to extend frequently.

How that becomes a characteristic of the "geometry" of the 109's gear escapes me.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Merely an observation on the vagaries of life, old chap. No need to get testy.

ali19891989
05-27-2008, 02:29 PM
Anyone wondering why there's so many more spits flyable today than 109s should take into account that so many were destroyed by their pilots before they surrendered. Also a lot were destroyed by the allies after the war and plenty dury the war when they didn't have the fuel or parts to get off the ground. I'm guessing the swastika painted on the tail didn't go down too well with the people who had to live under occupation for so long in the war.

Kettenhunde
05-27-2008, 03:25 PM
Merely an observation on the vagaries of life, old chap. No need to get testy.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

leitmotiv
05-27-2008, 04:34 PM
Lack of reading skills of readers not the fault of management. And, the classic indicator of fatuousness is the use of insipid cartoons instead of words.

MB_Avro_UK
05-27-2008, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
Hans Hannig

over 100 kills

flying a FW-190 with a wingman , they were jumped by a lone Spitfire Mk5

in minutes , both were shot down . neither survived

Interesting post Badsight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

There appears to be an assumption on this forum that Spitfires were low-level dogfighters and that Luftwaffe fighters were always above using B&Z tactics.

Spitfires of course also used B&Z tactics.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

M_Gunz
05-27-2008, 06:07 PM
Gear hanging up is one reason why at least some commercial planes have high pressure gas in
"blow down" bottles. At 7000 psi they will shear 3/4" stainless steel bolts in the way as
I have heard witnessed. The gear goes down then! But that requires a secondary hydraulic
system to the gear and associated weight, it's a big plane feature and perhaps modern jets
only have it.

The thing is that gear do get hung up enough to make it worth having, just once is enough.

Do you guys stand around and pick on each other's wives too?

leitmotiv
05-27-2008, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
Hans Hannig

over 100 kills

flying a FW-190 with a wingman , they were jumped by a lone Spitfire Mk5

in minutes , both were shot down . neither survived

Interesting post Badsight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

There appears to be an assumption on this forum that Spitfires were low-level dogfighters and that Luftwaffe fighters were always above using B&Z tactics.

Spitfires of course also used B&Z tactics.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. And, of course, in the real world the prize went to the side with altitude whether you were flying an I-153, Spitfire, or 109. In WWII the Americans called it yo-yo-ing, and the airplane which made it into a truly lethal exercise was the P-38 in the Pacific. Most fighters wanted to strike from altitude, inflict, and get away. "Boom and zoom" is a jet age tactic for airplanes with tons of thrust.

DKoor
05-27-2008, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
And, of course, in the real world the prize went to the side with altitude +1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Kettenhunde
05-27-2008, 07:59 PM
the classic indicator of fatuousness is the use of insipid cartoons instead of words.


Little testy aren't we, Leitmov?

http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

*note fatuous cartoon is intentional

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-27-2008, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Boom and zoom" is a jet age tactic for airplanes with tons of thrust.

Tell that to Erich Hartmann! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

wayno7777
05-27-2008, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Your pic doesnt work Brems.

Its so obvious that the 109 has serious landing problems/issues, even today they constantly crash and the owners are trying to be so, so careful.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is just kidding themselves IMO.
Right.
It is written that over 11,000 of the 33,000+ built were damaged or destroyed during landing and take-off incidents....

No41Sqn_Banks
05-27-2008, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Boom and zoom" is a jet age tactic for airplanes with tons of thrust.

Tell that to Erich Hartmann! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think leitmotiv wanted to say that the so called boom and zoom is not equal energy fighting.

So called boom and zoom is a subset of energy fighting.

leitmotiv
05-28-2008, 12:16 AM
In WWs I & II altitude was king. The object was to strike from a position of advantage, disengage (if you were smart), and strike again. This is not the equivalent of "booming and zooming" like an F-15 with tons of thrust. Even WWII aircraft depleted energy too fast for these game fantasy up and down fights. The real tactic was hit and run. It's all about surprise. "Game-style" booming and zooming is still dogfighting only it is vertical. The real articles did not hang around unless they got into a trap or they were ambushed and had no way to get away.

Hartmann? He preferred to bushwhack from below. He was not a "Gameland Dogfighter."

M_Gunz
05-28-2008, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"Boom and zoom" is a jet age tactic for airplanes with tons of thrust.

Tell that to Erich Hartmann! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think leitmotiv wanted to say that the so called boom and zoom is not equal energy fighting.

So called boom and zoom is a subset of energy fighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had from Hartmann to come in with much higher speed, make the strike and leave regardless
of results. He did not hang around and dogfight given any choice in the matter. Making sure
that the choice was his by planning the exit not followable, by flying at speed and alt to
keep the initiative and by having the faster plane were all part of his method.

I call that boom and zoom. He did it in 109's.

Kurfurst__
05-28-2008, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by wayno7777:
Right.
It is written that over 11,000 of the 33,000+ built were damaged or destroyed during landing and take-off incidents....

Nope. Butch2k has posted some interesting data in this regards from his fairly complete Bf 109 incident database... it has been posted zillion times here, with not much effect appearantly... IIRC something like 1,5% was lost or damage in take off, landings, a fairly normal value.

1/3 of the losses may refer to the percentage of losses sustained due to non-enemy related reasons, but then again its a fairly avarage value,

Interestingly enough, I have seen some database on the mossie, and something like 1/3 of the losses were to ground loops and similiar. I would never believed that ground loops were such an issue with larger, twin engine planes..

joeap
05-28-2008, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wayno7777:
Right.
It is written that over 11,000 of the 33,000+ built were damaged or destroyed during landing and take-off incidents....

Nope. Butch2k has posted some interesting data in this regards from his fairly complete Bf 109 incident database... it has been posted zillion times here, with not much effect appearantly... IIRC something like 1,5% was lost or damage in take off, landings, a fairly normal value.

1/3 of the losses may refer to the percentage of losses sustained due to non-enemy related reasons, but then again its a fairly avarage value,

Interestingly enough, I have seen some database on the mossie, and something like 1/3 of the losses were to ground loops and similiar. I would never believed that ground loops were such an issue with larger, twin engine planes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting, btw I have been flying the Mossie a bit and well I have ground looped it a couple of tmes as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

DKoor
05-28-2008, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wayno7777:
Right.
It is written that over 11,000 of the 33,000+ built were damaged or destroyed during landing and take-off incidents....

Nope. Butch2k has posted some interesting data in this regards from his fairly complete Bf 109 incident database... it has been posted zillion times here, with not much effect appearantly... IIRC something like 1,5% was lost or damage in take off, landings, a fairly normal value.

1/3 of the losses may refer to the percentage of losses sustained due to non-enemy related reasons, but then again its a fairly avarage value,

Interestingly enough, I have seen some database on the mossie, and something like 1/3 of the losses were to ground loops and similiar. I would never believed that ground loops were such an issue with larger, twin engine planes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah that 1/3 figure of loses during take off/landing sounds quite probable, yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

Then someone starts to wonder why this place is known on teh interweb as the UBi ZOO. Wonder no more!
With a completely seriously nonsense like this posted here daily there is no way the place could be any different.

Now if we for a milisec really consider that there really was 1/3 of them actually lost during take off/landing, then those German engineers must have been really stupid for creating something so inefficient, aren't they? Plus when you generously in the same manner count all other accidents like engine failure etc. etc. you can easily imagine 1/2 (likely even more) figure of all 109's lost without even seeing the frontline. Heck, one cannot but to wonder how they shipped them to the frontline squadrons and how many of those crappy machines were actually lost during the delivery procedures.

All very probable, no doubt about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.
On UBI http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif.

HuninMunin
05-28-2008, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Your pic doesnt work Brems.

Its so obvious that the 109 has serious landing problems/issues, even today they constantly crash and the owners are trying to be so, so careful.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is just kidding themselves IMO.

They are having problems with vintage hydraulic systems.
There is a difference between a technical failure and an inherent design flaw.
All recent accidents happened because the undercarriage failed to lower.
The only thing that you can draw from that is that they have problems with the aircrafts systems.
Taking that to make a statement about the 109s general design is daring to say the least.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Your pic doesnt work Brems.

Its so obvious that the 109 has serious landing problems/issues, even today they constantly crash and the owners are trying to be so, so careful.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is just kidding themselves IMO.

They are having problems with vintage hydraulic systems.
There is a difference between a technical failure and an inherent design flaw.
All recent accidents happened because the undercarriage failed to lower.
The only thing that you can draw from that is that they have problems with the aircrafts systems.
Taking that to make a statement about the 109s general design is daring to say the least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109 IS extremely dangerous to land and use on the ground. I absolutely AM making that statement about the 109's general design.

Lets get an expert with extensive time thrashing a 109, who also has massive amount of time in a SPitfire and ask him to compare the two planes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4


BUT EVEN WITHOUT THAT VIDEO - Its so obvious that there are really bad problems with the 109's on landing even today, they crash ALL THE TIME.

You have to be a pretty biased 109 fan to dismiss all the evidence on the Bf109's landing problems.

Kurfurst__
05-28-2008, 06:30 AM
Its actually you who sound as a pretty biased fan.. and in a very odd style from a mod, if I may add.
BTW, I see a Buchon in that youtube video, not a 109.

"The Buchon flies very much the same as the Gustav, although directional stability is even worse. The biggest differences are engine handling and cockpit noise levels. The Buchon is very noisy due to the high exhaust stacks of the Merlin, the low exhausts of the DB605 giving a considerably quieter cockpit.

In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are good. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first. However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely. I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft. But I am never satisfied- I now have an ambition to fly an Emil; the Bf109E."

There`s no arguement that the 109 was not a particularly easy aircraft to take off and land in. But 'extremely' dangererous.. no. If you argue that it was, get some valid statistics of it and other wartime fighters. So far everything I`ve seen shows it had a pretty avarage accident rate in real life.

Metatron_123
05-28-2008, 06:31 AM
That is so ironic...

Seems like a nice chap, shame he had to go so soon...

DKoor
05-28-2008, 06:38 AM
Hey Xio where is the 1/3 evidence, may I ask you?

Mark Hanna citation: "...and I believe it's a fact that during the war they built over 30 thousand of these, and 1/3 were destroyed in landing and taking off accidents... quite extraordinarily, really."

I'm simply curious.
Where is this info coming from?
Furthermore I also noticed that he used word "I believe" which isn't really assuring.

On the other hand;

Butch2k has posted some interesting data in this regards from his fairly complete Bf 109 incident database... it has been posted zillion times here, with not much effect apparently... IIRC something like 1,5% was lost or damage in take off, landings, a fairly normal value.

So who has false info, I ask?
I know where I'd put my money on (not that I know the answer, I'd just go with a simple logic, really).

Also I'm taking an opportunity here to notice that Bf-109 (narrow) landing gear oddly reminds me of a Spitfire one... which puzzles me more.
I so wanna believe that this isn't another case of - with one airplane it's a feature, and with another it's a bug.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 07:42 AM
I dont know if thats true or not Dkoor, I didnt post it for that part. I have no idea where it came from. Even Hanna says 'I believe its a fact' as tho hes not too sure himself and has been told it 2nd hand.

I posted it for Mark hanna saying how extrememly difficult landing and taking off the 109 is/was. He is one of the best sources we have as he has thrashed both the 109 and the Spitfire hard as he owns them. We are always less careful with our own possessions than other peoples I think!

Xiolablu3
05-28-2008, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Its actually you who sound as a pretty biased fan.. and in a very odd style from a mod, if I may add.
BTW, I see a Buchon in that youtube video, not a 109.

"The Buchon flies very much the same as the Gustav, although directional stability is even worse. The biggest differences are engine handling and cockpit noise levels. The Buchon is very noisy due to the high exhaust stacks of the Merlin, the low exhausts of the DB605 giving a considerably quieter cockpit.

In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are good. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first. However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely. I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft. But I am never satisfied- I now have an ambition to fly an Emil; the Bf109E."

There`s no arguement that the 109 was not a particularly easy aircraft to take off and land in. But 'extremely' dangererous.. no. If you argue that it was, get some valid statistics of it and other wartime fighters. So far everything I`ve seen shows it had a pretty avarage accident rate in real life.

So you just completely dismiss MArk Hanna's and Reg Hallam's thoughts without question... who is biased again?

If I am not allowed to post my thoughts 'because I am a mod' then I will give it up right now.

I am simply posting quotes from people qualified to answer and drawing my conclusions from them. How is that biased? I am not simply making these things up, or wishful thinking. THAT would be biased.

I am going on the best evidence that we have, I am not twisting it or spinning it in any way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiYs_zqnOoQ&NR=1

luftluuver
05-28-2008, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wayno7777:
Right.
It is written that over 11,000 of the 33,000+ built were damaged or destroyed during landing and take-off incidents....

Nope. Butch2k has posted some interesting data in this regards from his fairly complete Bf 109 incident database... it has been posted zillion times here, with not much effect appearantly... IIRC something like 1,5% was lost or damage in take off, landings, a fairly normal value.

1/3 of the losses may refer to the percentage of losses sustained due to non-enemy related reasons, but then again its a fairly avarage value,

Interestingly enough, I have seen some database on the mossie, and something like 1/3 of the losses were to ground loops and similiar. I would never believed that ground loops were such an issue with larger, twin engine planes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was Butch referring to fatal accidents? 1.5% of 33,000 is 495. 495 seems a low number for just accidents over some 7 years of service.

We are to believe that of the 7757 Mossies built some 2585 were lost to ground loops? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HuninMunin
05-28-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Its actually you who sound as a pretty biased fan.. and in a very odd style from a mod, if I may add.
BTW, I see a Buchon in that youtube video, not a 109.

"The Buchon flies very much the same as the Gustav, although directional stability is even worse. The biggest differences are engine handling and cockpit noise levels. The Buchon is very noisy due to the high exhaust stacks of the Merlin, the low exhausts of the DB605 giving a considerably quieter cockpit.

In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are good. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first. However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely. I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft. But I am never satisfied- I now have an ambition to fly an Emil; the Bf109E."

There`s no arguement that the 109 was not a particularly easy aircraft to take off and land in. But 'extremely' dangererous.. no. If you argue that it was, get some valid statistics of it and other wartime fighters. So far everything I`ve seen shows it had a pretty avarage accident rate in real life.

So you just completely dismiss MArk Hanna's and Reg Hallam's thoughts without question... who is biased again?

If I am not allowed to post my thoughts 'because I am a mod' then I will give it up right now.

I am simply posting quotes from people qualified to answer and drawing my conclusions from them. How is that biased? I am not simply making these things up, or wishful thinking. THAT would be biased.

I am going on the best evidence that we have, I am not twisting it or spinning it in any way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiYs_zqnOoQ&NR=1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You use cases of technical failure ( recent 109 accidents ) to proof your believe about design flaw.
The argumentation is senseless.

And sorry if I tend to not believe numbers like 1/3 of all losses beeing landing or TO accidents.
It's not just highly improbable - it's simply impossible.
Sorties flown with the 109 reach the middle to high 6 digit area - as does the number of successfull landings and TOs.
In part under very rough conditions.

Sorry, but refering to technical problems with a 60 year old warbird whilst trying to make a point concerning a design wich was build in the tenthousands doesn't cut the slack.
Same goes for the opinions of single pilots.

HuninMunin
05-28-2008, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wayno7777:
Right.
It is written that over 11,000 of the 33,000+ built were damaged or destroyed during landing and take-off incidents....

Nope. Butch2k has posted some interesting data in this regards from his fairly complete Bf 109 incident database... it has been posted zillion times here, with not much effect appearantly... IIRC something like 1,5% was lost or damage in take off, landings, a fairly normal value.

1/3 of the losses may refer to the percentage of losses sustained due to non-enemy related reasons, but then again its a fairly avarage value,

Interestingly enough, I have seen some database on the mossie, and something like 1/3 of the losses were to ground loops and similiar. I would never believed that ground loops were such an issue with larger, twin engine planes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was Butch referring to fatal accidents? 1.5% of 33,000 is 495. 495 seems a low number for just accidents over some 7 years of service.

We are to believe that of the 7757 Mossies built some 2585 were lost to ground loops? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said 1/3 of the losses are said to have been ground looping accidents. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-28-2008, 03:34 PM
Hi all,

The 109 had a higher wing loading than the Spitfire. Landings for the 109 were faster than for the Spitfire.

The Spitfire and the 109 had very similar undercarriage designs.

This may account for the higher loss/damage rates for the 109 when landing compared to the Spitfire.

The Mosquito had a very low loss rate in combat. Because of this, those that were destroyed/damaged in landing accidents become a very high percentage of losses.

I find that statistics can be very confusing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

DKoor
05-28-2008, 03:43 PM
You guys mostly fight over things that aren't facts.
At least that's the way I see it.
Can be interesting I know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Kettenhunde
05-29-2008, 04:37 AM
You guys mostly fight over things that aren't facts.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
05-29-2008, 05:06 AM
I always find threads like these very amusing. So many veteran armchair-generals on a single forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tully__
05-29-2008, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing....
This is in part due to the "toe-out" characteristics of the landing gear which I mentioned on page 1 or 2 of this thread. In crosswind conditions (which were generally avoided in WW2 as many airfields were grass and the pilots simply aligned their take-off/landing with the windsock) this characteristic can make a 109 takeoff or landing extremely tense.
For properly trained pilots, this is not much of an issue. The reputation was in part gained by pilots rushed to combat with not much time on type then expected to take-off and land on rough fields and possibly inclement weather without many take-offs and landings in type even in good conditions.

For heavens sake, someone post or link to some actual figures for the type... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BTW Kettenhunde, your sig needs attention, it's outside the rules. See this post (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6921088204/m/4231052146) for sig rules that apply accross all Ubi forums.

Kettenhunde
05-29-2008, 06:24 AM
BTW Kettenhunde, your sig needs attention

Bearcat edited it himself to be in compliance. I haven't touched it myself. What needs to be changed?

The directional control of the Bf-109 is due to the CG location being aft of the gear axis. This design choice makes the aircraft more vulnerable to ground looping. It does allow for higher braking forces on landing for shorter landing distances and reduction of rollover incidents.

The toeing of the gear actually adds stability as it resist's turning.

If the CG is forward of the gear axis this makes the design easier in directional control but higher incidence of nose over, rollover, and prop strikes.


The reputation was in part gained by pilots rushed to combat with not much time on type then expected to take-off and land on rough fields and possibly inclement weather without many take-offs and landings in type even in good conditions.


Exactly. The safest plane in the world is deadly to the inexperienced.

All the best,

Crumpp

Tully__
05-29-2008, 06:32 AM
The toeing of the gear actually adds stability as it resist's turning.
Toe-in adds to stability. Toe-out makes it unstable. They were toed out as the angle of the hinge at the top of the leg (swept forward in the retracted position) didn't allowed any other option without making the leg swivel during gear extension (like a P-40 does). Due to the thin wings, there wasn't room for that sort of complexity and Willie left it as is.

As for the sig, some time ago the forum admins set the limits as follows:

Avatar: 64x64 pixels (before the automatic resize performed by the forum) and max 15KB.

Main sig:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Image(s) Maximum 500 pixels horizontal x 150 pixels vertical x 60KB files size for all images combined
<LI>Maximum of four lines of text with no more than 80 characters in each line regardless of whether there're images in your sig or not. Blank lines count. [/list]

BOA_Allmenroder
05-29-2008, 07:21 AM
What's funny, to the casual reader of this thread, is fact that certain planes developed certain reputations: whether that development is fair or not is another story.

Aviation is full of aircraft that were difficult to handle: this is no way means they weren't first rate weapons, rather it's an understanding that they were deadly to enemies and 'friendlies' as well.

The vast majority of time pilots of these aircraft spent were in the flight enviroment of basic airmanship: taxiing, taking off, cruise flight, landing.

Therefore, it's not surprising that certain aircraft were found to be more difficult than others: they didn't call them "the Ensign Eliminator' for nothing; nor did the phrase 'one a day in Tampa Bay' regarding the B26 just happen; nor did the 109s reputation for being a 'hot' plane to land and takeoff, nor did the 190s reputation for being a 'sinker' on landing (ie if you got behind the power curve you were in trouble) for nothing.

The Spit was known as a forgiving airplane to fly: all those who flew her have said so.

It's clear many of these aircraft: 109, 190, F4U, Spit, P51/47 were very good weapons. And, they were the top technology their respective countries could produce at the time.

However, some of them were more difficult (relatively) to handle doing basic airmanship tasks than others.

To argue this was not so, to discount the experience of those who flew them, to rely soley on the 'engineering data' is fatally flawed IMO and is evidence of lack of basic experience.

Just as certain auto types are more difficult to handle than others, have their own quirks, and develop reputations, so it is with aircraft.

Most pilots who flew a particular aircraft thought it was the best (with some exceptions like the US SB2C and I'm sure other nationalities as well): however, these were all high performance aircraft which were equally adept at killing their own as killing the enemy.

M_Gunz
05-29-2008, 08:09 AM
If you make a fighter too stable it's not going to be so quick into maneuvers.

Kettenhunde
05-29-2008, 10:31 AM
Toe-in adds to stability. Toe-out makes it unstable.

That is just not true although I can see how someone might make that mistake. The geometry just depends on the Landing gear design for the specific aircraft and can be altered quite easily during the design phase.

What you are saying implies Mtt was so incompetent that they could not perform some simple geometric calculations. Facts are all of these designers where much more competent than anyone on these boards and that includes me. That's North American, Supermarine, Focke Wulf, or Nakajima. These firms designed and built their countries respective F22 raptors of the day. They represent the best and brightest in the aerospace industry of their time.

The instability you refer too is a function of the CG location and is a design trade off for increased braking power. That is not a bad design choice for an aircraft that steers by differential braking with a castering tail wheel and is designed to work from short unimproved fields.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0200.shtml

I will fix the signature. Understand the reason I post is free advertisement for our Museum and restoration shop.


discount the experience of those who flew them

I agree, just some practical experience flying airplanes would eliminate many of these discussions. Getting a taildragger certification is not that difficult and they are fun as well as challenging to land.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-02-2008, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
That is just not true although I can see how someone might make that mistake. The geometry just depends on the Landing gear design for the specific aircraft and can be altered quite easily during the design phase.

What you are saying implies Mtt was so incompetent that they could not perform some simple geometric calculations. Facts are all of these designers where much more competent than anyone on these boards and that includes me. That's North American, Supermarine, Focke Wulf, or Nakajima. These firms designed and built their countries respective F22 raptors of the day. They represent the best and brightest in the aerospace industry of their time.

The instability you refer too is a function of the CG location and is a design trade off for increased braking power. That is not a bad design choice for an aircraft that steers by differential braking with a castering tail wheel and is designed to work from short unimproved fields.

What are you babbling about? No one is saying Mtt was incompetent.

Try driving a car with toe out. It is all over the road.

From Tank's bio by W. Wagner pg 88

Even as late as Sept 1944 the LW was afforded the luxury losing 30 to 40 109s per month due to ground loop crashes according to Oberst von Lossberg

Xiolablu3
06-02-2008, 11:03 AM
I can only think that having the splayed feet is not good for stability, otherwise every other WW2 aircraft would also use that method in order to get more width on the undercarriage.

alert_1
06-02-2008, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Is that something like difference between offensive and defensive hand grenade or...?

Of course there are differences between offensive and defensive hadn granade. You probably never served in military...

JZG_Thiem
06-02-2008, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

What are you babbling about? No one is saying Mtt was incompetent.

Try driving a car with toe out. It is all over the road.

...

So the guys who are doing races in wheelchairs with toe-out wheels are all over the track?

stathem
06-02-2008, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

What are you babbling about? No one is saying Mtt was incompetent.

Try driving a car with toe out. It is all over the road.

...

So the guys who are doing races in wheelchairs with toe-out wheels are all over the track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do they have to turn corners?

This is pretty well known in Motorsport. When we set Rally cars up we do it with a touch of toe-out (and Neg camber) - because you want the car to be twitchy and consequently turn into corners better - in Rallying corners are everything.

However, if we consider a Drag car - do we have no drag racing fans here? - a car that most definately does not turn corners - the opposite applies. Now I don't know much about Drag cars, but check this from this site (http://www.aircooled.net/gnrlsite/resource/articles/dragsetup.htm)



Front Toe
For a drag car, you want a TOUCH of toe-in up front; this reduces "scrubbing" (sideways movement of treads against the road). Excessive "scrub" can hurt your MPH going thru the traps. Toe out is twitchy and simply dangerous! 1/16-1/8" Toe-In is a good number to shoot for. When you check and set toe, do it on the ground (not in the air), since toe changes depending on the set (ride height) of the front wheels.

From experience, a car with toe-in wants to go in a straight line. A cat with toe-out wants to turn. NFT.

Besides, Tully originally gave a good reason why Mtt had to compromise on this issue. All engineering is compromise; it doesn't make the engineer incompetent.

JZG_Thiem
06-02-2008, 01:38 PM
Those guys use the same wheelchairs when running on marathons, along long straigh troads.
If it was that instable, they would use different wheelchairs?!

Also, the steering axle is the front axle on a car (with the toed wheels). A taildragging plane is basically a trike with the rear axe being the steering axle. Steering being applied with rudder via the tail-wheel.
Wouldnt that make a decisive difference on the dynamics of rolling?

stathem
06-02-2008, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
Those guys use the same wheelchairs when running on marathons, along long straigh troads.
If it was that instable, they would use different wheelchairs?!

Also, the steering axle is the front axle on a car (with the toed wheels). A taildragging plane is basically a trike with the rear axe being the steering axle. Steering being applied with rudder via the tail-wheel.
Wouldnt that make a decisive difference on the dynamics of rolling?

Can you show us a pic? I think you might be confusing it with camber.

DKoor
06-02-2008, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Originally posted by DKoor:
Is that something like difference between offensive and defensive hand grenade or...?

Of course there are differences between offensive and defensive hadn granade. You probably never served in military... Yeah... I just mixed it up... pardon my raging Alzheimer.

One heals, the other one kills.

How could I forgot?

luftluuver
06-02-2008, 02:54 PM
I think he is stathem.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/983/50385775.JPG

Kettenhunde
06-03-2008, 01:57 AM
From experience, a car with toe-in wants to go in a straight line. A cat with toe-out wants to turn. NFT.


Since we are not talking about cars, your experience does not apply.


TOE IN is a NO-NO for tail draggers.
Just the reverse of cars.

Read the archives.
This has been beaten to death.
Many times.


Barnyard BOb -


http://www.mombu.com/aviation/aviators/t-taildragger-to...t-again-1400001.html (http://www.mombu.com/aviation/aviators/t-taildragger-toe-in-vs-toe-out-again-1400001.html)

The most important contribution to gear stability is the location of the CG. On an unimproved grass strip, scrubbing is good, btw.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 04:24 AM
Doesnt the FW190 have quite extreme toe-in?

If I am understanding what 'toe-in' means? (Wheels at an angle)

stathem
06-03-2008, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From experience, a car with toe-in wants to go in a straight line. A cat with toe-out wants to turn. NFT.


Since we are not talking about cars, your experience does not apply. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until the plane leaves the ground it is just a funny shaped car.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">TOE IN is a NO-NO for tail draggers.
Just the reverse of cars.

Read the archives.
This has been beaten to death.
Many times.


Barnyard BOb -


http://www.mombu.com/aviation/aviators/t-taildragger-to...t-again-1400001.html (http://www.mombu.com/aviation/aviators/t-taildragger-toe-in-vs-toe-out-again-1400001.html)

The most important contribution to gear stability is the location of the CG. On an unimproved grass strip, scrubbing is good, btw.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For braking force...scrubbing off speed...yes.

It seems from your link there isn't a consensus amomgst the aviation community either. So the possibilty exists that you are wrong.

luftluuver
06-03-2008, 05:04 AM
Read this Xio
http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racetech/theory/align.html

Toe in is being pigeon toed.

stathem
06-03-2008, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Doesnt the FW190 have quite extreme toe-in?

If I am understanding what 'toe-in' means? (Wheels at an angle)

Not sure there Xiola. The FW certainly had strong positive camber. Look at the pic of the wheelchair above. That exibits large negative camber on the rear wheels.

To get an idea of Toe, look at your feet. If your put the toes together, that is toe-in. If you splay the feet apart(heels together, toes out), that is toe-out.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2008, 06:10 AM
It seems from your link there isn't a consensus amomgst the aviation community either.

Certainly there isn't consensus. All planes are different and have a gear set up that is uniquely designed for that aircraft. You don't have to be either an engineer or a mechanic to own an aircraft.

Many owners confuse the fact that what is right for their aircraft may not be right for all.

Just like those that claim that what is right for a car is right for an airplane.

I have said from the beginning:


The geometry just depends on the Landing gear design for the specific aircraft and can be altered quite easily during the design phase.


Mtt selected Toe Out for a valid design goal.

I am not making an absolute statement such as you, either. Toe in or Toe out is not bad in and of itself if the gear design calls for it.

It is bad only when it is present and the gear design does not call for it. Then the gear is out adjustment.

Secondly, you greatly overestimate the forces and power the wheel alignment exhibits on a tail dragger. It simply is not enough to overcome the moments of the CG.

All the Best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-03-2008, 06:18 AM
Wasn't the design of the u/c of the 109 so that the wheels would fit cleanly in the wing without bulges to cover the wheels when retracted?

tragentsmith
06-03-2008, 06:26 AM
Hello guys,

don't want to be flammed but here are my 2 cents. I have a DVD at home I bought 2 years ago called "Messerschmitt". It was a 1.30 hour documentary about 109, 110 and 262. Even if it's was not complete at all, leaving a lot of details in the shadow, the guy in that documentary said that actually around 5% of the 109s were lost during landing accidents. That doesn't mean that they exploded and killed the pilot, though.

I don't remember all the references now, but it was quite a well documentary.

luftluuver
06-03-2008, 06:30 AM
From Tank's bio by W. Wagner pg 88

"Even as late as Sept 1944 the LW was afforded the luxury losing 30 to 40 109s per month due to ground loop crashes according to Oberst von Lossberg."

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Read this Xio
http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racetech/theory/align.html

Toe in is being pigeon toed.

Thanks luft and STathem, I WAS thinking of Positive Camber and not 'toe-in'

The FW190 has the 'Positive Camber' and not Toe-in.

luftluuver
06-03-2008, 07:34 AM
Does the Morgan 3 wheeler have any toe-in/out?

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 11:26 AM
Check out the positive camber on the Fw190 prototype at 5m:25s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMKHXQ22yAc&feature=related

And the Dora at 8m:10s on this part :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5v11KkuPY&feature=related

Whitecoat
06-03-2008, 11:29 AM
I think when it came to accidents with the Me 109's it was mostly due to the width between the undercarriage, because it was so short the aircraft would tip over on one side on rough airfields, there were also problems with the structure of the undercarriage, with the legs snapping again due to landing and taking off from rough airstrips and inexperienced pilots bringing them in too hard.

As for the aerial combat between the two from what I can gather from various sources, mostly books from some of the leading pilots of the time such as Adolf Galland and Douglas bader, is that the Spitfire because it had large eliptical wings could turn quicker than the Me 109, the larger area caused more drag, this also meant that the Me 109 was better in a dive, armament during the Battle of Britain would have gone the way of the 109 with its 20mm cannon and four 7.62MG's, however later marks of Spitfire had 20mm cannon too.

The Spitfire on the ground was a more stable aircraft and was easier for inexperianced pilots to master, vital during the Battle of Britain. The only setback on the ground was that the nose of the aircraft stuck up into the air and the pilot would have to zig-zag to get to the take off point and the beginning of the runway, this led to many accidents.

No doubt this has already been said in this thread but i'm afraid I did not read everyones post, so sorry if i'm wasting your time repeating them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CJ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Manu-6S
06-03-2008, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
From Tank's bio by W. Wagner pg 88

"Even as late as Sept 1944 the LW was afforded the luxury losing 30 to 40 109s per month due to ground loop crashes according to Oberst von Lossberg."

Can it be because airbases were bombed and usually weren't in good state.?

Can it be because in the 9/44 there were many rookies in those planes taxing on ugly airstrip

I remember a story about one german pilot who made a interception on the eastern front flying a 190 with a 109 as wingman since his former wingman (190) dameged his plane entering in a hole (bomb) while taxing for the airstrip.

joeap
06-03-2008, 12:04 PM
Good point Manu, REMEMBER KIDS REAL BOMB CRATERS LAST LONGER THAN 3 MINUTES AND IT IS NOT HEALTHY TO BE NEAR THEM WHEN THEY ARE CREATED.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 12:32 PM
I read today that the Me109 suffered a worse percentage of landing accidents than the Me163, not sure how true that is.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2008, 01:03 PM
Wasn't the design of the u/c of the 109 so that the wheels would fit cleanly in the wing without bulges to cover the wheels when retracted?


IIRC Mtt wanted a thinner airfoil at the root as well as the ability to repair/replace the wings without jacks. All of this is in addition to the main function of rolling the aircraft safely on the ground.

Let's think about this for a moment.

Facts:

1. Mtt was an aeronautical engineering firm and understood the design as well as function of landing gear.

2. Toe out, while unique to the gear design, is used to add stability to conventional gear for unimproved strips.


3. The CG location determines the stability of a given landing gear design. The adjustment of Toe in or out mainly affects how fast the responses to control input as the moments created are never great enough to overcome the CG.

Kind of makes the whole "discovery" of the toe out being the cause of instability by some video game players 60 years later rather suspect. That's just my opinion though.


I read today that the Me109 suffered a worse percentage of landing accidents than the Me163, not sure how true that is

Does anyone have any solid facts about the incidents of landing accidents in the Bf-109 to contribute to the thread?

If not I will let you guys hash this one out.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 01:57 PM
The book I read that info in is 'The Complete Guide to Fighters and Bombers of the World' by Francis Crosby.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Fighters-Bombers-World/dp/0681460105

Kettenhunde
06-03-2008, 04:10 PM
The book I read that info in is 'The Complete Guide to Fighters and Bombers of the World' by Francis Crosby.

I didn't think you made it up out of the blue.

Does anybody have any solid facts on Bf-109 landing accidents rates in Luftwaffe service?

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
06-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I read today that the Me109 suffered a worse percentage of landing accidents than the Me163, not sure how true that is. W0W!

In a Me-163 a landing was probably most dangerous part of the flight (perhaps even more than encountering E/A).
At least from what I was able to decipher from "German Jet Aces of WW2" by Osprey.

Me-163 was probably in the top 5 most dangerous things to land in WW2 from what I read http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

They said something like that it can be quite crappy experience landing that fighter surrounded by rocket fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif . They must have undertaken extra special care during landing not to end up roasted.
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/osp_img/titlecovers/P6345AL.JPG

Nice book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif , although the Me-163 and He-162 part isn't long... most of the book is about Me-262 and its pilots, I think understandable since that type was most common.

Kurfurst__
06-03-2008, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Does anyone have any solid facts about the incidents of landing accidents in the Bf-109 to contribute to the thread?

If not I will let you guys hash this one out.

All the best,

Crumpp


Originally posted by butch2k
Posted 05-08-23, 12:12

FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a landing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.

That works out as 3,8% or so of the incidents related to TO/L.

I believe the ground looping tendency has little to do with the geometry of the undercarriage - I am not exactly sure what toe-in/out means - but in any case the from early 1943 the main wheel geometry was changed and the wheels themselves were arranged vertically, instead of being spread out. This resulted in those kidney-shaped bulges on the top of the wing familiar from late G-2/G-4 and all G-6s.

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 12:54 AM
Who counts the planes wrecked but someone name Oberst von Lossberg?

Loss-berg?

If I had to invent a name.............

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
W0W!

In a Me-163 a landing was probably most dangerous part of the flight (perhaps even more than encountering E/A).
At least from what I was able to decipher from "German Jet Aces of WW2" by Osprey.

Me-163 was probably in the top 5 most dangerous things to land in WW2 from what I read http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

They said something like that it can be quite crappy experience landing that fighter surrounded by rocket fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif . They must have undertaken extra special care during landing not to end up roasted.
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/

One was more likely to receive a back injury than being eaten by T-Stoff when landing in the 163.

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I believe the ground looping tendency has little to do with the geometry of the undercarriage - I am not exactly sure what toe-in/out means - but in any case the from early 1943 the main wheel geometry was changed and the wheels themselves were arranged vertically, instead of being spread out. This resulted in those kidney-shaped bulges on the top of the wing familiar from late G-2/G-4 and all G-6s.
Better find out what toe-in/out as well as camber is then.

Oh yes, enlarging the tyres had nothing to do with the wing bulges. 650mm x 150mm to 660mm x 160mm

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Who counts the planes wrecked but someone name Oberst von Lossberg?

Loss-berg?

If I had to invent a name.............
Before making such dumb remarks you should know that von Lossberg, or von Loßberg, is a respected name in the German military.

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 05:16 AM
Better find out what toe-in/out as well as camber is then.


I guess you either did not read it or did not understand it. None of this matters for the airplanes landing gear stability. It affects the pilots comfort by manipulating the amount of vibration, control response, and noise. It cannot cause ground looping or loss of control.

It cannot generate enough power to overcome the affect of the CG location.

CG location is what determines our landing gears stability.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8700/landinggeardesignconsiduh4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8700/landinggeardesignconsiduh4.f1e970dc2e.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=135&i=landinggeardesignconsiduh4.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
06-04-2008, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Oh yes, enlarging the tyres had nothing to do with the wing bulges. 650mm x 150mm to 660mm x 160mm

Yup, nothing.

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Better find out what toe-in/out as well as camber is then.

I guess you either did not read it or did not understand it. None of this matters for the airplanes landing gear stability. It affects the pilots comfort by manipulating the amount of vibration, control response, and noise. It cannot cause ground looping or loss of control.

It cannot generate enough power to overcome the affect of the CG location.

CG location is what determines our landing gears stability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you should take a reading comprehension course.

At times Crumpp you seem quite lucid and at other times, well...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So tell me what will happen to that tail dragger that has reached a speed where the tailwheel is off the ground but a speed has not been reached that allows for rudder control? What does the a/c do when one of the mainwheels looses contact with the ground from hitting a bump?

Yes be sure one needs, for a transport a/c especially, the CG and l/g position.

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Oh yes, enlarging the tyres had nothing to do with the wing bulges. 650mm x 150mm to 660mm x 160mm

Yup, nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not according to Prien and Rodeike.

"<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Both changes</span> made necessary the addition of shallow roughly teardrop shaped fairings on the upper wing surface above the wheel wells, necessary to accommodate the upper part of the mainwheels which now projected further from the u/c leg when retracted."

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 06:13 AM
So tell me what will happen to that tail dragger that has reached a speed where the tailwheel is off the ground but a speed has not been reached that allows for rudder control?

You have a serious design flaw in your aircraft that would have never made it past the drawing board?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I think we are dealing with your misconceptions more so than how aircraft really work.


Yes be sure one needs, for a transport a/c especially, the CG and l/g position.


What? First of all the AAIA paper I posted speaks only of generic design considerations. Secondly, all aircraft work off the same principles. The addition of transport aircraft is a construction of your own fantasy.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 06:33 AM
What does the last sentence in the abstract say Crumpp?

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 06:45 AM
What does the last sentence in the abstract say Crumpp?

You think that because they are using a fictional large transport aircraft as an example means the concepts only apply to large transport aircraft?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4592/landinggearcguz6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4592/landinggearcguz6.4154a96496.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=152&i=landinggearcguz6.jpg)

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/M96SC02.pdf (http://www.aoe.vt.edu/%7Emason/Mason_f/M96SC02.pdf)


The location of the CG is crucial for such purposes as aircraft stability, control surface design, and landing gear design.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0036.shtml

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0200.shtml

All the Best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
06-04-2008, 09:12 AM
Don`t bother..

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 09:35 AM
What is attached to the end of the l/g Crumpp?

Hint: round rubber thingies.

Xiolablu3
06-04-2008, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Who counts the planes wrecked but someone name Oberst von Lossberg?

Loss-berg?

If I had to invent a name.............
Before making such dumb remarks you should know that von Lossberg, or von Loßberg, is a respected name in the German military. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a joke....

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 09:42 AM
What is attached to the end of the l/g Crumpp?


I will play your silly game. It is you ask an irrelevant question and I will ask one back?

Let me know if I have the rules down!

Here are my questions:

"What color makes a race car go faster?"

"What air conditioning vent setting is the airplane most manuverable on?"

The answer to both questions makes as much difference to performance as the tires as long as they are approved for the design.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was a joke....
Where was the http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif or any other smilie to indicate so Xio?

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
So tell me what will happen to that tail dragger that has reached a speed where the tailwheel is off the ground but a speed has not been reached that allows for rudder control?

Given that pilots have used propwash over tail to control planes on the ground since at least
WWI, how is the rudder not an effective control once lifted? If that were true then none of
those planes would ever have gotten off the ground. I don't recall launch rails being needed
past perhaps 1904.

OTOH I have herd on video a WWII veteran talking about what happens when one wheel of a 109
would slip while the other caught and the plane would ground loop.

On the same video (title, Spitfire) you have a Brit pilot who did fly 109's saying that when
the slats deployed asymmetrically there was no problem at all and it actually helped.
IIRC, Steve Hinton was in that production or at least I think he was the guy that got into
both a Spitfire and a 109 cockpit to show the layout of controls and instruments and the
tightness of the fit. He gave each one pluses and minuses.

I need to dig that file up and see about making a clip of the relevant parts.
Does Youtube host files or is it all done with links? I have limited web space.
But hey it would be a hoot to put up one vid that will make every fan of either plane both
happy and P.O.'d at the same time!

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 09:56 AM
Still out to lunch aren't you Crumpp.

With you expert expertise it should not be too hard for you to know what happens when only one wheel is touching the ground and it is angled outwards.

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
OTOH I have herd on video a WWII veteran talking about what happens when one wheel of a 109
would slip while the other caught and the plane would ground loop.
Agh, the light has been turned on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Who counts the planes wrecked but someone name Oberst von Lossberg?

Loss-berg?

If I had to invent a name.............
Before making such dumb remarks you should know that von Lossberg, or von Loßberg, is a respected name in the German military. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a joke.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but you have to be non-fixated to get it or not see it as an excuse to get shirty.
Deary me, I forgot those required smilies! How WILL I live that down!

My apologies to the family von Loßberg if any feel badly, I was not making any attack on them.

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 10:15 AM
Oh geez, ground loops happened then and they still happen today.

Dig out the statistics, or is this another episode of making more than actually was?

Was it Nungesser and Fonck who had the whip it out for length and neatness contest in the bar
back in WWI?

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 10:33 AM
OTOH I have herd on video a WWII veteran talking about what happens when one wheel of a 109
would slip while the other caught and the plane would ground loop.


That is exactly what it feels like to the pilot in a ground loop.

However it has as much to do with camber, toe, and tire selection as it does the color of the paint or the pilot's hair style. That is as long as these things are within the geometric ranges determined by the designer when he built the gear.

The resistance to ground looping has everything to with the location of the CG. The farther back our CG the less resistant the aircraft is to ground looping but more braking force the pilot can apply.

A little toe out helps when landing on grass and the camber prevents vibration and unsettling noise. It also affects how fast and responsive the steering is on the aircraft.

Luftluver,

You have resorted to attacking me instead of using facts to attack the idea. That is the hallmark of a failed argument being pursued by someone who has run out of intelligent options.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 10:40 AM
This attitude is also an advantage on propeller-driven planes since it provides a large clearance between the propeller tips and the ground. Furthermore, taildragger planes are generally easier for ground personnel to maneuver around in confined spaces like a hangar.

However, the greatest liability of this landing gear layout is its handling characteristics. This design is inherently unstable because the plane's center of gravity is located behind the two main gear. If the plane is landing and one wheel touches down first, the plane has a tendency to veer off in the direction of that wheel. This behavior can cause the aircraft to turn in an increasingly tighter "ground loop" that may eventually result in scraping a wingtip on the ground, collapsing the gear, or veering off the runway. Landing a taildragger can be difficult since the pilot must line up his approach very carefully while making constant rudder adjustments to keep the plane on a straight path until it comes to a stop. Many taildragger designs alleviate these handling problems by fitting a tailwheel that can be locked instead of swiveling on a castor. Locking the tailwheel helps keep the plane rolling in a straight line during landing.



http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0200.shtml

Putting poorly trained pilots in any tail dragger is a recipe for disaster.

All the Best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 11:31 AM
No Crumpp, it is about the one dimensional intelligence being shown. But, I see you are slowly coming around.


It has everything to with the location of the CG. The farther back our CG the less resistant the aircraft is to ground looping but more braking force the pilot can apply.
With the rear CG bias of the 109, then the 109 should almost be immune to ground loops. It wasn't, being notorious for ground looping.

Iirc in Helmut Lipfert's bio he mentions the ground looping problems in the 109. If the a/c got up on only one main wheel, and the pilot was not quick enough on the controls the a/c to catch the turn caused by the toe out, the a/c would ground loop.

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 11:38 AM
With the rear CG bias of the 109, then the 109 should almost be immune to ground loops. It wasn't, being notorious for ground looping.


You are confused. The more rearward the CG more vulnerable to ground looping but the more braking pressure that can be applied.

Remember the basic formula for CG is:

Weight time Arm equals Moment - W * A = M

The longer the arm, the more force the moment exerts.

The rearward CG of the Bf-109 makes it more vulnerable than say the Spitfire whose CG is more forward.

However a forward CG reduces the amount of braking force and makes the aircraft more vulnerable to nose over and propeller strikes.


not quick enough on the controls the a/c to catch the turn caused by the toe out,

Whoever wrote this might believe and think that Toe out is the reason. Factually, it is not correct, however.

The CG is behind the wheels in a tail dragger. This makes all tail draggers vulnerable to ground looping.

We know this from the engineering of landing gear design.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 11:57 AM
You did catch that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Good.

Tell me Crumpp, if you are out on your bike and you go over a jump and you land on the front wheel and it is turned, what is the usual result?

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 12:01 PM
I think your level of understanding is pretty obvious, Luftluver.

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think your level of understanding is pretty obvious, Luftluver.
Is that an personal attack? Now what were your words to me?

Is that your way of saying that the bike will go to the side the wheel is turned to?

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 12:31 PM
Is that an personal attack?


No it is just a fact. Your points are not cohesive and do make any sense. They are haphazard and designed for sensationalism rather than a constructed argument.

You are just trolling and attempting to cover up a lack of understanding.

You are neither a pilot nor are you formally trained in the science of flight. What makes you think there is any shame in not knowing some these details?

It simply is not a issue that you did not know about the factors involved in landing gear design. Why in the world would you know?

luftluuver
06-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Nice double standard Crumpp. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Believe what you want.

Bremspropeller
06-04-2008, 12:54 PM
Tell me Crumpp, if you are out on your bike and you go over a jump and you land on the front wheel and it is turned, what is the usual result?


Epic Fail!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 02:22 PM
Is that your way of saying that the bike will go to the side the wheel is turned to?


Sure! Our thrust line forward of the CG combined with moments about the CG from the yaw-wise dampening of the horizontal stabilizer and side force fuselage effects will restore the....

Oh wait, you are talking about a bicycle.

When are you going to discuss airplanes?

You start to discuss airplanes here:


With the rear CG bias of the 109, then the 109 should almost be immune to ground loops.

And with the exception of having the concepts reversed, do a good job.

All the best,

Crumpp

DIRTY-MAC
06-04-2008, 02:58 PM
Luftluuver its over, Your just making a fool out of yourself.
Crumpp has actually something good to say, you dont.