# Bf 109 = hard to fly?



## Jenisch (Mar 24, 2014)

Hello,

Popularily, it's common to heard that the Bf 109 was a hard airplane to fly, specially in take offs and landings. However, given that there are so many myths about WWII in general, I'm wondering how the 109 was really evaluated under critical eyes at the time, both by the Luftwaffe and the Allies. 

Someone has information about this to share?


----------



## Juha (Mar 24, 2014)

It was. i.g. Mölders after flying them noted that the Hurri and Spit were childishly easy to land. 109 wasn't difficult to fly when it was flying.


----------



## stona (Mar 24, 2014)

It's all relative. The Bf 109 was a little trickier to handle, particularly on landing, than some of its contemporaries. It also had some features, like a lack of rudder trim, which could make it tiring to fly. That doesn't make it 'hard to fly', at least for a properly trained pilot.

An aircraft that is genuinely difficult to fly is not suitable for service life. At a time following rapid expansion and when literally hundreds of pilots were being produced by the various nations' flying schools every month (very different to a modern situation) it would suffer the same fate as the Me 210. Experienced pilots actually quite liked the 210, but it killed those less well equipped to fly it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2014)

Training, training, training....

Once airborne most if not all aircraft are pretty easy to fly unless you start doing aerobatics, upset maneuvers and stalls that would put you within a spin envelope. The I-16 and D.520 were difficult during taxi, takeoff and landing, but like anything else it's a matter of training and staying alert during these periods of operation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 24, 2014)

The Martin B-26 Marauder was notoriously "tricky"

From Wikipedia:
_After entering service with the U.S. Army, the aircraft received the reputation of a "Widowmaker" due to the early models' high rate of accidents during takeoff and landings. The Marauder had to be flown at exact airspeeds, particularly on final runway approach and when one engine was out. The 150 mph (241 km/h) speed on short final runway approach was intimidating to pilots who were used to much slower speeds, and whenever they slowed down below what the manual stated, the aircraft would stall and crash.]
The B-26 became a safer aircraft once crews were re-trained, and after aerodynamics modifications (an increase of wingspan and wing angle-of-incidence to give better takeoff performance, and a larger vertical stabilizer and rudder)._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> The Martin B-26 Marauder was notoriously "tricky"
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> _After entering service with the U.S. Army, the aircraft received the reputation of a "Widowmaker" due to the early models' high rate of accidents during takeoff and landings. The Marauder had to be flown at exact airspeeds, *particularly on final runway approach and when one engine was out*. The 150 mph (241 km/h) speed on short final runway approach was intimidating to pilots who were used to much slower speeds, and whenever they slowed down below what the manual stated, the aircraft would stall and crash.]
> The B-26 became a safer aircraft once crews were re-trained, and after aerodynamics modifications (an increase of wingspan and wing angle-of-incidence to give better takeoff performance, and a larger vertical stabilizer and rudder)._



That could be said for a number of twin engine aircraft


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 24, 2014)

Didn't Gen. Doolittle kind of save the B-26 program by flying around on one engine?

Geo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 24, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That could be said for a number of twin engine aircraft


Or aircraft with undercarriage, in the early days, I dont know if it has been exaggerated but quite a few Poles and Czechs were said to have belly landed hurricanes, being used to fixed wheels in their home land. I cant see how a plane is to blame for a pilot taking it below stall speed while landing. Mind you I suppose for the time 150MPH is fast to be a landing speed. Few people ever travel that fast on wheels.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 24, 2014)

none of the fighters were particularly easy to fly. each had its quirks that had to be respected. i just ran a very quick accounting of 357th ac loses....they lost approximately 190 ac....KIA, POW, bailed out, bellied in and escaped...bellied in friendly territory, intered in sweden or switzerland, etc. of those ~190 lost ... ~ 53 were lost to taxi/landing accidents. so that is about 25% of the write offs. granted some of those were probably shot up during the mission and hard to land...but this is only the planes deemed '"lost". there were many more pranged on landings that they rebuilt so i figure the numbers probably even out. i know of one pliot who put 2 or3 ponies on thier nose before he "got the hang of it" and those werent written off. of the 78 members killed by wars end....14 were killed in training accidents ( an additional 12 not in that number were killed in training in the us ). these pilots had probably 300+ hours including 60+ hours in P40s or P39s ( the early members ).


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2014)

I heard several former WWII Luftwaffe pilots give a talk once about the Bf 109 ... in the 1980's. They said that if you were trained to fly it, it was easy to fly. It was designed for operation from grass, not pavement, and required type specific training.

By way of example, I read an article once where it was said the Bf 109 had a large trim change when you lower the flaps. But an old Luftwaffe pilot said there was NO trim change if they were lowered correctly. There are two trim wheels on the lower left side of the cockpit. One raises and lowers the flaps and the other one changes the incidence of the horizontal stabilizer. If you wind the two wheel together with the same hand, there is NO trim change. So whether or not you felt a large trim change would seem to have a lot to do with technique (type-specific training).

Personally, I have no knowledge of the Bf 109's handling characteristics other than what I have read and heard ... I never flew one. But it stands to reason that one of the most successful fighters in the history of aircraft, while it might have a few quirks, cannot be a "difficult" aircraft to fly or most pilots would not have had such success with it over and above other German fighters.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 24, 2014)

dug through a few interviews i had bookmarked.

gunther rall interview:

Q: A question about 109s, because I understood that you flew western allied types, in that unit so you knew how they handled. So how do you think 109s last types fared against them. What were their strengths or weaknesses?
A: In the 109?

Q:Yes.
A: Ja. I will tell you the weakness, and I think, really, Messershmidt will forgive me. <Laughter from audience>.
The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems starting with the gear. You know it was a high, narrow gear. And we had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it anyway happens. The cockpit, as such, was very narrow, VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? And the visibility in the back was very poor. Later on they made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But they cut off the side through the back. You know? Because we had this steel plate, here. 
Then the starting system, as I mentioned, this was absolutely obsolete, you know? In an area with temperatures minus 30 degrees or more. And then, which I didn't like this feature, the slots, Ja? Why slots? Look at the wing of the Spitfire! Thats what we call elliptical shaped. Its beautiful elope on the wing, the Spitfire. We don't need lift help until takeoff and landing. You know? We can make it with a little bigger wing. So I mean, but, when you fly five and a half years in that plane in all conditions, you feel at home, even (laughing) if you have to leave it for some emergency reasons. <audience laughter>

franz stigler interview:

With new pilots…obviously you have better experience with the aircraft like the F and the G…did the new pilots have problems?

You’d put them in the middle…for the first few flights, you know…so they know what is going on. The…the new pilots they hardly could fly the 109…they had seventy or eighty hours of flying time. They had of heck of a time learning to fly the airplane…take off and land, you know. As I said, every pilot came with a plane. They came form the school and then they went to uh…to the manufacture, or someplace where they had the airplanes, and they would come with them…especially in Afrika. 

an italian pilots first flight in a 109:

virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-MeAndTheGustav.html

109 facts and myths...interesting read

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths


----------



## pbehn (Mar 24, 2014)

I think all late model propeller driven planes were tricky I have read the same from Tyhoon Spitfire and Mustang pilots, especially on take off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2014)

A think a lot of the idea behind it being hard to fly comes from the tales of it being hard to land because of the gear, and that the contols would become hard at high speeds.

One thing remains however, that in a well trained pilot, the Bf 109 was not difficult to fly. Many make it out to be a dog. That it was not. If it were, it would not be the aircraft with the most kills.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Mind you I suppose for the time 150MPH is fast to be a landing speed. Few people ever travel that fast on wheels.


You're not really landing at 150mph, you're over the numbers at that speed. The B-26B/C flight manual gives landing approach speeds slightly above the 1.3x stall speed which you would normally fly an aircraft at when on final. In the B-26 flight manual page 50 gives all the numbers. At 38,000 pounds it shows an indicated stall speed at 112 mph, full flaps and landing down. 112 x 1.3 is 145.6. The manual calls for a final glide of 140 mph.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/b-26b-c-pilot-manual-6905.html

Now compare this to the B-25, you're flying the B-26 about 20 mph faster on final. On one of the B-25 approach charts it shows you over the numbers at 120. I believe the B-25, landing gear down, full flaps stalled at 95 mph.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> The Martin B-26 Marauder was notoriously "tricky"
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> _After entering service with the U.S. Army, the aircraft received the reputation of a "Widowmaker" due to the early models' high rate of accidents during takeoff and landings. The Marauder had to be flown at exact airspeeds, particularly on final runway approach and when one engine was out. The 150 mph (241 km/h) speed on short final runway approach was intimidating to pilots who were used to much slower speeds, and whenever they slowed down below what the manual stated, the aircraft would stall and crash.]
> The B-26 became a safer aircraft once crews were re-trained, and after aerodynamics modifications (an increase of wingspan and wing angle-of-incidence to give better takeoff performance, and a larger vertical stabilizer and rudder)._



The main problem with the B-26 was that it was forcing the AAF into the future. The AAF and the Navy were slow in recognizing that high performance aircraft with higher landing speeds were going to quickly become the norm and they were not prepared for it. They should have left the B-26 design alone and trained their pilots to adapt to it. In only a few years, jet aircraft were going to force the issue. Today, just about every US fighter pilot trainee (some years ago, all USAF pilots) train in aircraft that fly final at 180 mph+. Its not a big deal if you know what you are doing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

davparlr said:


> The main problem with the B-26 was that it was forcing the AAF into the future. The AAF and the Navy were slow in recognizing that high performance aircraft with higher landing speeds were going to quickly become the norm and they were not prepared for it. They should have left the B-26 design alone and trained their pilots to adapt to it. In only a few years, jet aircraft were going to force the issue. Today, just about every US fighter pilot trainee (some years ago, all USAF pilots) train in aircraft that fly final at 180 mph+. Its not a big deal if you know what you are doing.



Couldn't agree more - in addition (here I go on my soap box again) there was no effective multi-engine training that focused on twins early in the war, this killed a lot of pilots and aircrews.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 25, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Couldn't agree more - in addition (here I go on my soap box again) there was no effective multi-engine training that focused on twins early in the war, this killed a lot of pilots and aircrews.


What would happen to a B25 if you landed at a B26 landing speed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

pbehn said:


> What would happen to a B25 if you landed at a B26 landing speed?



The aircraft will "float" while you're trying to flare and land, in other words it will still want to fly - better be landing on a long runway....


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 25, 2014)

davparlr said:


> The main problem with the B-26 was that it was forcing the AAF into the future. The AAF and the Navy were slow in recognizing that high performance aircraft with higher landing speeds were going to quickly become the norm and they were not prepared for it. They should have left the B-26 design alone and trained their pilots to adapt to it. In only a few years, jet aircraft were going to force the issue. Today, just about every US fighter pilot trainee (some years ago, all USAF pilots) train in aircraft that fly final at 180 mph+. Its not a big deal if you know what you are doing.



But which plane USAAF student pilots flown before they started to fly in the B-26?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

Jenisch said:


> But which plane USAAF student pilots flown before they started to fly in the B-26?


Depending what period of the war, a Cessna AT-8/ AT-17 or a Curtiss AT-9. Some pilots never received formal multi (twin) engine training.


----------



## Gixxerman (Mar 25, 2014)

I feel I have to point out the obvious first, I am not a pilot have never flown any WW2 fighters (taking the stick of a DH Chipmunk for all of 5min in air-cadets as a teenager doesn't count, no matter how much I fantasised differently at the time about it lol).

The thing I always find myself thinking about when this question arises is that in it's day the Me (Bf) 109 was like the F15 or F22 of its day.
The only contemporary that was really close (and by all accounts a little better in some regards a little worse in others) was the Spitfire.

Initially the Spitfire was said to be very easy to fly but initially Germany had the luxury of properly training it's pilots so the 109's foibles were not such an issue but over time both of these planes became hugely different from their earlier (sweeter?) handling predecessors.

But I think the F15/22 parallel holds, almost no leading edge front-line military design is easy to fly ( fight, properly) they all require a lot of training are demanding - I stand to be corrected but as I see it Germany's problem was that as the war turned against her she ran out of training personnel (IIRC Stalingrad saw the training schools lose a lot of people during the attempt to resupply the trapped army) ultimately fuel airspace to properly train pilots. 
Not necessarily anything to do with the 109 being difficult - although the number of landing take-off accidents (according to numbers posted here recently) do seem incredibly high....but then again, counter-balancing that is the war record of the plane itself, did any other type shoot down so many aircraft?
I doubt it.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 25, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depending what period of the war, a Cessna AT-8/ AT-17 or a Curtiss AT-9. Some pilots never received formal multi (twin) engine training.



Thanks for the informations, Flyboy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

Gixxerman said:


> But I think the F15/22 parallel holds, almost no leading edge front-line military design is easy to fly ( fight, properly) they all require a lot of training are demanding.



In actuality, today's fighters in many cases are easier to fly and less demanding. Training is a big factor but look at how aircraft were built and flown in WW2. I bet fewer than 10% of the world's current fighter pilots never flew a tail dragger and have little time in "bare bones" aircraft.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 25, 2014)

look at how many fighters and bombers back in ww2 were tail draggers. very few were tricycle gear. today it the opposite if we even have a tail dragger at all! tricycle gear is easier to handle on the ground...which probably is a major contributor to landing and taxi accidents of early planes.....plus these were 19 to ~24 year old guys flying them. a cadet these days probably wont even hit the seat of an F15 or the like until they are in their mid to upper 20s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> look at how many fighters and bombers back in ww2 were tail draggers. very few were tricycle gear. today it the opposite if we even have a tail dragger at all! tricycle gear is easier to handle on the ground...which probably is a major contributor to landing and taxi accidents of early planes.....plus these were 19 to ~24 year old guys flying them. * a cadet* these days probably wont even hit the seat of an F15 or the like until they are in their mid to upper 20s.


 Cadet? Cadets only exist at the USAFA and the only thing they fly is a T-53 (T-51 if they are on the flying team and sometimes a T-41). Try commissioned officer, at least a 1Lt, if not a Capt. and at least a few hundred hours of jet time (T-38 ) under his or her belt.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 25, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The aircraft will "float" while you're trying to flare and land, in other words it will still want to fly - better be landing on a long runway....



I am not a pilot, surely (to my mind surely) if you are on the glide path down to the runway you will touch down, the B26 has tricycle undercarriage after all. not being provocative , I just dont really follow.


----------



## tengu1979 (Mar 25, 2014)

I always was under the impression that BF109 when airborne was pretty easy to fly, and the take off and landing accidents were not much higher than most of the other air forces. Problem is looking at todays sources we cannot tell if the accident was caused by design flaw, pilot error, or mechanical faliure.... (at least in most cases)..... 

I have not heard or read that early in the war there would be loads of tako off/landing accidents when pilots had loads of flight hours Before they even got in the 109. Later on you have completely inexpirienced pilots getting into Very Powerful and Torquey plane. And that for me is disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 25, 2014)

tengu1979 said:


> I always was under the impression that BF109 when airborne was pretty easy to fly, and the take off and landing accidents were not much higher than most of the other air forces. Problem is looking at todays sources we cannot tell if the accident was caused by design flaw, pilot error, or mechanical faliure.... (at least in most cases).....
> 
> I have not heard or read that early in the war there would be loads of tako off/landing accidents when pilots had loads of flight hours Before they even got in the 109. Later on you have completely inexpirienced pilots getting into Very Powerful and Torquey plane. And that for me is disaster waiting to happen.



There is conditions permitting, usually a 5 to 30 meter high surface wind effect (of 'stale' cushioning air) that usually reduces the sink rate above the ground level, this too can increase aircraft float ignoring additional effects of head/side winds - tail winds generally lessen lift at landing in winged air vehicles.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2014)

The war record of the 109 is a bit of a distortion simply due to numbers. There were somewhere between 33,000 and 34,000 109s built compared to a bit over 15,000 P-51s and a bit over 20,000 Spitfires so to _equal_ the 109s "record" the P-51s would have to shot down over twice as many enemy planes _per P-51_ and the Spitfires would have to average over 50% more per plane on average. 

The 109 was a very good plane and did a number of things but this constant "it had to be good because it shot down more than any other" gets a bit tiresome. With the numbers built if it shot down _less_ than another type that would be cause for a lot of head scratching.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 25, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I am not a pilot, surely (to my mind surely) if you are on the glide path down to the runway you will touch down, the B26 has tricycle undercarriage after all. not being provocative , I just dont really follow.



When an aircraft gets close to the ground, it hits ground effect, which is like a cushion that arrests a descent. Add to that the fact hat you need to flare, so that the nosewheel doesn't hit first (or so that you don't hit too hard and bounce back into the air), and even a small increase in airspeed has a large effect on landing distance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 25, 2014)

As previously mentioned, it’s all relative. Compared to most of its contemporaries the Bf 109 was considered to be something of an expert’s plane. I have read quite a few accounts from German pilots who flew captured Spitfires who extolled the British fighter’s flight characteristics compared to the 109 – also it’s landing characteristics, which is interesting as the Spitfire was widely regarded and less than perfect in this regard. I’ve never read of an Allied pilot concluding the opposite. 
Any aircraft is a compromise. The 109, with its fuselage mounted landing gear and small airframe, sacrificed some fly-ability (not performance) for the sake of ease of production, maintenance and transport. The problem was exacerbated with subsequent power increases. So long as the Luftwaffe was able to maintain high pilot training standards it was an acceptable set of trade-offs, but come 1944 onwards this was not the case. As one British veteran responded to his German counterpart who was commenting on the RAF’s ability to keep putting planes in the air during the BoB; “What you have to remember, old boy, is that you were flying 109s – any idiot can fly a Spitfire or Hurricane.”


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 25, 2014)

How they landed the 109? Two point or three point?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

Jenisch said:


> How they landed the 109? Two point or three point?


From what I understand 3 point


----------



## GregP (Mar 25, 2014)

3-point on grass or dirt. Pavement was not desired at all.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 25, 2014)

GregP said:


> 3-point on grass or dirt. Pavement was not desired at all.



Greg you mean they also landed 3 point in pavement, but it was not very pleasent for the pilots?


----------



## pbehn (Mar 25, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> When an aircraft gets close to the ground, it hits ground effect, which is like a cushion that arrests a descent. Add to that the fact hat you need to flare, so that the nosewheel doesn't hit first (or so that you don't hit too hard and bounce back into the air), and even a small increase in airspeed has a large effect on landing distance.



Thanks...just trying to figure out why the B26 got a bad rep. Only similar thing I can think of from my life is getting a tank slapper on a motorcycle, everyone knows you dont sit up or apply the brakes when it happens...but what do guys do when it happens? I guess its hard to train out a natural instinct.


----------



## GregP (Mar 25, 2014)

I mean the aircraft was never designed for pavement. Sometimes you can takeoff or land on grass without brakes but, on pavement, you can't fly a Bf 109 without brakes. It is VERY twitchy on pavement and requires excellent technique to keep thing straight. Can be done, but it's not for a low-time conventional gear pilot with little Bf 109-specific training by an instructor.

There aren't too many of those left around and, if you ever get the chance to fly a 109, decline unless you can get some serious instruction and already have 200+ hours in some 500+ HP taildragger. If you want to fly the aircraft at the Planes of Fame, you have to work on them with your own tools and must satisfy the Chief pilot with your credentials. Primary among those is 200+ hours in a T-6 or similar tailwheel aircraft before they even consider you as a museum pilot. F-16 time counts for nothing unless you want to fly our jets. 15,000+ hours in an airliner also counts for nothing except maybe jets.

200+ hours in a Pitts Special would be a good start. It isn't 500+ HP but IS short-coupled and has enough power to get you in trouble almost anytime. If you have successfully navigated it for a long time, you may be able to convince us to give you a shot. The shot will be in a T-6. When you show mastery of THAT, you might get a shot at a Mustang.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 25, 2014)

One thing about the 109 that I think made it somewhat better to fly was the position of the pilot. I have read that the more prone position in the 109 (unlike Allied aircraft) allowed the pilot to survive 'g' forces better because the body/blood wasn't negatively affected as much as in other aircraft. The coffin canopy was another story........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> When an aircraft gets close to the ground, it hits ground effect, which is like a cushion that arrests a descent. *Add to that the fact hat you need to flare, so that the nosewheel doesn't hit first* (or so that you don't hit too hard and bounce back into the air), and even a small increase in airspeed has a large effect on landing distance.



And if you are not careful, you go "ballooning" down the runway until you finally touch down after you flare. 

I know I did my first landings.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2014)

GregP said:


> 200+ hours in a Pitts Special would be a good start. It isn't 500+ HP but IS short-coupled and has enough power to get you in trouble almost anytime. If you have successfully navigated it for a long time, you may be able to convince us to give you a shot. The shot will be in a T-6. When you show mastery of THAT, you might get a shot at a Mustang.


I've been told if you could fly a Pitts, you could fly almost any tail dragger. I've flown Cubs, 180 hp Super Cubs, Cessna 180s and Citabrias, the later being the easiest, the Super cub the most demanding but the most fun. No desire to fly anything hotter - well maybe if I ever build a CR.32!


----------



## pbehn (Mar 25, 2014)

Njaco said:


> One thing about the 109 that I think made it somewhat better to fly was the position of the pilot. I have read that the more prone position in the 109 (unlike Allied aircraft) allowed the pilot to survive 'g' forces better because the body/blood wasn't negatively affected as much as in other aircraft. The coffin canopy was another story........



It was also to do with the high knees sitting position, the British just experimented with amputating D.Baders legs. Joking of course but I did read that some of his contemporaries felt he had an advantage

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 25, 2014)

> And if you are not careful, you go "ballooning" down the runway until you finally touch down after you flare.
> 
> I know I did my first landings.



In my first landing I tore the undercarriage off. On my second I hit a hanger and exploded. After that I reset the simulator to arcade.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Mar 25, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> In my first landing I tore the undercarriage off. On my second I hit a hanger and exploded. After that I reset the simulator to arcade.



OMG, I wish I had bacon to give!


----------



## stona (Mar 26, 2014)

GregP said:


> I mean the aircraft was never designed for pavement.



Luftwaffe maintenance units developed a tail wheel lock for the Bf 109 Es sent to Norway where the landing strips were concrete or wood, neither of which the 109 was designed for. This did reduce the number of landing accidents somewhat.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 26, 2014)

stona said:


> Luftwaffe maintenance units developed a tail wheel lock for the Bf 109 Es sent to Norway where the landing strips were concrete or wood, neither of which the 109 was designed for. This did reduce the number of landing accidents somewhat.



It had a significative tendency of ground loop when landing in those pavements?


----------



## davparlr (Mar 26, 2014)

pbehn said:


> What would happen to a B25 if you landed at a B26 landing speed?



As an aircraft gets closer to the ground, approximately one wing span distance, it encounters "ground effects" (see Ground effect (aircraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which tends to increase wing efficiency and increase touchdown distance. Being too fast exasperates this condition and the plane does not want to touch down, it "floats". Trying to force a landing by lowering the angle of attack can cause a nose wheel touch down first, which is not a good thing. I once encountered something similar to this when I failed to use "landing flaps" and instead used "approach flaps". Going to landing flaps from approach flaps primarily gives a big increase in drag, which quickly overcomes ground effects. We had been flying for around 10 hrs shuttling between Mediterranean air bases and were very tired. We were executing a high altitude penetration into Pisa, Italy and we were also irritated because we had not been able to contact approach control or tower. This did not actually occur until were on final. While I asked for landing flaps, called when landing is assured, the co-pilot failed to do so. I failed to catch it, along with the other crew members in the cockpit. Insuring the aircraft is in proper landing configuration is the responsibility of all the crew members. I had a navigator, for you young-uns, a pre-GPS, navigational aid, , and an engineer. On flare, which is when you level the aircraft to decrease lift allowing the plane to settle on the runway, the plane floated, and floated, by the time I was well down the runway, I knew I had to get the mains on the ground. The C-141, and other cargo and passenger planes, have powerful brakes with an anti-lock system. If I could get the mains down and deploy the spoilers, which loads the brakes with the weight of the aircraft, I could haul the plane to a stop. In this situation, I was able to slightly lower the nose and the plane settled down and we came to a stop. My heart still skips a beat when when I think of what could have happened had we landed on a short field. I was about 26 years old then and in charge of a multimillion dollar aircraft with a crew of up to 11 members flying around the world in diverse weather and strange runways with strange approach aids (Tehran had a four ADF approach) and diverse environments (Addis Ababa is at 7500 ft pressure altitude and Sonde stromfjord has 1000' mountains all around). If you want a lot of responsibilities at a young age, nobody does it better than the Military. I had a friend who bragged that her husband was given a car to do business in when he was 25! A car! I would take a C-141 any day.

A side note on brakes: Disc brakes on large aircraft are not like the brakes on a car. There are no pads just steel discs. There are multiple discs, maybe eight or more, I don't really remember. Every other disc is mounted to the wheel and the disc in-between those are mounted to the gear. This mass of metal is all pressed together by calipers and they generate massive stopping power. However they also generate huge amount of heat and if you are going too fast with too much weight, this can be very dangerous. If you made a rejected takeoff, you had to go into charts to determine the danger. Sometimes you would have to taxi over a spike strip to deflate the tires to prevent them from blowing up. Also, the gear would heat soak until the hydraulics could catch on fire. Rejecting a heavy aircraft going fast is a serious thing. Luckily I never encountered this.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 26, 2014)

Thanks dav


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2014)

davparlr said:


> A side note on brakes: Disc brakes on large aircraft are not like the brakes on a car. There are no pads just steel discs. There are multiple discs, maybe eight or more, I don't really remember. Every other disc is mounted to the wheel and the disc in-between those are mounted to the gear. This mass of metal is all pressed together by calipers and they generate massive stopping power. However they also generate huge amount of heat and if you are going too fast with too much weight, this can be very dangerous. If you made a rejected takeoff, you had to go into charts to determine the danger. Sometimes you would have to taxi over a spike strip to deflate the tires to prevent them from blowing up. Also, the gear would heat soak until the hydraulics could catch on fire. Rejecting a heavy aircraft going fast is a serious thing. Luckily I never encountered this.



I believe B-25s had expander tube brakes (could be wrong but I do know a lot of US multi engine aircraft used them), more like a drum brake except a rubber tube expanded pucks that contacted an inner drum. I know expander tube brakes can "fade" when hot and can become very "grabby" at low taxi speeds. Here's a great site that has a clip of a B-25 driver describing the B-25's brakes.

MID-ATLANTIC AIR MUSEUM - B-25J 'BRIEFING TIME' WALK-AROUND

Here's what they look like;


----------



## stona (Mar 26, 2014)

Jenisch said:


> It had a significative tendency of ground loop when landing in those pavements?



Yes it did. Again its down to training and experience. Experienced pilots, whilst surprised were capable of dealing with the situation and keeping the aeroplane relatively straight and certainly on the landing strip. Others were not so capable. From the first hand accounts I have read of the initial move to Norway NONE of the pilots, no matter what their experience, had ever landed a Bf 109 on a paved or 'made' strip before.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 26, 2014)

stona said:


> Yes it did. Again its down to training and experience. Experienced pilots, whilst surprised were capable of dealing with the situation and keeping the aeroplane relatively straight and certainly on the landing strip. Others were not so capable. From the first hand accounts I have read of the initial move to Norway NONE of the pilots, no matter what their experience, had ever landed a Bf 109 on a paved or 'made' strip before.
> Cheers
> Steve



Thx for the informations.

I always had the impression that LW airfields in Germany were mostly paved, but it seems that I was wrong, or they started to be so by 1943 onwards.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 26, 2014)

By reading the personal flight accounts from you guys, as well as the accounts provided from Bf 109 pilots, I'm already repentant that I'm doing my private pilot course in the Cessna 152 and not in a taildragger. At least previously I did the private pilot of sailplane course, so in take-offs with the tow plane there was more "action" to keep the glider with wings level and follow the tow plane. lol


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 26, 2014)

Jenisch said:


> By reading the personal flight accounts from you guys, as well as the accounts provided from Bf 109 pilots, I'm already repentant that I'm doing my private pilot course in the Cessna 152 and not in a taildragger. At least previously I did the private pilot of sailplane course, so in take-offs with the tow plane there was more "action" to keep the glider with wings level and follow the tow plane. lol



You'll be all right converting from a 152 to a tailwheel a/c. I think my conversion was about 5 hrs, and given that most tailwheel a/c have higher insurance rates (at least here they do) they are usually more expensive to hire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Mar 26, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe B-25s had expander tube brakes (could be wrong but I do know a lot of US multi engine aircraft used them), more like a drum brake except a rubber tube expanded pucks that contacted an inner drum. I know expander tube brakes can "fade" when hot and can become very "grabby" at low taxi speeds. Here's a great site that has a clip of a B-25 driver describing the B-25's brakes.
> 
> MID-ATLANTIC AIR MUSEUM - B-25J 'BRIEFING TIME' WALK-AROUND
> 
> Here's what they look like;



Thx for the info on the B-25. I should have indicated that I was talking about modern brakes.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 26, 2014)

Dav from your previous post are aircraft brakes metal on metal, I would have thought that would give low breaking power with a risk of siezure ? I would have thought they were like a multi plate clutch a sandwich of metal and brake material?


----------



## davparlr (Mar 26, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Dav from your previous post are aircraft brakes metal on metal, I would have thought that would give low breaking power with a risk of siezure ? I would have thought they were like a multi plate clutch a sandwich of metal and brake material?



You would think. I could be wrong but I think that was what I was told. I did read that some use special plates and some used carbon plates. Anybody have more knowledge?


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 26, 2014)

I'm pretty sure either the stators or the rotors are made from sintered iron, which is the brake pad material, and the other is a hardened steel compound.


----------



## Aozora (Mar 27, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> I'm pretty sure either the stators or the rotors are made from sintered iron, which is the brake pad material, and the other is a hardened steel compound.



Materials could vary; from the P-51D/K Erection and Maintenance Manual, the brakes were alternating discs of bronze -which were keyed to the wheel - and steel, which were keyed to the brake anchor bracket on the base of the undercarriage leg:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 27, 2014)

Coaster brakes on old bicycles work like that also.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 27, 2014)

Thanks guys, my experience of metal on metal brakes (taking disk pads down to the metal) is it suddenly made more noise and didnt stop.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 27, 2014)

There were also cases where the inexperienced pilots failed to engage the tail-wheel lock (found to the left of the cockpit, along the canopy seat/above trim wheel) and/or they bumped it with their arm.

The lever placement wasn't in the best location, seems to me it should have been further forward or near the Undercarriage switch/indicator on the dash panel.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Mar 28, 2014)

Jenisch said:


> Hello,
> 
> Popularily, it's common to heard that the Bf 109 was a hard airplane to fly, specially in take offs and landings. However, given that there are so many myths about WWII in general, I'm wondering how the 109 was really evaluated under critical eyes at the time, both by the Luftwaffe and the Allies.
> 
> Someone has information about this to share?



Well it depends on what you are doing and the particular model. There was considerable change over time as the plane got more powerful and heavier.

*Landing and Take Off*
None of the models were the easiest to land, but lots of the WW2 tail draggers were tricky. Take the Mustang, that was harder to land then a Spit because of its higher landing speed and its poorer vision at landing (yes even the 51D).

The biggest problem with both landing (especially) and take off for all of the 109s was ground looping because of the narrow undercarriage. Poor visibility on landing was another.

But, the 109E was better than the 109G (or K). This was because it had better low speed aileron response at low (ie landing) speed, better than the comparable model Spit in fact. And it had better visibility than the later models.

Plus there was less power hence less torque/etc effects, non of which helped the ground loop (etc) issues. So there was more margin for error in power handling in the eaelier models. The later ones with the bigger more powerful engines were much more twitchy.

Hence the reputation of the 109G as a real killer. While the 109E was merely tricky, that extra weight and power in the 109G series made it a real handful.


*Flying and Combat*

The two main problems were elevator and ailerons. Both of which 'heavied up' at high ASI, to the the point of immovability.
This is not a condition that got better with later models.
In a high speed dive it was impossible to pull out enough to black you out (easily done in say a Spit or a Mustang). The many cases of 109 pilots going in in because they could not pull out is often mentioned.

Note this was not a mach effect, the 109's mach limit was 0.75-0.78. This was just poor elevator design.

The ailerons were woeful, ok'ish at lower speed (though Spits could easily out roll them even with a non clipped wing), they locked up at higher ones. 
As mentioned above in the 109E at very low, landing speed they were good. The 109G was significantly worse.
The small cockpit didn't help because it was hard to get any leverage on the stick.

Other factors. Lack of rudder trim. This was an issue that got worse over time as the power level increased. I supposed you could always tell a 109 pilot ... because one leg was massively muscled. 

The slats, which though they helped (when they worked) in aiding take off and landing (and slow speed stuff). They could (because they were simply just a mechanical mechanism) operate asymmetrically, if on one wing they open and the other it doesn't, causing yaw and other affects. Eric Brown mentioned that he found that turbulence, following another aircraft, could cause them to snap open and shut, obviously throwing it around a bit as lift varied wing to wing.

*Overall*
It was a delicate aircraft. Even in the E the pilots notes warned not to get into a yaw in a dive, because the wings would fall off. Willy made it be as light as possible (much lighter than a Spit, let alone a Mustang). That compromised strength. Though there was not necessarily a 1:1 direct a link between weight and strength, the Spit was lighter than a Mustang C/D but was stronger in G limits for example, but Willy probably went a bit too far and again this could have been fixed for the later models with more powerful engines.

The limit of the design was probably the excellent F. To move to the G really needed a thing like a 'Typhoon to Tempest' (or 190A to 190D) overhaul.
Bigger wing, longer fuselage, etc.
I am always amazed that they didn't do it, quick crash program and it could probably have been done very quickly, heck just a new larger wing alone would have helped massively.

That being said, the 109, right to the end, was always very dangerous in a good pilots hands. It along with the Spit were the kings of the climbers (and they vied with each through the war for first place).

At very high altitudes (it's real home), where the ASI dropped, some of the issues (like ailerons and even the elevators) were not such a problem (since they were not mach related they were pressure related which means ASI related).

Which means if you met a 109G (or a K) at 35,000 feet it was going to be a much tougher plane to match than if you met it at 20,000ft or 10,000ft (at 5,000ft anything could cause it real problems, Mossies dogfighted them at low level and held their own). Well at least until the NO2 ran out.....If the German engine manufacturers had ever managed to build (say) in '43 good high altitude engines then the 109s would have been much nastier 'up there'. Fortunately they really never did.

So, speculative history. A quick, crash upgrade to the 109 in (say) late '42 early '43, plus a decent high altitude engine and the US escorts would have had a much harder time of it.

But, as for why they didn't. Well it was easy to build. Bit like a Volkswagon in a sense, yes that swing axle was disasterous (and often fatal) and front end stability was non existent... but it was simple and cheap to build. They kept trying all those prototypes (you know the German aircraft and engine manufacturers probably made more prototypes during WW2 than the UK, US and USSR all put together), but none actually did as well for high altitude work, despite all its flaws, as the 109.

Which is why always, by any reckoning, the 109 (despite its flaws) is always in the 'big four' of best WW2 aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

The wings would fall off it you yawed into a dive?

Not only not likely, but pure wrong. The Bf 109 was a premier fighter that took a back seat to NOTHING.

It was dangerous to enemies until the day of the surrender and even after in other hands, short range notwithtstanding.

Tell me what could outclimb it on a regular basis.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 28, 2014)

Actually, the 109 at over 30k ft was like balancing on a tight rope (at least according to comments I have read from Luftwaffe pilots).


----------



## OldSkeptic (Mar 28, 2014)

GregP said:


> The wings would fall off it you yawed into a dive?
> 
> Not only not likely, but pure wrong. The Bf 109 was a premier fighter that took a back seat to NOTHING.
> 
> ...



(1) Read the pilots notes and

(2) The Spit and 109 (dual 'king of the climbers') swapped places all the time on climbing, depending on the time and version (and engine specs).


Eg look at, late war, a Spit XIV vs a 109G ...but on the other side a Spit V 9lbs boost vs a 109F equivalent model ... It really went backwards and forwards.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Mar 28, 2014)

Milosh said:


> Actually, the 109 at over 30k ft was like balancing on a tight rope (at least according to comments I have read from Luftwaffe pilots).



Depends on the model. It was tricky, they all were at that height. Even take a late model Mustang and, at 30,000ft do to tight a turn .... and recover (if the wings hadn't fallen off) at 20,000ft.
No fun up there in those days.


----------



## Aozora (Mar 28, 2014)

I often wonder what happened to the undercarriage support structures in the event of a heavy landing?

from the Bf109E-1 E-3 Handbuch:







and the K-4 Handbuch:






The undercarriage pivot support mechanism might have been okay under normal loads but what happened to it in the event of heavy or asymmetric landings?


----------



## eWildcat (Mar 28, 2014)

OldSkeptic said:


> The biggest problem with both landing (especially) and take off for all of the 109s was ground looping because of the narrow undercarriage. Poor visibility on landing was another.



Well, yes and no. The issue was addressed several times here : the undercarriage was narrow, but other contemporary fighters had narrow undercarriage too, most notably the Spitfire. What seemed to make the undercarriage trickier was how the wheels were pinched.

As for yaw in full-speed dives, it's bad and dangerous in every plane, not only the 109s, though I wonder if the matter wasn't actually less serious in the 109, because otherwise I doubt the Germans would have gone on building 109s without any rudder trim, if yaw at high speed had been more dangerous in 109s than in other fighters.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 28, 2014)

Ground visibility could have been no worse than a F4U or a P-47 and the issue of narrow gear isn't so much the placement or spacing of the tires, look at a F4F's track...very close to that of the Bf109. 

It was the camber of the wheels that caused the aircraft to be tricky if the weight was shifted to one or the other of the tires. The positive camber on the uncarriage of the Bf109 was such because of the thickness of the wing.


----------



## kettbo (Mar 28, 2014)

OldSkeptic said:


> snip!
> 
> Which means if you met a 109G (or a K) at 35,000 feet it was going to be a much tougher plane to match than if you met it at 20,000ft or 10,000ft (at 5,000ft anything could cause it real problems, Mossies dogfighted them at low level and held their own). Well at least until the NO2 ran out.....If the German engine manufacturers had ever managed to build (say) in '43 good high altitude engines then the 109s would have been much nastier 'up there'. Fortunately they really never did.
> 
> Snip!



Aside from being vastly outnumbered and declining overall pilot skills,
Would it be fair to say the Bf109G-6/U3 and Bf109G-14 both with MW50 were in their element vs 9th USAF planes? 
This is to say very low, low, and medium altitudes? I always heard Boom and Zoom from above at low and medium low and medium altitudes were best for the Gustav maneuvering

o At military power the P-47 seems to be faster but at WEP the speeds are extremely close.
o At low altitude, the P-47s cannot dive away
o it is my understanding that at lower altitudes, the P-47 had a very generous turn circle
o the Gustavs had much better rate of climb
o P-47 has a better roll rate unless it is encumbered by bombs and or rockets (their main mission)
o "some" Gustavs sneaking in to intercept would seem harder to spot then a Squadron of P-47s on the move or beating up a particular section of earth intent on their proximity to trees, power poles and lines, and of course the earth and AAA fire.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

Sorry OldSkeptic,

The wings of the Bf 109 did NOT fall off. It was and remains a very strong airframe. They did have an early issue with vibration and the tail separating, but that was cured rapidly.

As for COULD the wings break, ANY aircraft can be broken by the idiot holding the stick, even a Pitts Special that can handle ±12 g. There is not a single fighter from WWII that cannot be broken with mishandling, but it was not a problem for normal combat operations. They DID lose some to enemy fighters, takeoff and landing accidents, and operational issues, but the airframe was NOT delicate in any sense of the word. The landing gear was somewhat weak, but a broken gear is not a wing falling off.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 28, 2014)

GregP said:


> Sorry OldSkeptic,
> 
> The wings of the Bf 109 did NOT fall off.



Some more reading on this subject is required. Three quotations that came to mind right away;

'_The outstanding disadvantage of the Me 109 F is that the wings are not as stable as they might be. At least two pilots, including the redoubtable Hauptmann Balthasar, kommodore of the Richthofen Geschwader, have been killed within the last three weeks by tearing the wings off their Me 109s when trying to follow Spitfires in a snaking dive. After a fast dive pilots have to pull out fairly gradually._' - Interrogation of prisoner of war Hauptmann Rolf Pingel, I/JG 26

'_In 1941 we received the improved F series. ... The result was fierce aerial combat, for which we had to push our machines to the limit. ... Without any damage from enemy fire, the wings became prone to coming off in flight and as a result of this we lost some very successful pilots. To land after a days combat with the wings distorted out of shape was commonplace._' - Hauptmann Josef Haiböck

'_... I could turn on a plate, the wings being white from condensation and to pull it out of a dive at 700 km/h was no problem. The Me109 wasn't strong enough to do that ..._' - Major Erich Rudorffer (on the Fw190)

EDIT: typos


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

Like I said, any aircraft can be broken by the pilot. But the Bf 109 was not and IS not a delicate aircraft.

And no flyable Bf 109 ever made it to 700 mph.


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 28, 2014)

And no flyable Bf 109 ever made it to 700 mph.

Newsflash to our American friends from that semi-mythical place called The Rest of the World: The metric system - try it, you'll like it!

Just kidding, Greg.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 28, 2014)

I had originally put 'mph', typo.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

When I posted, the post above said 700 mph. OK, I'll buy 700 kph, but Bf 109 wings don't fall off. The 109 had its faults, but shedding wings wasn't one of them.

You can use whatever measurement system you like, it makes no difference to me whatsoever ... unless I'm building an airplane with SAE rivets and screws. Then I need the correct drill sizes for the rivets and screws, and those aren't metric. I suppose I COULD switch to metric rivets and screws ... but I'm working on other people's airplanes and they get to choose the fasteners we use.

Really, it makes no difference to me at all.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 28, 2014)

Early Bf 109F had a structural problem in the tail caused by harmonic frequencies from/with engine vibration, maybe they had some problems in the wings as well.
Can't remember of similar reports in the 109G.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

I am familiar with the tail issue and the fix as well as the weak landing gear, but have never heard of wing problems, Denniss.


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 29, 2014)

GregP said:


> > When I posted, the post above said 700 mph. OK, I'll buy 700 kph, but Bf 109 wings don't fall off. The 109 had its faults, but shedding wings wasn't one of them.
> >
> > You can use whatever measurement system you like, it makes no difference to me whatsoever ... unless I'm building an airplane with SAE rivets and screws. Then I need the correct drill sizes for the rivets and screws, and those aren't metric. I suppose I COULD switch to metric rivets and screws ... but I'm working on other people's airplanes and they get to choose the fasteners we use.
> >
> ...



As a matter of interest, does the US military use the metric system? I guess they would certainly require pilots, gunners and anyone who had anything to do with weights and measures to be fully conversant, right?


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 29, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> As a matter of interest, does the US military use the metric system? I guess they would certainly require pilots, gunners and anyone who had anything to do with weights and measures to be fully conversant, right?


 The US Army was metric when I was in it in the early 70's, the rifle ranges were in meters, and when I got to Vietnam all the maps were metric. But when we talked about aircraft altitudes, it was in feet, but map elevations was in meters. It might have confused some at first, but I soon got used to it.

I've got one of my brothers old Army field manuals on 81mm mortars, from the mid 60s , it's metric.

Learning the metric system in the Army gave me a leg up in the civilian world when Detroit started going metric.


----------



## stona (Mar 29, 2014)

GregP said:


> I am familiar with the tail issue and the fix as well as the weak landing gear, but have never heard of wing problems, Denniss.



Luftwaffe pilots_ believed _there was a problem with the wings.

Rolf Pingel delivered a nice shiny Bf 109 F to the RAF and in the report of his interrogation, under the paragraph Me. 109 F, it states:

_"The outstanding disadvantage of the Me.109 F is that the wings are not so stable as they might be. At least two pilots, including the redoubtable Hauptmann BALTHASAR, Kommodore of the Richthofen Geschwader have been killed in the last three weeks by tearing the wings off their Me.109s when trying to follow Spitfires in a snaking dive. After a fast dive pilots have to pull out fairly gradually."_

Whether there was a real problem or not is beside the point. There was a perception in the Luftwaffe that there was and Pingel is not the only German source source for this. 

As for the RAF, it seems to have cottoned on to this fairly quickly. Bader developed the tactic of half rolling and following the Bf 109 F in a dive, rolling back expecting his target to be ahead of him and pulling out much more gradually from the dive than he could in a Spitfire. This allowed him to pull his nose up through the target and make a shot. In his words the German pilots were " a bit porky on the old joystick". 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2014)

If I am not mistaken, the airspeed is in knots or Mach number, the fuel in pounds, the fuel flow in pounds per hour. There is nothing mysterious about the metric system ... it is just in different units. I am comfortable in either. When I rode and raced motorcycles, it was ALL metric.

The airplanes we work on are ALL SAE and, if they are not, we convert them that way if we restore them ourselves. That way, we only have one type of hardware to deal with. While I was working on our Zero, I only came across two metric bolts ... since I have metric tools from motorcycle racing, it wasn't an issue, just go get the correct wrench and you're back going again. In my toolbox I have both SAE and metric drill bits, taps, and dies. Of course, I have by FAR more SAE since almost everything is SAE. The only tools I am almost completely lacking in are Whitworth, BSC, and BSF. If I ever start working on Merlins on a regular basis, I'll take the plunge. Otherwise, I really have no use for them since I have no items that use Whitworth hardware.


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 30, 2014)

By any reasonable measure (geddit?) the metric system is the easier and faster system to work with, which would explain why militaries and professions have generally been quicker to take it up than populations - the plebeians tend to be very conservative about changing anything to do with day to day life, even when it makes sense. I remember the howls of protest when NZ made the switch. Had the system been around a bit earlier, maybe the USA would have been first on the bandwagon, to go along with the decimal currency and Websters attempts to tidy up the English language.
Re the structural integrity of the 109, maybe that was a relative thing, compared to the Spitfire. I believe the Spit was regarded as exceptionally strong in aerobatics. Against a mid war P-38 for instance, which probably lacked the ability to push the 109 in violent manoeuvres and dives, it might have been a non- issue


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 30, 2014)

GregP said:


> The airplanes we work on are ALL SAE and, if they are not, we convert them that way if we restore them ourselves. That way, we only have one type of hardware to deal with.



You should try working on BK-117 helicopters - metric airframe, and SAE engines!


----------



## GregP (Mar 30, 2014)

Hi Cobber,

The USA HAS decimal currency. Our money increments in units of 1, 5, and 10.

Most people I know are not resistant to the metric system and neither am I. But almost all of the hardware HERE except for imports is SAE. It'll be around a LONG time in the future, too. All I ask is that any machine item I get is ONE or the OTHER, and not a mixture. My 1979 Chevrolet truck was part metric and part SAE and it sucked for that reason. You had to memorize which fasteners were which. When you are changing a transmission, why should you have to stop and go get more tools? Terrible. I don't see the metric system as superior in any way since I am very comfortable in the SAE system .... just different units, with which I am also familiar. Again, just make it ONE or the OTHER.

The USA has one of the only airspaces freely-available to civilians in the world, and it is run in feet and knots. People come from all over the world to learn to fly HERE, and they learn in our units or don;t train here. Right at Chino we have students in fixed wing and rotary wing from China, Europe, the mid-East, Iceland, etc. So, I suppose if you want to learn to fly airliners, you'd best get used to feet and knots. Likewise if you wan to fly a WWII Allied aircraft, at least from the Western Allies. There aren't any original Spitfires with metric instruments.

In point of fact, it doesn't matter a bit what units the airspeed indicator is marked in. If you can fly target speeds and altitudes, you can get around in either system. If you cannot fly target airspeeds, you'll probably crash even in the metric system and a metric aircraft right about zero meters AGL.

The USA was one of the earliest signatories of the metric system and the US government has no difficulties making specifications metric. We just have not forced an internal change to it, but many here really don't cared either way as long as we don't MIX them in together. It sounds selfish for me to say, "I don't really care what the rest of the world does; I operate in the world in which I live and work." But asking me to convert to the system YOU use is saying exactly the same thing in reverse.

In here I'm sure you can use either system and we can pretty much all figure it out.

Let's not let this aviation forum degenerate into an argument over units or measurement systems! Please! Conversion is easy and, if not, learn. The conversions are widely available in references and the internet. I usually post in feet, mph, or knots because that's what I use and those were the units in use during WWII by the vast majority of the Allies, of which I am part. All the Allied performance charts are in mph or knots and all the altitudes are in feet. Perhaps the axis embraced the metric system at the time, but this IS a WWII forum.

Maritime speed was always in knots, even the metric-oriented Axis.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 30, 2014)

GregP said:


> In point of fact, it doesn't matter a bit what units the airspeed indicator is marked in. If you can fly target speeds and altitudes, you can get around in either system. If you cannot fly target airspeeds, you'll probably crash even in the metric system and a metric aircraft right about zero meters AGL.



I can attest to that.
I fly three aircraft at the moment, with three different units to the ASI, two different units to the VSI, and differing units for pressure gauges.
You simply remember speeds, limits, etc as the numbers, forget the units.

I fact, the only standard between all three is the altimeter, and that's because it is required by law to be in feet, so the CJ-6 has had it changed.

Anyway, back on track...

The 109 was an aircraft of its time - lots of 'quirks' that some people could live with, and others hated.

I suspect that some of the wings coming off may have had something to do with 'rolling G', where using aileron at high G can unevenly load the wings, and have catastrophic consequences. Does anyone have any published info regarding the complete flight envelope?


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 30, 2014)

GregP said:


> When I posted, the post above said 700 mph. OK, I'll buy 700 kph, but Bf 109 wings don't fall off. The 109 had its faults, but shedding wings wasn't one of them.
> 
> You can use whatever measurement system you like, it makes no difference to me whatsoever ... unless I'm building an airplane with SAE rivets and screws. Then I need the correct drill sizes for the rivets and screws, and those aren't metric. *I suppose I COULD switch to metric rivets and screws ... but I'm working on other people's airplanes and they get to choose the fasteners we use.
> 
> Really, it makes no difference to me at all*.



as long as it isnt whitworth. the us mechanics had a heck of a time when they got their first mustangs because the nuts and bolts on the RR were all whitworth. they borrowed tools from local garages and made some themselves.


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 30, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi Cobber,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 30, 2014)

Jenisch said:


> Hello,
> 
> Popularily, it's common to heard that the Bf 109 was a hard airplane to fly, specially in take offs and landings. However, given that there are so many myths about WWII in general, I'm wondering how the 109 was really evaluated under critical eyes at the time, both by the Luftwaffe and the Allies.
> 
> Someone has information about this to share?





Jenisch said:


> Hello,
> 
> Popularily, it's common to heard that the Bf 109 was a hard airplane to fly, specially in take offs and landings. However, given that there are so many myths about WWII in general, I'm wondering how the 109 was really evaluated under critical eyes at the time, both by the Luftwaffe and the Allies.
> 
> Someone has information about this to share?



The Me 109 was actually a lot easier to fly than most of its contemporaries, though that needs some qualification. The aircraft had a long tail relative to its other surface areas and masses and so was very stable and extremely easy to recover from a spin. Better than allied fighters. It gave plenty of pre stall warning and when it did come there was no tendency to drop a wing or flip which could happen in a Spitfire, Mustang or Fw 190. The DW.520 was especially notorious in this area. That's thanks to the slats and that tail. Up to the Bf 109E the slats did have a slight tendency to deploy unevenly under intense manoeuvring but the effect was more annoying than anything. From the me 109F onwards the mechanism was changed and the issue went away and slat deployment hardly noticeable. Slats don't increase lift at the angle they deploy, they only increase the stall angle possible thereby indirectly increasing maximum lift. There is a slight alteration in pitching moment i.e. the wings centre of lift but not its actual lift so the aircraft isn't unsettled.

The Me 109 bad reputation for handling comes from the tendency of the aircraft to ground loop during takeoff and landing. This was eventually traced to one wing stalling ahead of the other when in the three point attitude (tail on ground) attitude due to prop circulation.

It was fixed by fitting and extended tail yoke that lifted the nose and improved another problem that caused accidents in piston engined aircraft, poor forward visibility. The Vaught Corsair had the same problem and it was fixed the same way, with a longer yoke.

The extended tail yoke is usually most associated with the hybrid interim Me 109G-10 of November 1944 but was standard on the Me 109K-4 of October 1944 in which it was also retractable. The yoke was just an interchangeable part and could be fitted to the Me 109G6, G14 as well and often was.

Other fixes for the ground loop issue before it was fully understood was a lockable yoke, which worked so long as not forgotten, and a taller tail. Nevertheless Me 109 had no worse a statistical record than other Luftwaffe aircraft in this regard suggesting that pilot training, sparse towards the end, was a partial issue.

Allied pilots testing Me 109 didn't like that they needed to trim it into a dive but never seem to have annoyed the Germans who probably had different pilots notes.

The Me 109 had a high dive speed. When the taller tail came in the rudder balancing horn was replaced by a balance tab. The rudder horn caused shock waves in a dive and was thought the cause of airframe breakup sand unrecovered dives. There are stories of Me 109 out diving P-51D. The all trimming tail plane apparently helped in dive recovery.

While it couldn't out turn a Spitfire (though some Luftwaffe pilots claim they could) they were a good match for most other allied aircraft especially at low/medium speed where the roll rate was good. When the new oversized super charger and MW-50 came in the improved Power to Weight ratio could make the aircraft a real challenge and I recall a P-51 pilot on the dogfights series saying he met an Me 109 that was no ordinary Me 109 that out turned his P-51D.

The Me 109 had a high climb rate and in particular a steep climb: one escape trick was to go in to a tight corkscrew climb. No allied aircraft could get inside its steepness or tightness.

My father, who was 13 in 1945, lived some 25 miles from Penemunde where the V1 and V2 were developed. He remembers Luftwaffe fighters repeatedly rising up to intercept allied bombers on their many raids. What amazed him was the steep climb angle. He never forgot that. He'd motion something greater than 45 degrees, over 60. I've always assumed they were Me 109 from his description.

The Luftwaffe was trying to get rid of the Me 109 but it was not so easy to do. Remarkable for an aircraft that predates the Hurricane. Even if they could make enough Fw 190 they couldn't afford to provide its high octane c3 fuel.

Its worth noting that the Fw 190 was regarded as having nice well harmonised handling during high speed manoeuvre , a gentle stall when landing with flaps out but nasty when stalling under manoeuvre. The Me 109 had less harmonised controls but if stalled or spun was very easy to recover. So when talking of good handling consider the context might be different.


----------



## GregP (Mar 30, 2014)

Hi Cobber,

That's right. It was a Boeing (757 or 767, can't recall) going from Canada South. Dead stick landed during a car race at an old airport in Cleveland, Ohio. The caaptain was a recreational glider pilot and there was no published glide speed for the Boeing, so he decided something like 1.2 * Vx (it's been a few years since I read that report), and made it safely to the old airport.

Goes a LONG way to explaining that 200 means nothing without the units appended onto the end. I don't CARE if it is metric or SAE ro whatever, but I DO want to know the units.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 30, 2014)

This is the one I had heard of; Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 30, 2014)

> I don't CARE if it is metric or SAE ro whatever, but I DO want to know the units



I remember that during Basic I told my section leader, an SAS vet, that something or other was 200 west of whatever. He said: "Two hundred what? F#$%G LIZARDS!!??"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 31, 2014)

Hi Stona, 

The Me 109F1 was rushed into production so some more unusual problems escaped detection. The aeroelastic structural problem was however fixed in subsequent models such as the 109F2. From Wiki: "Tests were also carried out to find out why the tails had failed, and it was found that at certain engine settings a high-frequency oscillation in the tailplane spar was overlapped by harmonic vibrations from the engine; the combined effect being enough to cause structural failure at the rear fuselage/fin attachment point. Initially two external stiffening plates were screwed onto the outer fuselage on each side, and later the entire structure was reinforced.[33]". There were some other issues I know of anecdotally: seizing of tail plane bearings at high altitude and structural failure due to rudder over balancing in high Mach dives.

You'll find the Hawker Typhoon had a similar possibly worse serious problem in the same location. It seems to have significantly affected RAF commitment to the type along with Sabre problems. The tempest was the long term solution.

Konrad Zuse developed a floating point digital computer using relay logic and programs stored on punch tape made from discarded newsreel tape. His machine was used to solve systems of differential equations used to analyse flutter at the DVL aerodynamics institute in WW2 Germany. He is regarded as the inventor of the digital computer by some, certainly a strong case. It was quite a new and difficult problem for everyone in WW2.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 31, 2014)

I don't CARE if it is metric or SAE ro whatever, but I DO want to know the units





CobberKane said:


> I remember that during Basic I told my section leader, an SAS vet, that something or other was 200 west of whatever. He said: "Two hundred what? F#$%G LIZARDS!!??"



If you dont get the units right this can happen.

The Mars Climate Orbiter (formerly the Mars Surveyor '98 Orbiter) was a 338 kilogram (750 lb) robotic space probe launched by NASA on December 11, 1998 to study the Martian climate, atmosphere, surface changes and to act as the communications relay in the Mars Surveyor '98 program, for Mars Polar Lander. However, on September 23, 1999, communication with the spacecraft was lost as the spacecraft went into orbital insertion, due to ground-based computer software which produced output in non-SI units of pound-seconds (lbf×s) instead of the metric units of newton-seconds (N×s) specified in the contract between NASA and Lockheed. The spacecraft encountered Mars on a trajectory that brought it too close to the planet, causing it to pass through the upper atmosphere and disintegrate.[1][2]


----------



## stona (Mar 31, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> Hi Stona,
> 
> The Me 109F1 was rushed into production so some more unusual problems escaped detection.



Indeed. I don't know that there was a problem with the wings of the Bf 109 F. I've never found any reference to a problem having to be fixed. I do know that there was a perception amongst Luftwaffe pilots, picked up very quickly by British Intelligence and the RAF, that there was. Whether real or not it had an effect on the way that the type was flown that was real.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Elmas (Mar 31, 2014)

A friend of mine did the last Pilot training in the ‘60s with piston engine fighters, here in my town, flying G-59 (that were metric) and Mustangs ( that were Imperial).








SE = Scuola Elmas

To avoid confusion all the instruments had to be painted on the glass with red stripes indicating danger if surpassed......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 2, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I don't CARE if it is metric or SAE ro whatever, but I DO want to know the units
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or this: 




Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Fuel loading was miscalculated due to a misunderstanding of the recently adopted metric system which replaced the imperial system.


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2014)

That was the Boeing that was fueled with liters instead of gallons and dead-sticked at a Cleveland car race.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 2, 2014)

GregP said:


> That was the Boeing that was fueled with liters instead of gallons and dead-sticked at a Cleveland car race.


That's the one.

Great piece of flying


----------



## Milosh (Apr 2, 2014)

GregP said:


> That was the Boeing that was fueled with liters instead of gallons and dead-sticked at a Cleveland car race.


Gimli is in Manitoba Canada, near Winnipeg.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 2, 2014)

wow....those are some vintage old race cars....60s and real early 70s models.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 3, 2014)

When was flying international in the early 70s, rules were, language was English, Altitude was in feet or Flight Level (100s of feet), air speed was knots (nautical miles per hour) or Mach, and barometric settings was in inches mean sea level (QNH). The Brits often used QFE which is the setting for zero altitude at the field, something you had to be aware of. I saw that the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) flight plans allows entry in metric. I certainly hope that verbal communications are still standardized.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 3, 2014)

We're the same here, except that our altimeter baro settings are in millibar, (or hectopascals, same thing). 1013 is equal to 29.92 in Hg. We use QNH settings, although there are a couple of instances where QFE is used.


----------



## eWildcat (Apr 4, 2014)

Same here too : you're supposed to use knots, feet, hPa and QNH, though QFE may still be used in general aviation or by the air force.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 4, 2014)

USAF uses QNH, feet and knots.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Aozora (Apr 4, 2014)

GregP said:


> I am familiar with the tail issue and the fix as well as the weak landing gear, but have never heard of wing problems, Denniss.



An English translation of a German report on 109F wing problems (courtesy of Mike Williams):


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2014)

I am under the distinct impression this was cured with the F-2 and wasn't an issue again. Perhaps not ...

Funny I never heard of it before now, and have read extensively on the Bf 109. Makes me curious, to say the least.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 4, 2014)

It's a new one on me as well, but, as you know, Mike has been doing a great job at finding such documents.


----------

