Aviation myths that will not die

[stona]

"Its spindly narrow-track undercarriage is actually much too weak to cope with the enormous torque, rate of yaw, and turbulence of the airscrew. Take-off accidents are therefore commonplace..."

I've always considered this view, and it isn't just Rall's, both an over simplification and a cop out. The track of a Spitfire undercarriage is very similar (the geometry is not) to a Bf 109 and I've never heard anyone claim that it made the Spitfire difficult to handle on the ground, land and take off.
Just saying
Cheers
Steve

 

[GregP]

I have seen many reports from Luftwaffe pilots stating thaht the landing gear was well suited to forward airstrip operations. In particular, I have noted that heavy braking could be applied without fear of pitch-over, so the statement above is somewhat baffling to me after 40 years of reading otherwise.

I HAVE heard that the statement above that the 109 was not forgiving of landing on one gear leg is true, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue with the Spitfire that has similar gear width. The pilots who flew our Hispano Ha.1112 say it is a bit of a beast on the ground and can be in the air, too, but the reason we experienced a groundloop in it during the year 2000 was not poor piloting technique, but rather failure of the right brake on takeoff. Maybe you can get away with that one on grass, but not on pavement. Needless to say the brake system is getting scrutiny as it goes back together.

 

[Aozora]

"Its spindly narrow-track undercarriage is actually much too weak to cope with the enormous torque, rate of yaw, and turbulence of the airscrew. Take-off accidents are therefore commonplace..."

I've always considered this view, and it isn't just Rall's, both an over simplification and a cop out. The track of a Spitfire undercarriage is very similar (the geometry is not) to a Bf 109 and I've never heard anyone claim that it made the Spitfire difficult to handle on the ground, land and take off.
Just saying
Cheers
Steve

I have seen many report from Luftwaffe pilots stating thaht the landing gear was well suited to forward airstrip operations. In particular, I have noted that heavy braking could be applied without fear of pitch-over, so the statement above is somewhat baffling to me after 40 years of reading otherwise.

I HAVE heard that the statement above that the 109 was not forgiving of landing on one gear leg is true, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue with the Spitfire that has similar gear width. The pilots who flew our Hispano Ha.1112 say it is a bit of a beast on the ground and can be in the air, too, but the reason we experienced a groundloop in it during the year 2000 was not poor piloting technique, but rather failure of the right brake on takeoff. Maybe you can get away with that one on grass, but not on pavement. Needless to say the brake system is getting scrutiny as it goes back together.

See why this is in an "Aviation myths that will not die" thread? On the other hand Rall had plenty of experience in the 109, so to dismiss his opinion about how tricky it could be for a novice, and call it a "cop out" is in itself a cop out. That outward slant of the 109 undercarriage meant that anything but a perfect two-wheel landing could push the wheel sideways, which could result in a ground loop. The straight legs of the Spitfire resisted that sideways thrust, albeit a heavy landing could push the leg up through the wing. The Spitfire's biggest weakness was that it could, and did, tip up on its nose under heavy breaking, unlike the 109.

 

[Juha]

... That outward slant of the 109 undercarriage meant that anything but a perfect two-wheel landing could push the wheel sideways, which could result in a ground loop. The straight legs of the Spitfire resisted that sideways thrust, albeit a heavy landing could push the leg up through the wing. The Spitfire's biggest weakness was that it could, and did, tip up on its nose under heavy breaking, unlike the 109.

It was best to get a good 3-point landing with 109, it didn't like even a good "wheeler" and any derivation from a straight line was best to correct immediately otherwise it groundlooped easily. 109 groundlooped easily mostly because of its CG was farther back than that of Spit's ie in 109 tailwheel took greater part of the a/c's weight. From the same reason Spit nosed over much more easily.

Juha

 

[Njaco]

....The pilots who flew our Hispano Ha.1112 say it is a bit of a beast on the ground and can be in the air, too, but the reason we experienced a groundloop in it during the year 2000 was not poor piloting technique, but rather failure of the right brake on takeoff. ....

I don't think you can really compare the Post-1946 pseudo 109s to those manufactured during the war.

In his book on the 109, Jerry Scutts talked about the manufacture of the 109 after the war. The problem they experienced with the after-market 109s, Avias, etc was with the new engines changing the characteristics of the plane.

pg 135
"....a considerable redesign was then undertaken to modify the G-14 airframe to take the 1,350 hp Junkers Jumo 211F, ample stocks of which were available......At maximum output, the DB 605A was rated at 1,474 hp, which meant that the Jumo engine was marginally less powerful; intended to power the He 111 bomber, the Jumo required, among other things, a VS 11 airscrew with paddle blades which were considerably broader than any other previously fitted to a Bf 109. The substitute engine had however led to quite substantial changes in the Bf 109's handling characteristics, not the least of which was the fact that torque from the massive airscrew induced a very strong swing during the take-off run....."

 

[GregP]

Hi Aozora,

I would never dismiss Rall's comments out of hand' he was a master of the Bf 109, if ever there was one. However, it is very possible that his memories were from when he first tansitioned into it rather than from later operational flying. First flights in high-powered planes are always sharp memories. I clearly recall my first flight in a 260 HP Pitts Special since prior to that time, the highest horsepower plane I had flown was 225 HP, but the Pitts was diminutive compared with a Cessna 172. The torque difference, considering it was a conventional gear plane AND higher power AND much shorter-coupled combined for an unforgettable takeoff. When the power goes to 1,475 HP or more, the impressions must be commensurately stronger.

In many reports I have read and in talking with some former Bf 109 pilots from WWII at the musuem, I am under a strong impression that the proper way to fly a Bf 109 was carefully discussed and training was tailored to it, rendering it less daunting. If Rall trasitioned into it in 1939, then war was almost upon the Germans (or the rest of the woirld, as you care to look at it) and perhaps his training was of the "hurried" variety? Not having been there, I can't say.

But I have spoken with at least a dozen former Luftwaffe pilots who really liked the Bf 109 and its handling characteristics. They didn't view them as shortcomings and perhaps the memories are simply best recollections from a LONG time ago. Of course, they WERE operating from grass and dirt / mud, not from pavement.

All this makes for a very interesting discussion, but it hardly seem as if an unbiased flight report from a contemporary pilot will be forthcoming in the forum here to help give us closure, does it? I still think it is a strong candidate for best fighter of all times, but won't get acrimonious about it.

It is unlikely we will see closure on many of the myths that will not die anytime soon, but the discussion are always fun.

 

[Juha]

Hello Greg
even if Germans and British pilots who flew both Spit Mk I and Bf 109E disagreed which was better fighter (both sides tended to think that theirs was the better one) they agreed that Spit was easier to t/o and land. Werner Mölders wrote. "It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land..."

Juha

 

[GregP]

I've heard that, Juha. It doesn't make the Bf 109 difficult ... it makes the Spitfire and Hurricane seem easy.

I have seen estimates of takeoff and landing accidents run anywhere from 10% to as many as 1/3 of the 109's operated, and am skeptical of either extremity. Generally the truth is in the middle. If that is so, perhaps the Bf 109 WAS a real bear on takeoff and landing. Perhaps the trianing wasn't up to par. Perhaps a bit of both. Either way, a lot of 109's ended up in accidents. How many were write-offs I cannot say.

It argues very hard for any potential Bf 109 pilot to be very proficient in tailwheel aircraft with high power, particularly today in light of the few Bf 109's that are flyable. If I owned one, I'd try my best to fly it off grass rather than pavement, but would fly it anyway. One can wish (and buy a lottery ticket).

 

[Aozora]

Hi Aozora,

I would never dismiss Rall's comments out of hand' he was a master of the Bf 109, if ever there was one. However, it is very possible that his memories were from when he first tansitioned into it rather than from later operational flying. First flights in high-powered planes are always sharp memories. I clearly recall my first flight in a 260 HP Pitts Special since prior to that time, the highest horsepower plane I had flown was 225 HP, but the Pitts was diminutive compared with a Cessna 172. The torque difference, considering it was a conventional gear plane AND higher power AND much shorter-coupled combined for an unforgettable takeoff. When the power goes to 1,475 HP or more, the impressions must be commensurately stronger.

In many reports I have read and in talking with some former Bf 109 pilots from WWII at the musuem, I am under a strong impression that the proper way to fly a Bf 109 was carefully discussed and training was tailored to it, rendering it less daunting. If Rall trasitioned into it in 1939, then war was almost upon the Germans (or the rest of the woirld, as you care to look at it) and perhaps his training was of the "hurried" variety? Not having been there, I can't say.

But I have spoken with at least a dozen former Luftwaffe pilots who really liked the Bf 109 and its handling characteristics. They didn't view them as shortcomings and perhaps the memories are simply best recollections from a LONG time ago. Of course, they WERE operating from grass and dirt / mud, not from pavement.

All this makes for a very interesting discussion, but it hardly seem as if an unbiased flight report from a contemporary pilot will be forthcoming in the forum here to help give us closure, does it? I still think it is a strong candidate for best fighter of all times, but won't get acrimonious about it.

It is unlikely we will see closure on many of the myths that will not die anytime soon, but the discussion are always fun.

Hi Greg,

Totally agree.

 

[nuuumannn]

Just been going back through this thread, there's some interesting stuff; on the Wrights, someone could spend several pages listing claimants to powered-flight-before-the-Wrights. Some of the most notable in no particular order who have been thrust in the limelight as candidates either by their own hand or someone else's with a less-than-honourable agenda: Richard Pearse of Godzone (that's New Zealand), Aleksander Mozhaissky (not sure about the spelling) of Russia, Clement Ader of France, Alberto Santos Dumont of Brazil (living in France - Brazilians claim that the Wrights did not fly a powered aircraft in 1903, so the 14-Bis, the first heavier-than-aircraft to fly in Europe was the first), Preston Watson of Scotland, Gustave Whitehead of Teutonic origin in the USA, even Samuel Langley of the USA.

Glenn Curtiss, in a spiteful measure after the Wrights took him to court for patent infringements tried to get around the issue by claiming that Langley's Aerodrome flew successfully before the Wright Flyer, despite its well-publicised death dive into the Potomac River. He proved it by rebuilding the Aerodrome until it looked nothing like the original and flew it as a float-plane. The Smithsonian even went as far as hanging the 'new' Aerodrome in its hall and dismissed the Wright's claim. This is why the 1903 Flyer, after rebuild, went to the UK and was there from 1912 to 1948. The very first actual engineering drawings of the Wright's first aircraft were produced by de Havilland apprentices who built an exact reproduction of it - the first of many since, which now hangs in the Science Museum in London.

Incidentally, Njaco, your great pictures of the Curtiss were taken at Millville, Indiana? Wilbur Wright was born there; I'm sure he would be rolling in his grave!

 

[nuuumannn]

A few British myths that have been naughtily repeated in print by bad and good authors since they first appeared;

The Short Stirling's wingspan was restricted to less than 100 feet to enable it to fit in existing RAF hangars:

The origins of this myth are from an article in Flight magazine in 1942 that hypothesises, not even delibrately stipulates that the reason behind the Stirling's wingspan is because of the size of RAF hangar doors. This was repeated verbatim by an Air Historic Branch document on the development of British bombers after the end of the war and so everyone who has written about the Stirling since has repeated it.

See here for my original source for that little snippet of information:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?119664-Aviation-Myths&p=2102408#post2102408

The RAF had hangars with door spans of 120 feet at the time that B.12/36 was issued; it was also stipulated that the aircraft had to be able to be easily maintained outdoors. The 100 foot wingspan limit was to prevent the aircraft getting too large in an attempt to keep weight growth at bay which in turn could enable the aircraft to operate from smaller grass strips. Restricting the span was seen as a suitable way of doing this; weight growth was what prolonged the Stirling's entry into service, not to mention its impact on its performance. Early Halifaxes had a similar restriction, but the Mk.III had longer spans than 100 feet, as did Lancasters.

The Westland Whirlwind was hampered by unreliable engines and fitting Merlins would have prolonged its career:

Issues with the Peregrine were rapidly sorted by Rolls-Royce. One of the big problems that pilots commented on was the fact that the engines overheated. This was not because of the engines, but because Westland had designed the radiator shutters to be linked with flap operation, so unless the flaps were dropped, these stayed firmly shut. RR chose not to continue developing and supporting the Peregrine because of limited application - only the Whirlwind was powered by it in service, and it was wiser to concentrate on Merlin and Griffon development.

Fitting of anything other than the Peregrine would have involved much redesigning of the aircraft's structure and 'Teddy' Petter was aware of this; the aircraft was designed with as small a structure as possible and could not take another powerplant without considerable redesign, which would have had to included enlarging the airframe as well as strengthening it, which would have introduced enormous delays in production. By late 1940, the Air Ministry were regarding, perhaps unfairly, the Whirlwind as bordering on obsolescence as it was; delaying its introduction into service any more would not have been acceptable.

The problems with the Roll-Royce Vulture were never sorted and this resulted in its cancellation:

They were, in fact. The Vulture V was not hampered by the mating issues of the crank case and inadequate bolt sizes, which gave way under stress and resulted in the engine literally bursting apart and flailing itself to death. Cooling issues were sorted by introducing a more efficient fuel oil heat exchanger. The prototype Hawker Tornado was powered by the Vulture V. The engine was discontinued for the same reason as the Peregrine; limited application and continued expansion of Merlin and Griffon development.

Aaand my favourite Hobby Horse ) ); The Germans mistook Boulton Paul Defiants for Hurricanes during one day's combat over Dunkirk and fitting forward firing armament would have made the Defiant the "Bristol Fighter" of WW2:

The myth of mistaken identity was a result of the RAF scribe that produced the first official history of the Battle of Britain in 1942 and it is this that has a played a large part in defining the Defiant's post-war reputation, since almost every post-war author, apart from a very small few - like with the 100 foot hangar door limitation on the Stirling's wingspan - rehashes the myth in his or her coverage of the aircraft. On the day in question, 29 May 1940, 264 Sqn claimed 37 aircraft shot down without loss and it became known as 264's 'Day of Glory'; the actual number of aircraft shot down by the Defiants was most likely less than ten, nevertheless, apart from against six Bf 109s that attacked the formation over Dunkirk whilst looking for bombers in company with Hurricanes, it was the Defiants doing the attacking, when a formation of Ju 87s and Ju 88s escorted by Bf 110s was spotted.

Also, the Germans were well aware of the Defiant's unique armament; two weeks earlier on 13th May, five were shot down by Bf 109s whilst on patrol over the Dutch coast; this was the incident from which another myth surrounding the Defiant has sprung; that Defiants were chased by Stukas. No Stukas claimed Defiants as kills on that day and it was from 264 Sqn combat reports that the pilots had Stukas on their tails that the tale arose, particularly as the incident was witnessed both in the air and on the ground. Four Ju 87s were claimed by 264 Sqn.

As for the "Bristol Fighter of WW2" story; the Defiant's biggest deficiency was its forward speed; it was too slow and adding forward firing guns without deleting the turret would have slowed it down to prohibitive levels, not to mention reducing its range since its fuel tanks were located in its wings, so it would have been even slower and with a terrible endurance and therefore even more useless as a day fighter.

 

[Njaco]

Sorry, Millville, New Jersey

Millville Army Air Field Museum | America's First Defense Airport

 

[nuuumannn]

Sorry, Millville, New Jersey

Wilbur's rolling's slowed down a bit; you did mistake a Curtiss for a Wright Flyer, after all!

 

[stona]

See why this is in an "Aviation myths that will not die" thread? On the other hand Rall had plenty of experience in the 109, so to dismiss his opinion about how tricky it could be for a novice, and call it a "cop out" is in itself a cop out.

I think you've missed my point (I probably could have put it better ). The Bf 109 obviously did have some fairly malicious characteristics which made it a handful on the ground and at the very least unforgiving on take off and landing.
My point is that this had nothing to do with the width of the main undercarriage which was comparable to the Spitfire and some other types. It was a more complicated issue than that related to many other factors, the geometry of the undercarriage, the rearward CoG relative to the wheels, rudder and aileron authority (or lack of) during certain phases of take off and landing, the absence of a tail wheel lock (certainly on early versions but haven't checked) etc etc.
Rall and many, many others tended to over simplify this, blaming everything on a narrow undercarriage track. That's a cop out and ignores other problems in Willi's design which I believe would have been unacceptable to the British in a front line fighter to be flown by regular service personnel. No wonder Luftwaffe pilots found the British fighters 'childishly easy' to handle.
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

The myth of mistaken identity was a result of the RAF scribe that produced the first official history of the Battle of Britain in 1942 and it is this that has a played a large part in defining the Defiant's post-war reputation, since almost every post-war author, apart from a very small few - like with the 100 foot hangar door limitation on the Stirling's wingspan - rehashes the myth in his or her coverage of the aircraft.

You could extend that from the Defiant to the entire BoB. That pamphlet more or less cemented the popular version of the battle in the English speaking world. Even the normally retiring Dowding felt that he had to directly contradict some of the assertions made in it. It was published by HMSO with a definite eye on the US audience and has been responsible for many myths. It goes hand in hand with Capra's 'Why we Fight' films. Historians who really should know better have quoted from it uncritically and without reference to other sources since the day it was published.
Cheers
Steve

 

[bobbysocks]

there are a lot of dynamics to tail wheel ac that can make it a beast or as docile as a dormouse. they range from the design of the linkage...size of the wheel itself...whether it is unlockable or fixed..the weight distribution..etc. the plane i am working on is said to be "quirky" ( read that as a possible high pucker factor at times ) with the standard tail wheel set up. by bumping it up to an inch bigger in diameter and changing it from a single control rod to dual rods that all goes away and tames it down quite a bit. you will never make a tail dragger as easy to fly as a tricycle gear ( nose gear ) ac. there is a "joke" in aviation where its said you arent a real pilot unless you fly a taildragger....you can guess which group made that one up....lol.

if you tap the brakesa little too much going too fast you can nose just about any tail wheeled plane over. i have seen several pics of @$$ high 51s with the prop buried in the ground.

 

[stona]

Hans Kurt Graf von Sponneck gave an insight into the Bf 109 tail wheel. He was posted to Norway where he and his training squadron (10./JG3) were to be integrated into JG5. Norwegian runways were not grass but rather wood or concrete. On arriving at their Norwegian base FIVE of fifteen Bf 109 Es crashed on landing. Three of the machines had to be returned to Germany for repair. As a result of this incident a tail wheel lock was devised by the Luftwaffe repair facility at Stavanger-Forus and fitted to all Norwegian based Bf 109s.

Ernst Schroder is scathing in his criticism, believing the Bf 109 without 'Kommandogerat' and other devices was a generation behind the Fw 190. It's handling characteristics caused him to describe it as 'a scheissbock, it was a crime that it was manufactured until 1945.'

For every experienced pilot who disliked the Bf 109 you'll find one who did. Eduard Neumann considered that 'Willy Messerschmitt was a genius in designing such an aircraft'.
Heinz Lange remembered that the Bf 109 was 'hard on the stick, but I liked it very much'.

You pays your money and you takes your pick, but all four of those above, regardless of their personal view of the 109, considered it difficult for inexperienced pilots to handle. That, in a rapidly expanding air force, engaged in campaigns which from the start caused a high rate of attrition for its pilots and resultant replacement with less capable ones, cannot be a good thing.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tengu1979]

My favourite always:

Polish Air Force was destroyed on the ground on first day of campaign. Seen in many documentaries with footage from Russia (clearly visible R-5s and I-16s)

 

[GrauGeist]

...i have seen several pics of @$$ high 51s with the prop buried in the ground.

Yeah, but nothing says "I want to be ridiculed day and night for the next 6 months" like the arse-end of a P-47 flapping in the breeze does!

 

[stona]

The Luftwaffe had a name for an aircraft standing on its nose. It was a 'fliegerdenkmal' or flyer's monument.

I'd have given this one a 10/10.

I was so impressed that I made a model of it (in 1/72 which I normally avoid!)

Cheers

Steve