Bf 109 = hard to fly?

[Gixxerman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CobberKane]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

From what I understand 3 point

 

[GregP]

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

 

[Jenisch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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!