Bf 109 = hard to fly?

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........

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

OMG, I wish I had bacon to give!

GregP said:

I mean the aircraft was never designed for pavement.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

pbehn said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Thanks dav

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.

Click to expand...

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;

Jenisch said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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;

Click to expand...

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

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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:

Coaster brakes on old bicycles work like that also.

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.

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.