- Thread starter
- #281
Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter 16KJV11
- Start date
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bill has stated on several occasions that he and his dad flew in P-51s.(together)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I always enjoyed his books and seeing him on the history channel. I was deeply saddened when he was killed...
Glider
Major
The instruction that I referred to in my previous posting was specifically for the Me109G so yes I do believe that the problem existed in the 109G.
Of course any aircraft then or now that exceeds its design limits is in danger of structural failure, that is obvious.
The difference here is that the German authorities had to issue a reminder to all German units that started
Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following
Then it lists various items including the item on wing tips. Now this is a document issued to units after that have been equipped and trained on the aircraft over and above the normal pilots notes.
The fact that the authorities had to issue such a reminder implies to me that the problem was greater on the 109 than other aircraft, as I have never heard of such a reminder being issued to other airforces or aircraft. After all, if the problem was the same on all aircraft and the Germans were being more communatitive than other nations, why didn't they issue similar reminders for all their 190's, 110's etc?
You will recall that JG26 in its list of pilots lost to accidents, treated wing failure as another type of accident, again something I have never heard of in any US or British record. Another indication that it was more common in German aircraft.
I would be the first to agree that this isn't definite proof but the circumstancial evidence builds up the more you look into it.
Yes he was and he is missed. Men of his caliber and generation are a precious dwindling resource.
Glider,
How do you explain the USAAF documents?
How do you explain the RAF warnings?
Just like the RAF and USAAF documents.
They did....
This is an airplane issue not a cultural defect. The Germans were not nor are they incompetant as a race.
Glider, IMHO, comments like this are a slap in the face to every guy who fought in the skies over Europe. I am sure you did not think of it that way when you wrote it. The Luftwaffe was not some push over organization flying half-baked airplanes. Both Allied and Axis flew the best technology mankind had to offer. The Nazi's were defeated because good men went forth everyday and risked all of their tommorrows in a hard won fight.
All the best,
Crumpp
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Then read again and look at the date. It`s been issued after service experience with the 109F, at about the time the units were starting to receive their first 109Gs (which had reinforced wing structure, I might add).
Such reminders to all units were issued by all airforces in the dozen during the war. It`s the first step in fixing an newly found problem.
Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following
And...? It`s a technical addendum, one of the thousends issued during the war from the slightest matters like what grease is to be used in winter till the maintaince of the spark plugs.
And that is the fallacy of your logic. You`ve seen a snipped of a technical instruction about the 109 series. For some odd reason, you assume that no such exist for other aircraft types, as you haven`t seen it.
It doesn`t exist then.
But that`s just an illogical assumption about no such thing being issued in other airforces, or for other types. See below ?
Another one from 1941, Mk I/V
No, it`s an indication of the same logical fallacy. You haven`t seen it, then it doesn`t exist. But they do... a guy some time ago, collected some from Spitfire : The History`s listing of Spitfire serials and fates from the original service cards of the individual aircraft. I won`t list all.
Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive.
Jan 41...Mk I....N3191...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4354...Port wing broke off in dive.
Aug 41...Mk I....X4381...Starboard wing broke off in dive.
Mar 41...Mk I....X4421...Both wings broke off in dive pullout.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4662...Stbd wing broke off in dive pullout.
Jun 41...Mk I....X4680...Wings/tail broke off in dive pullout.
Nov 42...Mk I....X4621...Failed to recover from dive.
Apr 43...Mk II...P7352...Broke up in dive.
Sep 41...Mk II...P7522...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL531...Both wings broke off in dive.
Feb 42...Mk V....AA876...Disintegrated in dive.
Jul 43...Mk V....BL389...Pilot thrown from aircraft in dive.
Jan 43...Mk IX...BS251...Structural failure in dive.
May 43...Mk IX...BS385...Structural failure in dive.
Aug 43...Mk IX...BS441...Disintegrated in dive.
Oct 46...Mk IX...PL387...Disintegrated in dive.
Jan 48...Mk XVI..SL724...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Sep 48...Mk XVI..TD119...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Aug 42...Mk I....N3284...Broke up in flight.
Aug 41...Mk I....N3286...Broke up in flight.
Sep 40...Mk I....P9546...Structural failure in flight.
May 42...Mk I....P9309...Lost wing in flight.
Apr 43...Mk I....X4234...Lost wing in spin.
Sep 42...Mk I....P9322...Broke up in flight.
Aug 43...Mk I....R6706...Aileron failure which led to crash.
Jan 43...Mk I....X4854...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
Nov 40...Mk II...P7593...Stbd wing and tail broke off in flight.
Dec 41...Mk II...P8183...Port wing broke off in flight.
Jun 42...Mk II...P8644...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
May 41...Mk II...N8245...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 44...Mk II...P7911...Flap failure which led to crash.
Sep 42...Mk V....AD555...Flap failure which led to crash.
Mar 44...Mk V....BL303...Flap failure which led to crash.
Dec 41...Mk V....BL407...Structural failure suspected.
Jun 42...Mk V....AB172...Structural failure in flight.
Mar 43...Mk V....AA970...Structural failure in flight.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL290...Port wing broke off in flight.
May 43...Mk V....BR627...Port wing failed in spin.
Oct 41...Mk IV...AA801...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 43...Mk IX...BS404...Structural failure in spin.
Feb 45...Mk IX...MH349...Wing failed during aerobatics.
etc.
The British recorded structural failures occuring just like the Germans and everybody else.
What 'circumstancial evidence'? You`ve seen a single extract from the hundreds of technical instructions issued for the 109 during the war. By some odd logic, you claim no similiar thing was issued for other aircraft or by other air forces.
That`s circumstancial evidence?
I`d say it`s a small piece of the puzzle, it doesn`t say what happened after, and how they dealt a problem that occured under some circumstances, that they appearantly found and knew well on later subtypes.
Go ahead and do some in-depth research on other aircraft, and when you have done your reading, and have a solid base for comparison, come back and tell us wheter they are different or not.
I recommend you read the book Spitfire : The History. It`s a great in-depth research of the Spitfire`s development. Here`s a spoiler, it speaks almost entirely of the technical difficulties the designers had to overcome, and a lot about structural issues, too. The more you read of the aircraft, the more skeletons you`ll find in the cupboard. The more you read about other aircraft as well, the more you realize the problems were very similar. And the more you read, the more you realize how little you know... for example, a friend sent me a list about aircraft related material in a national archive. It`s over 600 pages long, and it`s only has brief titles and references to it. 99.9% of it are unknown to me. If I`d ever be able to read all of it, I am sure I`d be bound for a lot of surprises.
drgondog
Major
Soren - I appreciate the comment. no big deal
Let me make something clear about my 'experience'. I flew a low time, peace time, late model ship in excellent condition. I never (intentionally) over stressed the airframe, did not do any dives exceeding .72 to maybe .74, did not do any 4-5g turns chasing another airplane - and will never represent that I have.
But I do have a good feel for the airplane even though it has been 40+ years since I last solo'd in one.
I had a great instructor who taught me the 'don't do's" early on - and I'm sure was anxious when he 'turned over the keys' for the first solo.
And last, only one of 21 air aces in his group shot down more 109s than he did - Henry Brown... but he definitely respected the airplane
Regards,
Bill
You certainly are blessed to have been able to fly one of these great warbirds. Closest I have come to it was a backseat right in a T-6.
Do you have any pics of your dad from the war with his P-51 and some of you when you were flying it? Would be cool to see them.
drgondog
Major
Joe - I found out from his dad who called me after the accident.. he was there and watching when Jeff stalled the P-38 out and watched his son get punched out of the cockpit when the nose wheel crashed through.
I haven't talked to Irv since the accident (4-5 years ago??)
Jeff helped me think through the type of book I wanted to write on the 355th and we were talking about doing a Kent Miller style Fighter Pilots of the 8th book when he checked out on me.
You know, every time I hear someone state that 'flyin is safer than drivin' it makes me chuckle. When we came back from Japan and were at Eglin during the F-86D, F89, F-100A test programs it seemed like someone was going in every week (over stated of course - but not too much)
Regards,
Bill
drgondog
Major
Chris - I don't have any pics of the TF-51D conversion, for some reason I don't recall him ever taking one? or even if we had a camera then - but I have a ton of him during the great patriotic war - I posted some of them in the photo section here and of course my avatar.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/355th-fg-pics-9563.html
I have photos of six of his 7 Mustangs during the war. I sent one taken by base PRO at Johnson AFB near Tokyo of Jeff, me, Irv Ethell and dad next to his 51..to Irv after Jeff went in with the P-38.
I had a fair amount of time in the At-6 before solo in P-51. As I recall, the 51 seemed easier to fly but I can't tell you why specifically
Thats right Bill. I remember you posting those now.
Thanks again though.
Thanks again though.
Glider
Major
I am only reporting what it said, which referred to the 109G not F.
This wasn't fixing a problem, this was reminding people of structural limitations that caused enough accidents that they were treated as ordinary accidents.
Nope, it wasn't, I repeat it was reminding people of structural limitations that caused enough accidents that they were treated as ordinary accidents.
I haven't seen any other example and still haven't seen one that covers an entire type of aircraft. However I did say that I was happy to change if I saw an example.
The documents are very interesting and show a component weakness in some aircraft which is rectified with new parts, a common situation then and now.
The list of failures is again interesting but you are making a huge case out of nothing. Of course there were structural failures, but out of 28000 ish examples rapidly built and often flown by inexperienced pilots in combat its only to be expected.
I have never said that allied aircraft didn't suffer failures, I have only said that I had never seen them referred to as an ordinary accident and such a blanket warning issued.
The list is interesting, a large proportion are types that were obsolete at the time of the accident and almost certainly in the hands of training units.
But I promise I will read the book
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Seems odd to me that anyone who has been a regular on this forum would not be aware that Bill has actually flown a P51 and that his father was a USAAF pilot in WW2. Over the last few months I have read his posts referring to those facts on a number of occasions. Bill, your statement about the P51 seemingly being easier to fly than a AT6 lends backup to a thread I started a few days ago on the SNJ. Also, your statement about "someone going in every day" says a lot about people who scoff at George Bush's service in the TANG flying F102s. My hat is off to anyone who flew in the military especially in the early jet days.
drgondog
Major
My saddest memory as a kid was when my best friend's father Mac McQuirter was flying a Mother ship B-17 controlling a trailing B-17 target drone and was hit by mistake from another friend of my father, Art DeBolt, with rockest from an 86D in an all weather radar approach.
Mac ket the ship in control while the crew got out but the B-17 blew up before he got out - over the Gulf of Mexico.
I saw a lot of those growing up. Fighters are not 'safe' in any sense of the word.. I remember the hoorah when some crashes occurred with the F-111 and I kept asking myself 'what in the world are you talking about?'
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
Glider, it only shows the end result but not the reason why the plane was in a dive which could be because of, for example, battle damage, the pilot was wounded, the pilot passed out do to the lack of oxygen, the dive limit speed was exceeded.
I came across this post awhile back when searching for info on the Spitfire,
I don't want to hijack this thread but I feel the need to put the record straight on this one. The last thread concerning the Spitfire's dive speed was contaminated by (member's name deleted) poison pen regarding the Spitfire's structural integrity and I see his contention that it was 'weak' is gaining currency here- which is just what he intended.
I thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.
Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady). He says:
"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces. Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire.
The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?- Berkshire) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).
I once asked a very senior RAF officer why the accelerometer- technically a simple instrument- was not introduced during the war. He replied that he was sure it would have an adverse effect on the fighting spirit of the pilots (same was said re the parachute in WW1!- Berkshire).
Whether that would have been so I cannot say. But I do know that when they finally introduced the accelerometer into service in the Hunter in 1954, and began educating the pilots on structural limitations and the dangers of overstressing, accidents to this cause virtually ceased.
After structural failure the next largest category of accidents proved on investigation to have followed loss of control by the pilot (36 cases). Of these 20 occured in cloud and could be put down to pilot error; one must remember that in the rush to get pilots operational instrument training was not up to peacetime standards. A further 13 accidents were shown to have been caused by oxygen starvation; the oxygen system had been used incorrectly with the result that the pilot had passed out and the aircraft had crashed. As a result of our investigations the system was modified to make it easier to operate.
The remaining 3 accidents in the loss of control category were initiated by the pilot pulling excessive G and blacking himself out.
Engine failures and fires contributed a further 17 accidents, and the remainder could be put down under the 'miscellaneous' heading (long story here about fuel leaks and explosions on the ground- Berkshire)
As I have mentioned we investigated a total of 121 Spitfire accidents during the war. The causes did not always fit simply into neat categories mentioned above. For example, a pilot might lose control in cloud and his aircraft then broke up in the ensuing dive due to aileron instability- in that case the accident would have been listed under two categories. There were one or two accidents caused by the light- weight plastic bucket seats fitted to some batches of Spitfires. The trouble was they were not strong enough and if there was a heavy pilot who pulled a bit of G they tended to collapse- on to the elevator control runs which ran underneath. We soon had that type of seat replaced.
In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."
To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire
(22,000 produced)
I shall refrain from calculating percentages to show what an incredibly low percentage of Spitfires were destroyed by structural failure/ engine failure for the reason outlined by Mr Newton. Nevertheless, there is absolutely nothing here to suggest that the Spitfire had some kind of endemic weakness.
I came across this post awhile back when searching for info on the Spitfire,
I don't want to hijack this thread but I feel the need to put the record straight on this one. The last thread concerning the Spitfire's dive speed was contaminated by (member's name deleted) poison pen regarding the Spitfire's structural integrity and I see his contention that it was 'weak' is gaining currency here- which is just what he intended.
I thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.
Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady). He says:
"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces. Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire.
The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?- Berkshire) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).
I once asked a very senior RAF officer why the accelerometer- technically a simple instrument- was not introduced during the war. He replied that he was sure it would have an adverse effect on the fighting spirit of the pilots (same was said re the parachute in WW1!- Berkshire).
Whether that would have been so I cannot say. But I do know that when they finally introduced the accelerometer into service in the Hunter in 1954, and began educating the pilots on structural limitations and the dangers of overstressing, accidents to this cause virtually ceased.
After structural failure the next largest category of accidents proved on investigation to have followed loss of control by the pilot (36 cases). Of these 20 occured in cloud and could be put down to pilot error; one must remember that in the rush to get pilots operational instrument training was not up to peacetime standards. A further 13 accidents were shown to have been caused by oxygen starvation; the oxygen system had been used incorrectly with the result that the pilot had passed out and the aircraft had crashed. As a result of our investigations the system was modified to make it easier to operate.
The remaining 3 accidents in the loss of control category were initiated by the pilot pulling excessive G and blacking himself out.
Engine failures and fires contributed a further 17 accidents, and the remainder could be put down under the 'miscellaneous' heading (long story here about fuel leaks and explosions on the ground- Berkshire)
As I have mentioned we investigated a total of 121 Spitfire accidents during the war. The causes did not always fit simply into neat categories mentioned above. For example, a pilot might lose control in cloud and his aircraft then broke up in the ensuing dive due to aileron instability- in that case the accident would have been listed under two categories. There were one or two accidents caused by the light- weight plastic bucket seats fitted to some batches of Spitfires. The trouble was they were not strong enough and if there was a heavy pilot who pulled a bit of G they tended to collapse- on to the elevator control runs which ran underneath. We soon had that type of seat replaced.
In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."
To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire
(22,000 produced)
I shall refrain from calculating percentages to show what an incredibly low percentage of Spitfires were destroyed by structural failure/ engine failure for the reason outlined by Mr Newton. Nevertheless, there is absolutely nothing here to suggest that the Spitfire had some kind of endemic weakness.
I never said I did not know his father was a fighter pilot and that he also flew the P-51. I knew that from the very beginning when he joined the forum. All I said was that I did not remember if I had seen the pics or not.
Thats a big difference.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I think he was referring to Soren Chris, not u...
IMHO Bf 109G structure was OK, IIRC Finnish AF suffered only one known structural failure during its combat use of G-2s and G-6s in 1943 – 44. Of course the number of planes was very small if we compared it to numbers used by LW, RAF, USAAF or VVS. Finns seemed to think that the heaviness of controls in high speed was intentional to protect pilots from structural failures. On the other hand Daimler-Benz 605A didn't endear itself to Finnish pilots, there were many catastrophic engine failures in 1943 even if the possibility of use of 1,42 ata emergency power was disabled in FAF's Bf 109Gs.
Juha
Juha
If I had known beforehand that Bill's dad was a WW2 fighter pilot I wouldn't have said what I did now would I Renrich ? I don't read every new post on this forum everytime I visit, I simply don't have the time, so even though I do try to check every day I far from read every new post.
The reason for my confusion was in part Bill's response to the stall speed table I presented, and that I never before had heard his father was a WW2 fighter pilot so I thought it abit late to come forth with - but he came forth with that from the beginning of his membership I just learned, so nothing odd there.
The reason for my confusion was in part Bill's response to the stall speed table I presented, and that I never before had heard his father was a WW2 fighter pilot so I thought it abit late to come forth with - but he came forth with that from the beginning of his membership I just learned, so nothing odd there.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
