If you look at most modern military planes they are almost all lost in accidents.
Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?
- Thread starter Readie
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Indeed and all types have their quirks.
It would be interesting to look through the MACRs and see how many pilots (novice and otherwise) were killed by the P-39's flat-spin tendancy.
It is a false use of statistics, take off and landing is the most dangerous time, especially with a high powered tail dragger. Apart from being shot down and written off as obsolete when else would they be lost>
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Okay, I get it, but the gear was still too narrow. It was a lousy landing gear design from the beginning. And very dangerous.
How? When some of the top aces flew the Bf 109 throughout the war and survived? Requiring skill and training isn't the same as dangerous.
Narrow was not the problem, or we would have this discussion about Spitfires...
Narrow is not ideal, but it's not the root cause.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
The LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s built to ground handling accidents. Not one third of all accidents. One of every three 109s built crashed on TO or landing. If you could get them through enough TO/landing cycles they would have killed themselves off without any help from the Allies.
Somebody had to survive the 109 throughout the war, and the fact that the top aces made it through to the end is merely testament to their immense skill and experience. If only the experten could survive the 109, then it was just too difficult to operate. Not every pilot is a top ace. Just my opinion.
Did they? Where are the stats for that? As the war went on the space and planes available for training went down, it is not a fault of the plane if pilots are not correctly trained, you can find many aircraft that were dangerous if flown incorrectly, most are.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Some are just too dangerous. The 109 was one. Just my opinion.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I was waiting for some facts, if you quote a figure you must have some back up.
You are correct it is an opinion, nothing more.
I don't think you will find anyone who actually flew the plane that will agree with you that it was overtly dangerous. I'll take the actual expert opinions.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Since when do facts make any difference? I quote facts all day from govt tests, plane manuals, books, the internet and nobody believes me. I could care less. Facts are facts whether you believe them or not. It is what it is.
fubar57
General
Quoting is not showing. I make up quotes all the time
Bf109 losses, accidents, combat etc.
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...
An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a landing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.
When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
They make a great deal of difference - especially if a person is trying to make a legitimate point.
Particularly in regards to a fighter that accounted for a considerable amount of Allied casualties and deaths when compared to other Axis types.
If one is going to toss a number out there, it's usually good to provide a source if it runs contrary to peer-reviewed research.
wuzak
Captain
How many 109 landings, in total, were there for those ground handling accidents?
Did 1/3 of landings end in an accident?
Or was it closer to 1/1,000,000?
And how many of those ground handling accidents involved aircraft that were already damaged?
If one 109 loses it on landing and crashes into one, or more, other 109s, would they all be classified as "lost to ground handling accidents"?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Like: "one in 3 people may survive touching Dave's beer, the other two were hauled away in an ambulance"?
Asking for a friend
Statistically carrier based aircraft are useless at landing on carriers, probably better with land based planes.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
My source was an article by Corky Meyer (longtime Grumman test pilot/author) in WWII Fighters special edition of Flight Journal Winter 2000. Title of the article was "The Bf 109's Real Enemy Was Itself!" where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents. I have read this figure before in other sources.
Meyer was a fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and in 1971 was awarded the James H. Doolittle Award for Outstanding Professional Accomplishment in Aerospace Technical Management.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
