If you look at most modern military planes they are almost all lost in accidents.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you look at most modern military planes they are almost all lost in accidents.LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s to TO/Landing accidents. There was something wrong with that landing gear, whether it be width or strength, it was the Achilles heel of an otherwise great plane.
Indeed and all types have their quirks.If you look at most modern military planes they are almost all lost in accidents.
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>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.
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.Okay, I get it, but the gear was still too narrow. It was a lousy landing gear design from the beginning. And very dangerous.
Okay, I get it, but the gear was still too narrow. It was a lousy landing gear design from the beginning. And very dangerous.
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.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.
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.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.
Some are just too dangerous. The 109 was one. 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.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I was waiting for some facts, if you quote a figure you must have some back up.Some are just too dangerous. The 109 was one. Just my opinion.
Some are just too dangerous. The 109 was one. Just my opinion.
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.Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I was waiting for some facts, if you quote a figure you must have some back up.
Bf109 losses, accidents, combat etc.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.
They make a great deal of difference - especially if a person is trying to make a legitimate point.Since when do facts make any difference?
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.
Like: "one in 3 people may survive touching Dave's beer, the other two were hauled away in an ambulance"?Quoting is not showing. I make up quotes all the time
Statistically carrier based aircraft are useless at landing on carriers, probably better with land based planes.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"?
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.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.