Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

buffnut453 · Jul 24, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
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.

It would be good to know the precise origin of those figures. I've seen long-propagated mistakes being trotted out by a succession of authors simply because they quoted "someone who knew". In tracing the history of one particular mistake, the earliest published record was made by a well-known and highly-respected aviation historian...but he plain got it wrong.

Just because something gets repeated doesn't mean it's correct, no matter how well qualified the writer may be. One only has to look at the nonsense taking place on a daily basis on social media to know that's a truth!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 24, 2018

Also those figures do not take everything into account.

Was the aircraft landing while battle damaged?

Field Conditions?

Pilot health (injury)?

Pilot Training?

You can spin statistics however you want to say whatever you want it to say. That does not mean it tells the whole picture.

I don't think anyone will disagree that the landing gear on a 109 was not ideal, and probably it's biggest issue, but to say the aircraft was "Too Dangerous" because of it is not correct.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they both stink.

buffnut453 · Jul 24, 2018

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

One of my bosses had a perennial and oft-used response to that phrase. He would immediately jump in with "Some people are blessed to have 2 of them, and use one solely for verbal communication."

fastmongrel · Jul 24, 2018

Statiscally 100% of people reading this thread will die within the next 100 years I think somebody should think of the children.

Shortround6 · Jul 24, 2018

It is an interesting "statistic" but actually pretty worthless on it's own.

1. We have nothing to compare it to. Were Spitfires or F4F or Mustangs significantly better or worse?
2. 109s covers a range of rather different aircraft. Jumo 210 powered planes that weighed about 5,000lbs to late Gs and Ks that close to 7,000lbs.
Unfortunately the standard of training went down as the weight went up.
3. not all take-off and landing accidents are related to narrow landing gear and/or toe in.
4. a better statistic is accidents per 1000 hours flown but even that has problems. Planes that flew longer missions have fewer take-offs landing per 1000 hours.
5. what is needed is take-off and landing accidents per 1000 (or 10,000) take-off landing cycles, good luck finding that.

I would note that I once read that the Luscombe light planes had an accident rate about twice most other tail draggers, And that was based on number of hours flown.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 24, 2018

Shortround6 said:
It is an interesting "statistic" but actually pretty worthless on it's own.

1. We have nothing to compare it to. Were Spitfires or F4F or Mustangs significantly better or worse?
2. 109s covers a range of rather different aircraft. Jumo 210 powered planes that weighed about 5,000lbs to late Gs and Ks that close to 7,000lbs.
Unfortunately the standard of training went down as the weight went up.
3. not all take-off and landing accidents are related to narrow landing gear and/or toe in.
4. a better statistic is accidents per 1000 hours flown but even that has problems. Planes that flew longer missions have fewer take-offs landing per 1000 hours.
5. what is needed is take-off and landing accidents per 1000 (or 10,000) take-off landing cycles, good luck finding that.

I would note that I once read that the Luscombe light planes had an accident rate about twice most other tail draggers, And that was based on number of hours flown.

Exactly, well said. There are just so many variables that make using a blanket statement nothing more than an unfounded opinion.

swampyankee · Jul 24, 2018

Anecdote — including eyewitness testimony more than a few days after events — is notoriously unreliable.

I suspect one possibility is somewhere someone found a report stating 1/3 of Bf109s were involved on landing incidents, which could include anything from a fatality and destroyed aircraft to somebody rolling over a piece of debris and getting a flat tire.

wuzak · Jul 24, 2018

Nearly half of all Lancasters built were lost during the war.

Does that mean that for every mission, half the Lancasters were lost? Seems to be the logic with the Bf 109 and landing accidents.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 24, 2018

wuzak said:
Nearly half of all Lancasters built were lost during the war.

Does that mean that for every mission, half the Lancasters were lost? Seems to be the logic with the Bf 109 and landing accidents.

These kind of things typically happen when people do not objectively look at the big picture simply because they have an agenda.

Note: Not saying anyone here is guilty of that.

P-39 Expert · Jul 24, 2018

I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.

fubar57 · Jul 24, 2018

I've got about 10% around the web which is less than "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 source." so.....yes

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 24, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.

Come on now...

Everyone is saying that you ARE NOT TAKING EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT AND ARE MAKING UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS OFF OF ONLY PART OF THE EQUATION.

Shortround6 · Jul 24, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.

"where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents"

Ok, while close, these are not quite the same thing, on several levels.

ANd to be perfectly technical. every plane that crashes has the ground enter into the incident at some point. Unless you find some crashed planes that are still floating around in the air.

The point some of US are trying to make is that the statement, on it's face, may be true but it tells us nothing about how frequent the accidents were (every 10th flight or every 100th flight), or how it compares to other aircraft.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 24, 2018

Shortround6 said:
"where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents"

Ok, while close, these are not quite the same thing, on several levels.

ANd to be perfectly technical. every plane that crashes has the ground enter into the incident at some point. Unless you find some crashed planes that are still floating around in the air.

The point some of US are trying to make is that the statement, on it's face, may be true but it tells us nothing about how frequent the accidents were (every 10th flight or every 100th flight), or how it compares to other aircraft.

Or what contributing factors were in play.

fubar57 · Jul 24, 2018

Interesting article here...virtualpilots.fi: 109myths In it it says...

""109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

"11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

P-39 Expert · Jul 24, 2018

fubar57 said:
Interesting article here...virtualpilots.fi: 109myths In it it says...

""109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

"11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

Here we go again. My sources are wrong. Published authors who have done research. Okay, got it.

GrauGeist · Jul 24, 2018

Ok, well *technically* speaking, any Bf109 shot down, had an issue with landing.

Soooooooo...there may be a grain of truth floating around in there somewhere.

P-39 Expert · Jul 24, 2018

pbehn said:
View attachment 503029

Which one didn't survive the landing?

Statistically 1.333 of those crashed on landing.

fastmongrel · Jul 24, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.

I know nothing about Corky Meyer but have to ask as he obviously wasnt a LW pilot where did he get his information from. Did he dig in LW archives write everything down on a spreadsheet and work out the figures or did he read it in a book or did he hear it from a man at the bar.

fubar57 · Jul 24, 2018

fastmongrel said:
I know nothing about Corky Meyer but have to ask as he obviously wasnt a LW pilot where did he get his information from. Did he dig in LW archives write everything down on a spreadsheet and work out the figures or did he read it in a book or did he hear it from a man at the bar.

He was also an author in "Flight Journal" magazine. See article posted above

Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Captain

1st Sergeant

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Chief Master Sergeant

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Non-Expert

General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

General

Non-Expert

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Non-Expert

1st Sergeant

General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads