Most Pilot friendly fighter?

Adler, I have to disagree. I have read this many times before but the Bf 109 was really not very hard to take off and land.

Click to expand...

Sorry Civettone, but I have to disagree with ur disagreement... There are too many first hand instances where experienced pilots had problems with the 109's ground handling and takeoff/landing properties... Documented proof... Since Im re-reading Willi's book again, its fresh in my mind, but there WAS a problem with the 109, and compared to the 190's characteristics, there was indeed difficulties with new pilots, AND experienced ones....

It probably has been exaggerated through the decades as u are elluding to, but it was a problem and not myth...

A final indication would be to compare the Bf 109 with other planes with a narrow undercarriage like the Spitfire or Martlet.

Click to expand...

The myth isn't that the 109 was difficult to land, it's that it was caused by the narrow track undercarriage. As you point out, the F4F had a very narrow track, and no problems with landing. The Spitfire also had a narrow track, and doesn't have the reputation the 109 has.

The problem for the 109 is that the wheels do not point straight ahead when the undercarriage is down. What that means is, when you land, if one wheel touches down before the other, the plane will tend to turn, if the wheel grips properly.

This is less pronounced on wet grass, and most dangerous on dry tarmac or concrete.

FLYBOYJ said:

Even today, the biggest killer in General Aviation is low time or "rusty" pilots flying twins and having an engine out on take off.

Click to expand...

That is an extremely good chunk of information to know. Thanks for posting it.

Sticking to Singles.

Hop said:

This is less pronounced on wet grass, and most dangerous on dry tarmac or concrete.

Click to expand...

There is a section in the book "The Blonde Knight of Germany" (at least I think it is that book) where Hartmann's group landed on concrete runways after operating from grass strips for a long period. The first 2-3 got down ok but everybody else after that had problems that either destroyed or damaged the aircraft.

I've heard estimates of 5%. If you figure there were 20K Me109s made, that comes out to 1,000 aircraft over the years. That's the kind of thing somebody should've fixed.

5% is ok for non-combat losses. There are sites that say 50% of the Bf 109s were lost due to TOL accidents.

Luckily I didn't take me that long to find the Finnish site I was referring to. Here it is: virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

It's too much to copy paste so I'll just take a couple of examples:
I noticed that people always kept warning about the swing at takeoff. I never let it do so, maybe I resisted it automatically. Visibility forwards was minimal during landing approach.
- Kauko Risku, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
The best things in the plane were its speed compared to the contemporary planes, and its weapons. The worst was perhaps the tendency to turn during take-offs, which was because the plane's horizontal and vertical stabilizers were of small size. One a young ensign made a takeoff: he was supposed to take off from Luonetjärvi's runway 31, but when he got up he had swerwed 90 degrees left from his original direction.
The best way to takeoff was to increase throttle slowly and push the stick at the same time, so the tail had enough airstream.
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Landing the 109
Me 109 G:
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-2:
"Landing was normal."
-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"Good in the Me? Good flying characterics, powerful engine and good take-off and landing characterics."
- Onni Kuuluvainen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Landing: landing glide using engine power and the following light wheel touchdown was easy and non-problematic. I didn't have any trouble in landings even when a tire exploded in my first Messerschmitt flight."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Takeoff and landing are known as troublesome, but in my opinion there is much more rumours around than what actually happened. There sure was some tendency to swing and it surely swerved if you didn't take into account. But I got the correct training for Messerchmitt and it helped me during my whole career. It was: "lock tailwheel, open up the throttle smoothly. When the speed increases correct any tendency to swing with your feet. Use the stick normally. Lift the tailwheel and pull plane into the sky.
Training to Me? It depended on the teacher. I got good training. First you had to know all the knobs and meters in the cockpit. Then you got the advice for takeoff and landing. Landing was easy in my opinion. In cold weather it was useful to have some RPMs during the finals and kill throttle just before flaring."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Especially look for the comments of Rall and of Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company who flew the Spanish Bf 109 up to 1999.
Also here:Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports Flight Journal - Find Articles

Kris

Civettone said:

5% is ok for non-combat losses. There are sites that say 50% of the Bf 109s were lost due to TOL accidents.

Click to expand...

and just why do you feel that is that "ok?"

And for as many guys that didnt have a problem landing/taxiing/takeoff, u'll find an even amount that claimed problems and ground loops because of the canted narrow tracked gear...

When I saw "White 14" fly at Mojave, the museum crew was always waiting with baited breath when it landed, one time the firetrucks were even on standby. They only flew her on calm days siting the squirreliness of the landing gear.

Flyboy, I believe that the P38 had engines that rotated in opposite direction therefore you did not have the torque factor to deal with on takeoff or climb.

Civettone, Regarding rookie pilots, I just finished a recent book about the Battle of Leyte Gulf which relied heavily on Japanese interviews. One participant in the battle related an experience when he was observing new IJN pilots trying to get aboard a carrier. He said it was pitiful as they took wave off after wave off and many never were able to land successfully. As for the Wildcat, a carrier landing because of the tail hook, may have been easier that a landing on a field. It was said that there were two kind of Wildcat pilots, those that had ground looped it and those that were going to ground loop it.

renrich said:

Flyboy, I believe that the P38 had engines that rotated in opposite direction therefore you did not have the torque factor to deal with on takeoff or climb.

Click to expand...

That is true, but he was right that the P-38 had no critical engine, which is because it had counter-rotating props. I have found that multiengines are not nearly as bad as singles however, even if they have props spinning the same direction, when it comes to left turning tendencies - which would be Prop factor, gyroscopic precession, torque effect, and slipstream.

P-39? Fighter? What for?
Bet there are a bunch of old men, with rows of medals on their jacket who loved flying the P-39 and killing German Tanks.

In some footage taken during, I think, the Marianas Turkey shoot, lots of navy pilots are ground looping their Wildcats, and maybe Hellcats, during carrier deck landing. Smashed planes up again'st deck and everywhere.


On youtube somebody had the clip up but now I can't find it.

I found another clip of carrier deck landings from the Turkey Shoot.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO56QsvxOZs

In the 1970's film "Midway," they took a lot of WWII footage and used it in the film for theatrical effect. Cut expenses on the film budget a lot I bet, but it looks pretty good.

Willy Ellenrieder, a Messerschmitt test pilot at Echterdingen, had some interesting comments on the 109s handling on the ground and coming in to land:

"We were accustomed to the Bf 109's ill manners; bad visibility before take off because the nose pointed skywards, the frightening take -off with the common tendency to swing, the unwieldy handling during final approach and the bumpy landings"

That film "Midway" still makes me see red. As important as that battle was to have all that melodramatic BS between the main character(Charlton Heston) and his son and all the other extraneous stuff but the crowning mistake was that they portrayed the carrier dive bombers(with models) as SB2Us. Well there were a few SB2Us flown by the poor Marines off Midway but if they are going to use models why not make models of the great airplane that did all the damage the SBD. Besides the SB2U could not deliver a true dive bomber attack as it had no dive brakes. I absolutely will not watch that stupid film when it comes around on TV. A good rendition of Midway was done in the film, "Task Force" from around 1949.

renrich said:

Flyboy, I believe that the P38 had engines that rotated in opposite direction therefore you did not have the torque factor to deal with on takeoff or climb.

Click to expand...

Correct, my mistake...

renrich said:

It was said that there were two kind of Wildcat pilots, those that had ground looped it and those that were going to ground loop it.

Click to expand...

I think that could be applied to any taildragger....

timshatz said:

That is an extremely good chunk of information to know. Thanks for posting it.

Sticking to Singles.

Click to expand...

Stick to Gliders then theres nothing to let you down, or it must be said, to let you go around again should you mess up the approach.

Glider said:

Stick to Gliders then theres nothing to let you down, or it must be said, to let you go around again should you mess up the approach.

Click to expand...

Get it right the first time!

In the years I've 'studied' the Bf 109, I have gotten a pretty good view on the aircraft, if I may say so. I'm not the expert like Kurfürst is but there are certain things which I observe without any bias.
Most important is that I usually read on the Bf 109 TOL problems when it's a site or article about the Bf 109. But when I read pilot accounts I hardly ever hear this. I can remember maybe two pilots claiming that they had problems with the landing gear of the Bf 109. All the other stories are writers telling the story. That's just my observation. Feel free to point out axis pilots complaining about the landing gear.
Now ... this still doesn't say that the pilots were right and the writers wrong. But here's another observation: when I was looking up on the Bf 109 TOL problems on the internet - I had to look for that Finnish website, remember? - I noticed how most websites mentioned the TOL problems of the Bf 109. And in 99% of the cases this was brought down to the narrow landing gear. Most of the publications I have in my possession tell the same story.
But as a member correctly pointed out, the problem was not so much the narrow landing gear but the non-vertical position of the 'legs'. That makes me conclude that the pilots know better than the writers.

And as I don't recall many pilots complaining that much about the Bf 109 landing gear, AND because there is no statistical evidence to back these accidents up, I tend to believe that the TOL problem was not as serious as it is usually told.

Another document I mentioned is the "Abschrift des Berichts über die Dienstreise Major Grotes zu J.G. 101, 3./J.G. 105, I. u. 7./J.G. 108
für den Führungsstab Ia/Ausb., Zweck: Feststellung der tieferen Ursachen der hohen Flugzeugunfälle ohne Feindeinwirkung, 14.9.1944, in: BA-MA RL 2II/181"
Basically an investigation into the high non-combat losses of the fighter squadrons in 1944. One of the observations of Major Grotes was that the Flying Schools were deliberatey causing fear amongst the recruits concerning the Bf 109 flying characteristics. Apparently the JG pilots didn't see any reason for this fear.

Btw, in June 1944 48.5% of all losses were not a result of combat. According to Galland 2/3 of these non-combat losses were the result of human failure. That also puts the results of Big Week and other air campaigns into perspective. Training was the biggest weakness of the Luftwaffe in 1943-1945, even more so than the fuel shortage.
Kris