The Bf 109 aka ME-109 landing gear myth research thread. (1 Viewer)

[parsifal]

And in 1945 the OB was

Luftwaffe forces in Norway 10th of May '45

Unit Airfield Type Number
of A/C
General der Luftwaffe Oslo
5.Fliegerdivision Moen
1 (F)/Aufkl.Gr 124 Bodoe Ju 188 F1 2
Bodoe Ju 188 D2 1
Bodoe Ju 88 D1 2
Bodoe He 111 H 6 1
Bodoe Fi 156 C 3 1
Gardermoen Ju 188 D2 1
Stab/Seeaufkl.Gr 130 Soerrreisa BV 222 C 12 1
3 (F)/Seeaufkl.Gr.130 Tromsoe Ar 196 A4 2
1./Nahaufkl.Gr.32 Bodoe Me 109 G-8/R5 7
Bodoe FW 189 A2 2
Bodoe FW 189 A 3 2
Bodoe Fi 156 C3 3
Bodoe Ar 199 A 0 1
Bardufoss Fi 156 D 1
*
Fliegerfuhrer 4 Trondheim
Stab Kjeller Fi 156 C3 1
Stab/KG 26 Vaernes Ju 88 A 1
Vaernes He 111H 6 1
II/KG 26 Gardermoen Ju 88 A 17 20
Vaernes Ju 88 A 17 2
III/KG 26 Gardermoen Ju 188 A3 26
Vaernes Ju 188 A 3 5
1(F)/Aufkl.Gr 120 Sola Ju 188 D2 2
Sola Ju 88 D1 1
Sola Ju 88 D5 1
Sola Fi 156 C3 3
Vaernes Ju 88 D1 1
Vaernes He 111 H6 1
Gardermoen He 111 H6 1
1.(F) Seeaufkl.Gr 130 Trondheim Ar 196 A 3 2
Einsatzkdo 1 / F.A.G 1 Sola Ar 234 B2 2
Wettererk.Staffel 3 Oeysand Ju 188 D 2 1
Vaernes Ju 88 D 1 2
11./ZG 26 Oerland Me 410 A/B 15
Oerland FW 58
Seetransportfl.
Staffel 2 Sola Ju 52 See 3
Kjevik Ju 52 See 4
Hommelvik Ju 52 See 1
Transportfl.Gr 20 Fornebu Ju 52 See 13
Fornebu Me 108 B 1 1
Fornebu FW 189 A 3
Fornebu FW 58C 2
Kjevik Ju 52 11
Kjevik FW 189 A2 1
Kjevik FW 58 B 2 1
Bardufoss Ju 52
*
Jagdfliegerfuhrer Norwegen.
Staff use: Forus Fi 156 C3 1
Forus Ju 52 1
Forus Me 108 1
Lade Fi 156 1
Stab II / JG 5 Herdla FW 190 A8 1
Herdla FW 190 F 8 1
Herdla Fi 156 C 3 1
5/JG 5 Herdla FW 190 A8 9
Herdla FW 190 F8 1
7/JG 5 Sola Me 109 G 6 16
Sola Me 110 G 2 1
9/JG 5 Herdla FW 190 A 3 5
Herdla FW 190A 8 4
Herdla Me 110 G2 1
Stab III / JG 5 Gossen Me 109 G-14 1
6/JG 5 Rygge Me 109 G 6 16
10/JG 5 Gossen Me 109 G 6 6
Gossen Me 109 G-14 6
Gossen Me 110 G 2 1
11/JG 5 Gossen Me 109 G 6 16
Stab IV/JG 5 Kjevik Kjevik Me 109 G-14 2
Forus Fi 156 C 3 1
Forus FW 58B 2 1
13/JG 5 Lista Me109G 6 7
Lista Me 109 G-14 8
Lista Me 110 G 2 1
14/JG 5 Kjevik Me 109 G 6 7
Kjevik Me 109 G-14 9
Kjevik Me 110 G 2 1
15/JG 5 Lista Me 109 G-14 14
4/N.J.G 3 Kjevik Me 110 G 4 2
Gardermoen Ju 88 G 6 5
Gardermoen Ju 88 C 6 1
*
Other units:
Verbindungsstaffel Norwegen.
Fornebu Ju 52 2
Fornebu Si 204 D1 1
Fornebu Fi 156 2
Vaaler He 111 H5 1
Vaaler Me 108 B 1 1
Vaernes He 111 E 1
Tromsoe W.34 hi See 1
Kjevik Ju 52 1
Lade Fi 156 C 2
Bardufoss Fi 156 C 2
Bardufoss Si 204 D 1 1
Flugbereitschaft/Fl.Verbindungs-
Geschwader 2 Fornebu Fi 156 F 3
Bergen Fi 156 F 3
Kdo.Flughafen-
Bereich Oslo Fornebu Fi 156 C 3 1
Kdo.Flughafen-
Bereich Dronth. Lade Fi 156 C 3 1
Kdo.Flughafen-
Bereich Narvik Bardufoss Fi 156 C 3 1
Fliegerhorstkdtr.Bodoe Bodoe Fi 156 C 3 1
Hoeh.Kdo.71 Bardufoss Fi 156 C 3 1
2/M.S.Gr 1 Fornebu Ju 52 MS
Listing – All flying units of Luftwaffe in Norway
Unit
Reccon
Kustenfliegergruppe 106, 125, 406, 506, 606, 706 and 906
Bordfliegergruppe 196
Seeaufklarungsgruppe 130, 131
Arado-Kette
Aufklarungsgruppe (H) 10, (F) 22, (H) 32, (F) 120, 122, 124, 129, Ob.d.L,
Fernaufklarungsgruppe 5
Aufklarungsketta A.O.K 20
Aufklarungskette Skagerak
Wetterkundungsstaffel 3, 5, 6
Sea Rescue units
Seenotdienststaffel 5, 10, 50, 51
Bomb units
Lehrgeschwader 1
Kampfgeschwader 4, 26, 30, 40, 54, 60, 200, 100
Dive bombers heavy fighters
Lehrgescwader 1
Sturzkampfgeschwader 1, 5
Schlachtgeschwader 5
Nachtschlachtgruppe 8
Zerstoerergeschwader 76, 26
Nachtjagdstaffel Finland, Norwegen
Nachtjagdgeschwader 3
Jachtgeschwader 5, 77, 2, 5, 11, 77
Tragergeschwader 186
Jagdgruppe Drontheim
Jagdgruppe z.b.V
Jagdkommandos Sud Nord
Transport,- and other support units
Versuchsverband Ob.d.L
Minensuchgruppe 1
Kampfgruppe z.b.V 9, 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108
Kampfgeschwader z.b.V 108, 1
Ransportfliegergruppe 20
Seetransportfliegerstaffel 2, 3
Transportfliegerstaffel Condor
Transportstaffel z.b.V
Kampfgruppe z.b.V 4
Verbindungsstaffel 2, 4
Verbindungsstaffel Norwegen
Transportstaffel Fl.Fuhr. Nord (Ost), Nord (West)
Sanitatsflugbereitschaft 8
Fliegerverbindungsgeschwader 2
Flugbereitschaft Luftflotte 5
Flugbereitschaft Komm.General der Deutschen Luftwaffe in Finland.
Kampfgeschwader z.b.V 5
Fliegerzielstaffel 50, 51
Luftdienstkommando Norwegen, Finland
Transportkette Fl.Fuhrer 3, 5
Fuhrungskette X Fliegerkorps
Sonderstaffel Transozean
Abbreviations used:

Kampfgeschwader KG
Kampfgruppe K.Gr
Jachtgeschwader JG
Jagdgruppe J.Gr.
Transportgeschwader T.G
Transportgruppe T.Gr.
Zerstoerergeschwader Z.G
Sturtzkampfgeschwader St.G
Schlachtgeschwader S.G
Aufklarungsgruppe (F) (F) /Aufkl.gr
Aufklarungsgruppe (H) (H) /Aufkl.gr
Bordfliegergruppe B.Fl.Gr.
Kustenfliegergruppe Ku,.Fl.Gr.
Seeaufklarungsgruppe S.A.Gr
Minensuchgruppe M.S.Gr
Nachtschlachtgruppe N.S.Gr.
Wetteerkundungsstaffel Westa or, Wekusta
Sanitetsflugbereitschaft San.Fl.Ber.
*
Naval planes (See)
Dive bombers (St.)
Heavy fighter (Me 110) (Z)
Distant reccon (F)
Close reccon (H)
Fighter-Bomber (Jabo)
Railway Bombers (Eis.)

 

[parsifal]

This site also provides an excellent resource from which to research this issue

Nordic Aviation During WW2


Now, just having a quick lok at a random sample.....JG11 is attached to LW Norway, though in reality it is based in Denmark and Northern Germany (with some of its formations defending southern Norway). It was heavily engaged in the defence over Northern Germany including operations against Operation Gommorrah and the "Blitz week". In a one year period, from 15/04/43 to 15/04/44 it suffered exactly 200 losses, of which 78, or 38% were non-combat related

If we assume an average paper strength of 48 a/c attached to the gershwader at any given time, then in that 12 month period, the group suffered an overall attrition rate of 417% for the whole year, or 35% of its force strength per month. The attrition rate due to non-combat reasons (accidents), was 162.5% for the whole year, or 13.5% per month. Thats 6-7 aircraft out of 48, lost every month to non-combat causes.

39% of the gershwaders losses for the were due to attrition. And this is in a T/O that was partly a "quiet sector". In point of fact there were no "quiet sectors" for the LW, no areas where it could sit back and take it easy

 

[Nikademus]

Interesting thread, given that i'd only recently read from a recent author who also disagreed with the narrow carriage issue with the 109.

This excerpt from James Holland's recent book "The Battle of Britian" published this year.

It was also true that the Me 109E had a comparatively narrow undercarriage, which made it less stable on the ground, potentially a hazard in the hands of inexperienced pilots when touching down. However, although it's roots were much narrower than that of the Spitfire, it's legs were splayed so that in fact, they were about the same width as that of the British fighter. The Hurricane, with it's inward folding undercarriage, was the most stable of the three on the ground, but the great advantage of the Me 109 arrangement was that the legs were attached to the underside of the fuselage rather than the wing. This meant wings could be replaced with comparative ease, without having to dismantle the wheels, legs and hydraulics.

It is a myth, however, that it was the narrow undercarriage that made the Me 109 so potentially lethal to the inexperienced. Rather, it was it's unforgiving nature at low speeds, more a result of it's high wing loading and the enormous torque of it's DB601 engine.

At Guines, for example, there was a track running about two-thirds of the way across the airfield. 'It was only a slight dip' says Hans-Ekkehard Bob, 'but it was just where you took off and where you landed back down again. If you didn't judge it right, it was very easy to jolt the plane as the wheels went over it. Then a wingtip would hit the ground, then the propeller, and before you knew it the machine had flipped. It never happened to me, but it did to lots of others.'

It is also true that considerable numbers of Me 109s were lost or damaged in flying accidents, but there is little to suggest that they were any higher than those of the RAF, which suffered it's fair share too. Despite it's wide and stable undercarriage, a staggering 463 Hurricanes, for example, were damaged as a result of accidents between 7/10/40 and 10/31/40. Some of these were minor prangs, others were fatal.

snip.

It has been suggested that these [non combat losses] contributed as much as 20-30% of the losses during the battle - on both sides. Most were caused by a mixture of inexperience, lack of concentration and fatigue.



From my end....last year i went to a local airshow staged by the Flying Heritage Museum in Everett WA. They have a flyable Me-109E (or Bf-109E if you prefer) and I watched it fly that day. I asked the pilot afterwards if the landing gear was of particular concern to him. He said no. In fact i overheard him comment to a honored guest Colonel Ralph C. Jenkins who was there to watch the show and see his preserved P-47, "Did you catch my mistake?" Apparantly he'd come down a little too hard and bounced the plane slightly off the landing gear on touchdown.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good stuff guys, this thread has really really become interesting.

I guess it is a good thing we did not close it like the originator of the thread wanted huh?

 

[Mosshorn]

They have a flyable Me-109E (or Bf-109E if you prefer) and I watched it fly that day. I asked the pilot afterwards if the landing gear was of particular concern to him. He said no.

Well... As we all know, a Bf-109E with the guns, ammo and armor stripped out is not a Bf-109G loaded for combat. The difference in the weight of the two different engines alone makes the E versus the G two very different aircraft.

Bronc

 

[vikingBerserker]

This really hs become a great thread, thanks fellas.

 

[davebender]

Flying in northern Norway is a lot like flying in the Aleutian Islands. Accident rates in those areas are going to be much higher then elsewhere.

 

[P-40K-5]

I was looking at the Hungarian Stats for accidents, far different then the Luftwaffe. Same goes with the Fins. whats going on there? better pilots? doubt it. can't be becouse they had fewer Bf109's, cause the t/o-landings accident percentages would be the same, no? I mean, math is math right?

 

[parsifal]

Good stuff guys, this thread has really really become interesting.

I guess it is a good thing we did not close it like the originator of the thread wanted huh?

It is a good thread. Its a pity that the author, Lighthunmust got irritated because we didnt understand what he was after. You cant execise that amount of control over a thread, it doesnt work that way. Theres always a degree of meandering and off topic discussion that goes with this stuff. we always seem to sort of follow the topic.....

 

[parsifal]

Flying in northern Norway is a lot like flying in the Aleutian Islands. Accident rates in those areas are going to be much higher then elsewhere.

I'd agree with that, except that the example I quoted JG11, was based in Denmark and Northern Germany, and then finally in southern Norway.

Weather plays an important part in atrition rates in wartime. Aircraft are routinely asked to exceed safe weight limits, fly in wether that would be judged unsuitable in peacetime, and fly beyond the design limits of the aircraft 9including beyond range limits). However in this particulalr case, there should not be anything unusual or extraordinary about the weather conditions that JG11 were asked to operate in.

 

[parsifal]

I was looking at the Hungarian Stats for accidents, far different then the Luftwaffe. Same goes with the Fins. whats going on there? better pilots? doubt it. can't be becouse they had fewer Bf109's, cause the t/o-landings accident percentages would be the same, no? I mean, math is math right?

I would need to see the stats to make any suggestion. The figures from Knutsens site are for aircraft damged above 60%, so they are write offs. Perhaps the hungarian air force wa not asked to fly as hard, or as often, or in conditions as bad as was often put onto the LW. But we need to look at your data to try and make sense of it.

 

[P-40K-5]

its not my data, its the publishers, in this case, the Hungarian Airforce, and Various websites on the Finnish Bf109's.
anyways you hit the nail on the head. theres more to it then just the L/G design. ALOT more to it. the Luftwaffe pilots
in some cases were asked to fly from, and land in places that under normal circumstances they would have said " no
fricken way!". they had to invent new ways to land an aircraft. and invent new ways to takeoff as well. pioneers I say.

Imagine scambling to intercept a formation of 100's of B-17 from an airfield that was little more then a 50ft wide firebreak
barely 3/4mile long in the middle of a forrest. fighting the B-17's, sometimes barely escaping death, other times watching your
friends die, then having to turn around with next to no fuel, and try to land in that mess.

can anybody blame them if they were less then perfect on their landings?

 

[Juha]

As for first 8 days of June 44, just before the massive Soviet attack on the Finnish field army, so at the time heightened but not extraordinarily high air activity , the FAF lost in air combat 2 Bf 109Gs + one dam and 2 damaged in accidents, one groundlooped during landing and one swerved during t/o.

Juha

 

[Shortround6]

Imagine scambling to intercept a formation of 100's of B-17 from an airfield that was little more then a 50ft wide firebreak
barely 3/4mile long in the middle of a forrest. fighting the B-17's, sometimes barely escaping death, other times watching your
friends die, then having to turn around with next to no fuel, and try to land in that mess.

can anybody blame them if they were less then perfect on their landings?

No one can blame them, the question is would a different aircraft, with different landing/ground handling characteristics suffered fewer accidents or allowed more of those pilots to make safe homecomings in those conditions.

 

[P-40K-5]

well In this case I thing the gear is very suited for the conditions.. maybe Willy was onto something. Can't imagine a spit or p-51 handling those conditions with any authority.

 

[parsifal]

No one can blame them, the question is would a different aircraft, with different landing/ground handling characteristics suffered fewer accidents or allowed more of those pilots to make safe homecomings in those conditions.

we are never going to get a perfect comparison, because the variables are just too many, but I wonder if we could get loss data for an allied fighter unit of similar size, operating in similar weather conditions, at about the same time in the war, to compare loss ratios. At this mid point in the war, the levels of pilot experience were similar, the combat stresses at least comparable, the only real difference should be the aircraft. Although the type and finish of the srtips they were operating from may be different, I admit.

So does anyone have a readily available set of loss numbers for an allied fighter unit of wing or group size operating out of say England or Scotland mid war.... we need loss by cause and loss by date basically

 

[Njaco]

nothing from me ....only LW. Sorry.

 

[parsifal]

we would need as our random sample something "normal" or "typical", not unusual or extraordinary. Picking a unit that lost its entire fighter strength in a day, for example due to accidents, is not going to yield a comparable result, unless thats what happened to every allied fighter unit in Europe.

 

[Mustang nut]

It is also true that considerable numbers of Me 109s were lost or damaged in flying accidents, but there is little to suggest that they were any higher than those of the RAF, which suffered it's fair share too. Despite it's wide and stable undercarriage, a staggering 463 Hurricanes, for example, were damaged as a result of accidents between 7/10/40 and 10/31/40. Some of these were minor prangs, others were fatal. [/i]

The period 7/10/40 and 10/31/40 was when hurricanes were also being used as night fighters. I think it is very difficult to get the whole picture.

 

[davebender]

period 7/10/40 and 10/31/40 was when hurricanes were also being used as night fighters.

10./(N)JG26, 10./(N)JG53, and IV./(N)JG2 employed Me-109s as night fighters until October 1940.