The Bf 109 aka ME-109 landing gear myth research thread.

[P-40K-5]

P-40K-5 did you read the thread starting post?

If you did, do you understand the following?

"PLEASE DO NOT POST REFERENCES OR OPINIONS DISPUTING THESE CLAIMS. If you find a published dispute of these claims, provide the source, name, date and quote of the claim they are disputing. I only want a list of where seen, who said what, and date so I can find the earliest date to determine origin of the claim of 11,000 Bf 109s lost in landing and takeoff accidents. Once that is found we all can figure out how these claims got started and why?"

I remember you posting that English is not your first language but I think you are sufficiently fluent to understand the purpose, methodology, and procedures of this thread. Please do not make any more posts similar to the one you just made. This thread is not for disputing this claim, it is only for identifying the origin of the claim. I know you love the Bf 109 but please restrain yourself from further comment disputing the claim. Please help me by researching in your library any publishing history of the claim. There are going to be quotes posted to this thread that are going to get your self-described bluntness infused "blood" boiling, take a cold shower when this happens. Please do not attempt to "boil alive" any people posting these quotes. Whether you intentionally or unintentionally did it, you just behaved disrespectfully to me by not adhering to the "rules" I established for this thread. Thank you for your future cooperation.

so you rather have published reports disputing these claims rather then individual opinions? well, good luck on that. oh wait, you could start here:

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

just a bunch of pilots who actually flew the Bf109.

sorry that my lack of comprehension interfeared with genuine research. or that individual unpublished opinions don't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[davebender]

More specific technical information. It appears to me JG-26 had more take off and landing accidents with the Fw-190 then with the Me-109. I assume that has to do with declining pilot experience rather then the Fw-190 being prone to landing accidents.
Kurfürst Discussion Boards • Login

 

[parsifal]

Probably doesnt help, but this site mentions the landing gear issue

Messerschmitt Bf 109 (Me 109) - History and Pictures of German WW2 Fighter Plane

Relevantly it says:

"At first, the Luftwaffe pilots, from Ernst Udet on down, distrusted the aircraft. It seemed frail; its enclosed canopy was disconcerting; it had a very high wing loading; and its narrow track landing gear was prone to failure. (On this last point, their concerns were well founded. Landing gear troubles plagued the 109 its entire career.)"

And here is a vlink to a video of a restored Me 109 suffering a gear failure

VIDEO: EADS Messerschmitt Bf-109 undercarriage collapse and groundloop at ILA Berlin 2008-29/05/2008-London-Flightglobal.com


Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, 1939;
'The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.'

 

[Lighthunmust]

These types of posts do not supply the requested information. They have good information but are not relevant to the very narrowly defined data requested.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Probably doesnt help, but this site mentions the landing gear issue

Messerschmitt Bf 109 (Me 109) - History and Pictures of German WW2 Fighter Plane

Relevantly it says:

"At first, the Luftwaffe pilots, from Ernst Udet on down, distrusted the aircraft. It seemed frail; its enclosed canopy was disconcerting; it had a very high wing loading; and its narrow track landing gear was prone to failure. (On this last point, their concerns were well founded. Landing gear troubles plagued the 109 its entire career.)"

And here is a vlink to a video of a restored Me 109 suffering a gear failure

VIDEO: EADS Messerschmitt Bf-109 undercarriage collapse and groundloop at ILA Berlin 2008-29/05/2008-London-Flightglobal.com


Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, 1939;
'The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.'

Thank you Parsifal but as I have told others I am really trying to keep all replying posts to the specified criteria. I don't want to have a thread filled with so much extraneous information that it is difficult for new posters to determine if the specific information relevant to the thread has already been posted. I just want to create a timeline back to the originator of the specified claim. Then attempt to discover what justification was used to make it and use much the data already available and unfortunately reposted on this thread to challenge the claim.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe I saw such figures in "Famous Fighters of World War II " by William Green Vol 1 on the last page of the chapter on the 109 but I cannot find my copy to verify this. I believe this was a 1959 0r 1960 copyright?

Maybe somebody else has this book?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Lighthunmust, this is a very good thread but please grow a backbone and stop reporting each and every post you don't like!!!! I do not want to shut this thread down but I will if this sniveling continues!!!!

 

[Lighthunmust]

Lighthunmust, this is a very good thread but please grow a backbone and stop reporting each and every post you don't like!!!! I do not want to shut this thread down but I will if this sniveling continues!!!!

PM sent to moderators requesting closure of thread. I will not waste my time on a thread that is being made a mockery of and results in unwarranted insult for protesting the mockery.

 

[P-40K-5]

' it is only for identifying the origin of the claim '

you would probably have to go waaaaay back to around 1936/1937. maybe Willy said " well screw it anyways, its easier to ship and assemble,
and perform maitneance in the field ". IF it was that big a deal, there would have been a major change with the "F" model. but there wasn't.

the reason I posted the link above was it was ACTUAL Bf109 pilots who gave there reasoning for "the myth"

TRUE research my friend requires looking at ALL aspects of the myth, not just how the myth originated. becouse IF that is your main
focus, I promise you you will not find the answer.

anyways from what I've read, the biggest complaint seems to be from RAF test pilots flying DAMAGED Bf109's. Dave Brown, a USAAF
test pilot, had no complaints of the landing gear configuration.

Kind Regards.

 

[Gnomey]

I'm not closing it just because you disagree with the views being expressed. It is a discussion forum people have opinions, some will be different from yours. Deal with it and stop being a pu$$y.

 

[imalko]

One should also note that Bf 109 was tested with wide landing gear configuration, but it wasn't adopted for series production.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not closing it just because you disagree with the views being expressed. It is a discussion forum people have opinions, some will be different from yours. Deal with it and stop being a pu$$y.

BINGO! Now press on folks....

 

[P-40K-5]

One should also note that Bf 109 was tested with wide landing gear configuration, but it wasn't adopted for series production.

yes, many did not make the cut:

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

These types of comment just make more time consuming text to wade through. Please just post the specifically requested information. This thread is going to end up being an impossible mess if you don't. Start another thread to discuss all these other issues. Thank you.

These types of posts do not supply the requested information. They have good information but are not relevant to the very narrowly defined data requested.

How about you let us play moderator?

PM sent to moderators requesting closure of thread. I will not waste my time on a thread that is being made a mockery of and results in unwarranted insult for protesting the mockery.

NO we will not close the thread.

Why?

1. There is no reason to. It is an interesting thread.
2. There have been no insulting posts or any reason to close it.
3. This is an internet "forum". A forum is defined as such:

an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.

That is exactly what is taking place. People are discussing ideas and thoughts on the topic and it has remained on topic.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Does anyone have a copy of the book "ME-109" by Martin Caidin? This was a Ballintine series soft-back sold for a dollar from racks in supermarkets/drugstores/bookstores in the late 1960s early 1970s. I lost this book in 1993. This book may be where I first heard the claim of 33% loses due to landing gear design. Mr. Caidin is deceased. Would it not be great to contact the earliest published author of the claim that is still alive to ask for an explanation?

Just for the record (and to get this thread back on track) Martin Caidin was a very entertaining writer who sometimes exaggerated and then some in many of his books so anything statistical mentioned by him should be taken with a grain of salt. My favorite is the story about the captured P-38 flown by an Italian pilot dueling with a YB-40.

 

[Kryten]

yes, many did not make the cut:

On first glance I mistook that lower 109 for an early mustang!!
is that the carrier version they trialled or a one off?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is the Bf 109V-31 (at least off the top of my head I believe that is the V-31) which was a prototype with wide landing gear. The carrier version was the Bf 109T and all it was a Bf 109E with longer wingspan and arrester gear

 

[davebender]

Bf 109 was tested with wide landing gear configuration, but it wasn't adopted for series production.

I would hazzard a guess wide track landing gear increased production cost, which is why it wasn't adopted. The Me-109 was intended to be as inexpensive as possible.

 

[P-40K-5]

thanks for the info on the V-31! most appreciated! the four wheel monster in the pic is one the many experiments with the Bf 109 was the attempt to make it carry and deliver a 500kg bomb. Fieseler in Kassel did the design work and Skoda in Bohemia Moravia built the prototype wich was designated FiSk 199. A Bf 109 G-0, BD + GC, was converted to test the development potential. The DB601 was replaced by a DB605, one R4 drop tank was added beneath each wing, as well as an ETC500 bomb rack under the fuselage. To clear the large 500kg bomb from the ground during take off, a third main landing gear leg and wheel was plugged in a middle position in the fuselage, right behind the pilot's seat. After take off, the supplementary wheel was jettisoned and went back to earth with a parachute. Some tests were made but didn't led to production. Usually when you see the 20cm extension on the tailwheel, its a good bet that the aircraft could be equipt with the 500kg bomb. problem solved the easy way.

 

[jim]

I really do not understand. Today we have direct acces to units diaries (Prien s JG77, JG53 ,JG1?11), Caldwells JG26 war diary, and many more . Anyone can see day per day both the human loses and the materials loses. We have the memoirs of many Bf 109 operational pilots (Lipfert,Hanning,Rall,Schuck,Galland,the finlands, and dozens others) How is possible to disguss ,in our days ,seriously about 33% writes off in take off accidents?
The opinions of alleid test pilots based on damaged machines and unfamiliar with the aircraft is more reliable than the german pilots? The books of past dacades are more reliable than units diaries ? The same books that credited Bf 109 in 1945 with a speed of 620 km/h