Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
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
Is there a definition of an accident? Do records detail the cause as undercarriage collapse or ground loop. A pilot may be injured and plane damaged but elect to land the plane and crash but that isnt the fault of the plane. Are there records from training schools, I would think they would suffer most with take of and landing. Were old Bf 109s withdrawn from the front line and used as trainers.
I am just thinking of ways the figures could be inflated. In the BoB many hurricanes were lost in take off and landing incidents not because they were harder to fly than a spitfire but because they were easier and therefore used more as a night fighter.
For the thread topic I think someone somewhere took data from one particular theatre or operation and then calculated wrongly for the whole war creating an urban myth.
yep, especially if one was brake happy.I suppose we could throw in the standard of the airfields as well, there can be no doubt some strips were "rougher" than others and that must have had some bearing?
yep, especially if one was brake happy.
One could stand on the brakes of the 109, and unlike the Spitfire, it would almost never nose over.
One could stand on the brakes of the 109, and unlike the Spitfire, it would almost never nose over.
Not true, the '109 would indeed nose over if the brakes were applied too aggressively.One could stand on the brakes of the 109, and unlike the Spitfire, it would almost never nose over.
on takeoff yes. Pilots used the brakes to control the sway until the rudder became effective, usually at that time they
would also rotate the tail. raising the tail to fast fell under the ' crash due to pilot error ' in most training units.
a factor of the ballast in the back of the 109?
What's your reference for that and are you talking about a specific aircraft??? I ask that because I fly tail draggers and you're NEVER on the brakes during takeoff!!!