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

[Milosh]

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?

First published in 1957. My 1965 version makes no mention of 33% losses due to landing accidents. He does state the landing characteristics were "malicious" (his word with quotation marks) and a little later the swerve on landing and taking off.

 

[Shortround6]

thank you, I guess my memory is faulty.

 

[Milosh]

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

Yes the V31, a trial a/c for testing the wide track undercarriage for the Me309. WNr 5642, SG+EK This a/c also tested the new radiator.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just a general post to all members reading this thread.

There is NO such thing as an irrelevent post. If the post is on topic and has to do with the topic then there is nothing wrong with that. If it pertains to the topic which every post in this thread has done so far, then it is RELEVENT. This is a forum for open discussion. People may learn from the so called "irrelevent" posts and these posts might even lead to what the thread originator is looking for.

Now carry on with the discussion...

 

[Mustang nut]

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 Were old Bf 109s withdrawn from the front line and used as trainers.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.

 

[Kryten]

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?

 

[P-40K-5]

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.

G-5/6's were used/built right to the end of the war for front line service. Gyor Hungary plant would be an example.


I have training loss records from JG 101/102/103/104/106/108, EJG 1, Erg.NJGr, and I./FKG(J) from 1942-1945. most takeoff losses were due to pilot error, a few to engine problems, 1 due to gear collapse.

most landing accidents again were due to pilot error, a few to engine problems, a few to running out of fuel, combat damage. nothing mentioned about landing gear collapse or otherwise.

very few 'ground loops' were listed.

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.

 

[Milosh]

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.

 

[Kryten]

a factor of the ballast in the back of the 109?

 

[P-40K-5]

One could stand on the brakes of the 109, and unlike the Spitfire, it would almost never nose over.

bumpy/wet mud runway + 130kph or so + heavy brakes would = a groundloop I would think, no? well, I guess any taildragger. Anyways,
wonder whats the comparison to P-51 P-47 takeoff/landing accidents. betcha they had higher accident rates.

whatever the case, an educated guess, I would say Bf109 losses due to ALL accidents was maybe 7%-8% of total production. Certainly no
where near the 33.3% as previously stated.

 

[Mustang nut]

One could stand on the brakes of the 109, and unlike the Spitfire, it would almost never nose over.

Having read the posts on this thread and links the brakes on a 109 were critical in preventing it swinging.

 

[P-40K-5]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[fastmongrel]

Were there any S/E fighters that were considered good wheels on the ground aircraft. Certainly on the western allied side the P 47, P 40, Typhoon and Hurricane operated from some pretty ropey temporary airfields without too much trouble.

Personally just by looking at photos of various aircraft the one I would want to be flying from a rough strip would be the Grumman Hellcat. Decent vision for the period, heavy duty under carriage, big wing and big flaps.

 

[P-40K-5]

P-40's had the same problems. I still would like to know the accident rates for P-51s P-47s, also, the all seeing all knowing spitfire.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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!!!

 

[Milosh]

a factor of the ballast in the back of the 109?

Well sort of. Think of the fulcrum point on a teeter totter.

Just an example GrauGeist. If a Spit and a 109 were doing say 30mph and the pilot stood on the brakes, the Spit would be on its nose and the 109 would not.

Note I didn't say the 109 wouldn't never nose over.

 

[P-40K-5]

Flyboy,

sorry, that would be in reference to the Bf109. In order to control fuse sway, the pilots used the left/right brakes to keep the a/c in a straight line more or less.
It was nessesary do to the castering tailwheel. once enough ground speed was aquired for the smallish rudder to become effective, brakes were released, or when
it was obviouse the a/c was tracking straight. later, they used a 'locking tailwheel', which helped some, and a taller fin/rudder.

two things with a 109. keep the tail down control the sway, until the rudder became effective. hope this made sense(?).

 

[Milosh]

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!!!

Are those 1000+hp a/c and how do you keep the a/c pointing in the right direction during the initial take of roll until the rudder becomes effective?

 

[parsifal]

I dont believe that th Me109 suffered 33% accident rates simply and solely because of gear failures. However, as a percentage of overall losses, a 33% accident rate due some failure during landing and T/O would actually be a fairly low attrition rate. Losses to non-combat causes generally outnumbered losses due to combat operations for any type during wartime conditions.

I had always assumed that narrow track landing gear was an overall liability, but I also think that as a problem it was certainly overstated. There is a thread at the moment relating to the Fulmar and f4f, inevitably we got onto the Seafire accident rate. Certainly in its early career (1943-4) whilst operated by crews unfamiliar with the type, from unsuitable decks, in weather conditions unfavourable to safety, the type had a very poor accident rate. However this was as much due to gear weakness as it was to the narrow track gear. In 1945, in the final wartime campaigns in the pacific (off Okinawa and Japan), the type enjoyed a very good accident rate. By then the gear had been strengthened, it was operating from appropriate carriers, and by crews experienced in its characteristics.

When I was in the service, we operated A-4s. The RAN acquired a total of 24 Skyhawks. Over a 12 year period, in peacetime, the type suffered a 42% serious failure rate, due mainly to weaknesses in the gear. Operating from a small carrier like the melbourne, with a wrinkly short deck, and dodgy catapult, our accident rate was unnacceptably high. Parrallels can undoubtedly be drawn for the 109, oftn operating from rough strips in the East, by crews with increasingly serious levels of inexperience, I would be surprised if the accident rates were as low as 33% to be honest, but only a fraction of these would be due to gear failures or the narrow track.