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

[FLYBOYJ]

well the rudder will work with the engine running at 1800rpm and 5mph too. thats not the point. 1400+hp + 9m diameter prop + 6600lb a/c +
smallish rudder = all kinds of pilots accounts for having to use the brakes to control sway on take off.

5 mph is a taxi - at that point you're using the brakes and if you're in any kind of wind that will play on what you're doing during taxi. You're trying to assume that the rudder is not effective on initial take off roll. It becomes effective once enough airflow is going over it, my guess is about 20 -30 mph and I can tell you that happens quickly.

I'd like to know where you're getting "all kinds of pilots accounts for having to use the brakes to control sway on take off" and again are you just talking about the -109?

 

[pbfoot]

I believe most Brit aircraft had a non locking tail wheel and an even sillier braking system with the brake being on the control column as opposed to the more sensible brakes on the rudder pedals

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here is a link from this forum for -109 manuals

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/new-bf-109-manuals-thread-17837.html

Look on page 5, section 2 there is a big note that speaks about using rudder peadals (specifically from the heels) to keep the aircrafft straight during takeoff. This comes from a Finnish -109G6 POH translated. Toe brakes work from the top of the rudder pedals, when you're on the rudder pedals at the heels you're off the brakes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe most Brit aircraft had a non locking tail wheel and an even sillier braking system with the brake being on the control column as opposed to the more sensible brakes on the rudder pedals

Hi Neil, hope all is well...

Yes they did and the Soviets picked up the same system and still use it today.

 

[parsifal]

Cannibalization is common with air force. Any air force. Simple reason - repair is uneconomical above certain point. Think fighter or bomber moderately crashed in Kiev. What is cost of ship back aircraft to Germany, repair it, ship it back to Russia, also same time, ship spare parts like engine, wings, guns for other aircraft? Many time more easy to take plane apart, use it for spares, and ship a new plane.. German do not had shortage of machines of war. Big industry - but they lack fuel and men.

I would generally agree with that canabalization was common amongst all powers. Thats not the issue. the issue was what was happening to Me109s. there was a discussion about differeing losses, and I offered the probable reason for the discrepancy as aircraft not initially listed as lost, but eventually written off. When is a loss a loss......

Germany had a big industry. Trouble is, it was poorly organized and outputs were correspondingly low. Germany had the second biggest economy in the world, yet its outputs were generally very low. as an example, they produced about 325000 soft skinned vehicles. this is lower than even Canada


It wasnt cost of shipment, so much that caused the higher canabalization rates on the easterrn front (roughly double that of the RAF in the ME), it was an overstretched supply sytem. German armed forces in the East were heavily reliant on rail for strategic re-supply, but even as late as Autumn 1942 were only receiving 63% of their allotted tonnages of supplies. There were chronic shortages all along the front in all categories of equipment. This led to high unserviceability rates.

I would surprise me if US for example would be senting any major damage B-17 or P-51 for USA back to repair in factory.. US were not stupid. German were not stupid, which is why GPW took so long and costly to won in end.. undersestimate enemy - greatest fault, Zhukov said. Also Chin Szun Cu many thousend year before.. you do not fight believe enemy is stupid.. you fight know his strenght, and your strenght. Make him fight your strenght, so he loose..

No one is aying the Germans are stupid, although they made their fair share of mistakes. Hitler was the leader of the German armed forces. he was a soldier, but had no formal training as an officer. He tended to overrule his advisers, especially as the war progressed. Compare that to the Combined Chiefs Of Staff, all professional soldiers, all general officers, with a unified command system and a combined united approach to war strategy. Who is going to tend to act stupidly with those two respective models???????


Yes. 60-99% was scrapped. 100% was what went into ground and was aluminium dust.. 30-60% - repairable by factory. 10% - repairable by immediate unit, like few bullet holes non important places. 10-30% - repairable by mother unit, like Gruppe or Geschwader. This was so.

30-60% was repairable, but seldom was. According to both Foreman and Hayward (The Luftwaffe in the East), Germans had a tendency to scrap these moderately damaged airframes rather than repair them. It was more prevalent on the eastern front, because of the logistical difficulties, but an airframe 50% damaged is never going to fly properly again. A car suffering a 50% amount of damafge is unquestionably a write off...planes maybe a litlle more leniency, but if you have logistic problem and are battling with serviciability rates, you will choose scrapping over just sitting on the edge of the tarmac every time

Also, keep mind: % of damage was written where aircraft was destined, not aircraft destination dependant on % of damage.. % of damage was decided on base what need to be done with aircraft. Also % damage was decided by what was hit - say major component hit, no replace possibility - immindiate classify 60%.
I'll keep that in mind, but its not relevant to the issue

Aircraft above 30% was not flying, was sent to repair centrers, repairt, rebuilt, flown again.

At 30% its a possibility, for an air force with logisitc problems, struggling to keep units airborne, anything much above that, not a chance

Sorry this sounds very incorrect... what obsession? Just above you write operational readiness rates were reported to fall below 40% towards 1941 on Eastern Front campaign.. contradict, is not?

Not a contradiction at all. Again I refer you to Hayward. He goes into detail about this. Readiness rates are different to frontline strengths. Readiness rates are those numbers ready to fly. Frontline strengthds are those aircraft on strength. Hitler was never interested in readiness rates, he only wanted strengths. His obsession with numbers is well known and well documented, and his sycophantic staffs pandied to that.

The Operational commands hardly ever gave operational readiness rates above the operational command levels to the central command, at least not to reports that Hitler would see. The best operational readiness rate after 1941, was achieved by Richthofens command, just prior to the bombardment of Sevastopol, at 73% overall. Thereafter in that Fall Blau offensive the readiness rates dropped to an average of just over 50%, before plumetting to just over 25% in the winter.

I do not think there was special shortage. LW service rate - very similiar to USSR, UK, USA air forces - roughly 70% typical in war. Better when unit doing nothing, less, when far from supply chain and in hard action. Normal. Fighter Command had 60% readiness in Combat of England. Shortage of spares, too? I think there is theoriy of conspiration here...

With the exception of the Reich defences, this is simply untrue. On the eastern front readiness rates dropped to around 50%, in Summer, and less than 30% in winter. This was before there were any fuel shortages. After the fuel began to run out, in the latter part of '44, readiness rates outside the Reich dropped to less than 10%. Only over the Reich itself were the germans able to maintain a comparable readiness rate.

Over Alamein in'42, Alles had a readiness rate approaching 85%, before the offensive opened. german readiness rates were about 63% from memory ( I can dig my notes if you are interested). In similar situations, and conditions, the Germans were outclassed as they were in everything relating to supply and logistics. Murray examines this in a great deal of detail in his book, and whilst I admit his bias in his conclusions, his research is first rate.

Soviet rates were about 60% in Summer, dropping to about 30-40% in Winter. For the allies their worst commands were in the South Pacific, where readiness rates could drop to very low levels temporarily, but from the end of 1942, were never below 60%. And this was with a supply chanin several thousand miles long, and under constant threat. In Europe, the major home commands never really dropped to less than 75%, summer or winter. This is reflected in the sortie rates incidentally. Granted the Germans were outnumbered, but they were also outsortied, even on a per aircraft basis. And not by a small amount....by miles in fact

 

[renrich]

From "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" page 470, some direct quotes from Herbert Kaiser, a LW pilot with 68 credited aerial kills. He indicates the BF109 was a very difficult airplane to fly, particularly for inexperienced pilots and particularly in landings and takeoffs because of the torque, narrow landing gear and poor ground visibility. No specific figures however. It does sound as if there must have been numerous landing and takeoff accidents which might have contributed to the "myth". The fact is that practically all WW2 fighters, especially the tail draggers, could be a handfull in landings and takeoffs. Many of the P40s the AVG received were wrecked in landing accidents before they ever saw combat. Tex Hill confirmed this in an interview.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" page 470, some direct quotes from Herbert Kaiser, a LW pilot with 68 credited aerial kills. He indicates the BF109 was a very difficult airplane to fly, particularly for inexperienced pilots and particularly in landings and takeoffs because of the torque, narrow landing gear and poor ground visibility. No specific figures however. It does sound as if there must have been numerous landing and takeoff accidents which might have contributed to the "myth". The fact is that practically all WW2 fighters, especially the tail draggers, could be a handfull in landings and takeoffs. Many of the P40s the AVG received were wrecked in landing accidents before they ever saw combat. Tex Hill confirmed this in an interview.

BINGO!

 

[parsifal]

According to Dunnigan Operartional readiness rates for the Allies at the beginning of Crusader was 78%. They had a total of 489 a/c ready to fly in the DAF, out of a frontline strength of 628 a/c.

German readiness rate at the same time, in the same TO was 65%, or 186 out of 286 frontline aircraft. The Italian readiness rate was 53.1%

At Alamein, at the beginning of the battle, the DAF had a readiness rate actually approaching 90% (I was wrong). Guess Monty's "be prepared" principals were having an effect. Italian readiness rates were down to under 50%, whilst german readiness rates were down to 57%.

I fail to see how that is a comparable readiness rate

 

[P-40K-5]

can't seem to see page 3... or anything after post #80, guess I'm out

edit: nevermind, now I can... weird....

 

[P-40K-5]

I'd like to know where you're getting "all kinds of pilots accounts for having to use the brakes to control sway on take off" and again are you just talking about the -109?

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths happy reading. also of note.. if you have access, read General Gunther Rall's new book (R.I.P.)

but anyways, I'm out of this thread. cause its gonna turn into a pissing match about #'s, #'s, #'s.

cheers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths happy reading. also of note.. if you have access, read General Gunther Rall's new book (R.I.P.)

but anyways, I'm out of this thread. cause its gonna turn into a pissing match about #'s, #'s, #'s.

cheers.

Read it - I think in the translation there is something being lost between brake and rudder pedal which on many aircraft are one of the same. As stated, I have flown GA aircraft tail draggers and its a stone written rule that you NEVER tap the brakes when rolling on take off. NOW if you have some high time combat veteran who did this as a norm, all I can say is their experience and nerve overcame what the POH actually states and if they did smack up and aircraft (regardless how many kills or how many hours they had) they are still doing something that is violating the POH.

 

[P-40K-5]

or maybe they just know the Bf109 very very well. fly for 500-1000 missions in the same basic aircraft through every imaginable conditions
and I'm sure they learned a trick or two, or 10. like landing and taking off from 50ft wide fire breaks in densely packed evergreen forrests in
Germany, with runways of brush, grass, water, mud, bumps, dips, Yogi Bear. BooBoo was listed MIA.

 

[pbfoot]

The 109 is designed for grass field operation it was prefered over other surfaces

 

[stona]

The 109 is designed for grass field operation it was prefered over other surfaces

What's the source for that information? I've not read anywhere that the type was designed specifically to operate from any particular surface. I've seen pilots express the opinion that it was easier to handle on unpaved surfaces.
Steve

 

[Glider]

I don't know about the me109 but the preference on Spits and Hurricanes is to use the grass if its suitable. I have been to Duxford a number of times and they always use the grass, at our local airport again they use the grass in preference to the main runway.
The 109's always used the grass at Duxford and nearly all the other WW2 fighters, so its certainly a preference.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Only twp pilots from virtualpilots.fi: 109myths talk about Tapping" the breaks during a take off roll. Others are specific about using the rudder. I think the myth here is real effectivness of the rudder on the -109.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What's the source for that information? I've not read anywhere that the type was designed specifically to operate from any particular surface. I've seen pilots express the opinion that it was easier to handle on unpaved surfaces.
Steve

Its mentioned in this clip;

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_ 109_ENG.pdf

 

[stona]

It's definitely a preference for most tail draggers which is why they do indeed use the grass at Duxford.I think it is fair to suppose that at the time,mid thirties,anticipated operations would have been from unmade airfields rather than paved surfaces but that's not the same as designing the gear specifically for grass fields. It may have been so,the old memory ain't what it used to be! That's why I wondered at the source.
Cheers
Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's definitely a preference for most tail draggers which is why they do indeed use the grass at Duxford.I think it is fair to suppose that at the time,mid thirties,anticipated operations would have been from unmade airfields rather than paved surfaces but that's not the same as designing the gear specifically for grass fields. It may have been so,the old memory ain't what it used to be! That's why I wondered at the source.
Cheers
Steve

agree

 

[pbfoot]

just the several109 pilots I've talked to like Rob Erdos
once again if you have read this link about flying the 109 from a present day pilot your not paying attention
Bounding Clouds - Flying the Messerschmitt Bf-109 > Vintage Wings of Canada