This is so but some were more determined than others to get off. Check the footage from the 2'.15" mark here.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zALt0-BM-wI
Steve
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zALt0-BM-wI
Steve
The Bf 109 aka ME-109 landing gear myth research thread.
- Thread starter Lighthunmust
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Man oh man, what a lot of landing accident victims 
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
parsifal
Colonel
On the basis of those numbers, there were between 16000 and 20000 Me 109s on strength with the LW at the end of the war. Hardly......
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
What a depressing photo....
yup, super depressing.
for the rest with these stupid #'s game... some of you are just not getting it.
Cheers
parsifal
Colonel
No, we are getting it, we are just not buying what you are attempting to peddle....this was your original statement, to refresh your memory
21350 total day fighter (all day fighters) losses. 16400 due to combat losses (fighter/flak) 4428 due to 'other' (mechanical/pilot/etc) thats around 27% 'other' rate.
fair to say half the combat losses were Bf109's. also fair to say that a third of 'other' losses were Bf109's. so thats around 17% 'other' loss for Bf109's. sound fair?
or am I way, way, out to lunch here?
There are some real problems with these numbers, and they dont add up, even close to the numbers I have for LW losses.
Just as a exampole, this link suggest an attrition rate of 40-55%, just to accidents.
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
I recommend that you have a look at Williason Murrays "The Luftwaffe - Strategy For Defeat" which goes into a lot of detail about this very issue. Whilst I disagree with his intrepretations of the raw data, the basic research is acknowledged as sound. I will dig it out tonite, but I can assure you. Luftwaffe fighter losses were much bigger than are contained in your claim.
You cannot make unsubstantiated claims as you have, that enter the realms of the fantastic, and not expect a reaction, and then attempt to put the monkey back in the box by saying we dont get it. We get it alright.........
21350 total day fighter (all day fighters) losses. 16400 due to combat losses (fighter/flak) 4428 due to 'other' (mechanical/pilot/etc) thats around 27% 'other' rate.
fair to say half the combat losses were Bf109's. also fair to say that a third of 'other' losses were Bf109's. so thats around 17% 'other' loss for Bf109's. sound fair?
or am I way, way, out to lunch here?
There are some real problems with these numbers, and they dont add up, even close to the numbers I have for LW losses.
Just as a exampole, this link suggest an attrition rate of 40-55%, just to accidents.
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
I recommend that you have a look at Williason Murrays "The Luftwaffe - Strategy For Defeat" which goes into a lot of detail about this very issue. Whilst I disagree with his intrepretations of the raw data, the basic research is acknowledged as sound. I will dig it out tonite, but I can assure you. Luftwaffe fighter losses were much bigger than are contained in your claim.
You cannot make unsubstantiated claims as you have, that enter the realms of the fantastic, and not expect a reaction, and then attempt to put the monkey back in the box by saying we dont get it. We get it alright.........
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I'll say it again - stop the sarcasm. If you can't get your point across with civility, then don't even post.
parsifal
Colonel
Im not troubled NJ, and I did push P-40 a little. Having said that, yes it would be nice to put the differing points of view across with a little less bile. I will try.
We are still on topic in my opinion. I could not really understand the thrust of the of the thread starter, but this disscussion has tended to revolve around two issues. Firstly, waht was the average attrition rate in the LW, and secondly did the 109 suffer a higher than average attrition rate, orabout the same as all the other types.
To9 be honmest, I can answer the first, or at least have a point of view backed up by hard data, but I dont have much information on the specifc attrition rate for the 109. My gut feeling is that there was no diffefrence in the attrition rate of the 109 due to its narrow track or general undercart design.....others however are likley to have better information than me.
Anyway, here is a link to a short version of Murray, which clearly shows the loss rates for the LW to be much higher than claimed......
Attrition and the Luetwaffe
We are still on topic in my opinion. I could not really understand the thrust of the of the thread starter, but this disscussion has tended to revolve around two issues. Firstly, waht was the average attrition rate in the LW, and secondly did the 109 suffer a higher than average attrition rate, orabout the same as all the other types.
To9 be honmest, I can answer the first, or at least have a point of view backed up by hard data, but I dont have much information on the specifc attrition rate for the 109. My gut feeling is that there was no diffefrence in the attrition rate of the 109 due to its narrow track or general undercart design.....others however are likley to have better information than me.
Anyway, here is a link to a short version of Murray, which clearly shows the loss rates for the LW to be much higher than claimed......
Attrition and the Luetwaffe
Shortround6
Major General
There are a number of factors that can make a plane difficult to land. Narrow track, bouncy landing gear, landing speed, landing attitude, vision while landing, effectiveness of various controls, center of gravity and/or tendency to ground loop and so on. "IF" one aircraft has a higher loss rate in landing accidents than other aircraft of it's type it may be hard to pin it down to just one cause. It may be that a particular aircraft was even superior in one or more attributes but others brought it to below average.
Glider
Captain
An excellent paper many thanks
parsifal
Colonel
so what is the attrition rate of the Me109 compared to the average for the LW....lower, higher or about the same?
It seems problem is yours. This seem perfectly normal for air for in operation.. non-combat loss, typical 20-40%
Possible also. Do you speak of same? One may speak of shot down by enemy, did not return.. other data may include: shot down, damaged, write off, damaged so bad write off, damaged in accidents... and also in rear country, in traning..
USAAF accident loss - around 20% mid war. Late war - 40% of loss.
There is off course write off for many reason. Engine failure, pilot error, faulty assembly.. even aging. Airframe can a number of hours, then need rebuilt. For example 109 - 400 hour for airframe, factory data.. Engine - 200 hour. In real of course airplane almost never survives that long..
I think I saw data for Bf 109 accident rate for landing accidents. Not very high - 1-2% of all loss I recall my memory. Of course all planes had accidents. Fw 190 had wide landing gear - think it never ground looped..? I do not.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
No prob, parsifal.
As far as the intent of the thread as per Lightnmust I will try my best.....
There is a myth that 33% of bf109s crashed because of the undercarriage.
How did this myth of 33% start?
He suggested everyone checking sources and possible tracing it back through books such as William Green's, Dr. Alfred Price, Martin Caiden, etc and maybe finding the starting point for this myth.
Now what has happened - as the internet will do - is that instead of the narrow focus of the myth, this has developed into a discussion about the 109 undercarriage, which, in the end, may actually arrive at the answer the thread starter was looking for. I love how this developes and everyones post is informative in its own way.
My 2 cents (and don't know if this has been posted):
My understanding is that other things such as engine torque or green pilot actually were the causes for such accidents. The narrow track just contributed to the problem. It wasn't, in itself, the actual problem but when the engine created torque, the narrow track enhanced the resulting handling problem. And presto! the pilot's memorial!
Absolutely correct. The landing and ground handling characteristics of any aircraft are the sum of many factors. The Bf109s gear geommetry is not ideal because it is a compromise (as it is on most aircraft). If you don't want a bulge on your wing you have to angle the wheel. If you want to easily remove or replace a wing the gear must attach to the fuselage and so it goes on. There are other factors ,related to low speed flight. The Bf109s high wing loading,leading edge slats and many more. On the ground you may have issues with rudder authority,the list goes on and every single item pertains to the overall handling of the aircraft in these the trickiest of the phases of flight. Torque effects were common to all single engine fighters of the period,many types finished the war with double the power they started it with and were essentially massively over powered.
My references don't contain a handy breakdown of losses by cause that is useful to this debate and the Luftwaffe system unfortunately didn't detail PRECISE causes of every accident,particularly if the accident was not fatal.
There are plenty of "fliegerdenkmal" featuring other types!
Steve
