Landing BF-109 is Easy ?

[Crump]

Me 109 G:

"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."

-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-2:

"Landing was normal."

-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

 

Me 109 G:

"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."

-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:

"Good in the Me? Good flying characterics, powerful engine and good take-off and landing characterics."

- Onni Kuuluvainen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:

"Landing: landing glide using engine power and the following light wheel touchdown was easy and non-problematic. I didn't have any trouble in landings even when a tire exploded in my first Messerschmitt flight."

-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:

"MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."

- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

 

 

Me 109 G:

There wasn't any special problems with landing.

- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

 

Several designs in aviation such as the Bonanza or Glasair I had higher than average accident reports but have proven to be good reliable designs once the pilots were properly trained in how to use the aircraft.

 

Me 109 G:

"Takeoff and landing are known as troublesome, but in my opinion there is much more rumours around than what actually happened. There sure was some tendency to swing and it surely swerved if you didn't take into account. But I got the correct training for Messerchmitt and it helped me during my whole career. It was: "lock tailwheel, open up the throttle smoothly. When the speed increases correct any tendency to swing with your feet. Use the stick normally. Lift the tailwheel and pull plane into the sky.

Training to Me? It depended on the teacher. I got good training. First you had to know all the knobs and meters in the cockpit. Then you got the advice for takeoff and landing. Landing was easy in my opinion. In cold weather it was useful to have some RPMs during the finals and kill throttle just before flaring."

- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#narrow

Edited November 26, 2013 by Rama
removing off-topic content

[DD_bongodriver]

Of course to a skilled and experienced military pilot who exclusively flies one type they would always consider the aircraft they fly as 'normal' there will almost certainly be elements of ego that make them say how easy it is for them to handle particularly when the aircraft has a reputation, just as when pilots claim to be able to out turn a Spitfire, an ego based claim because it was known to be difficult and it makes for a good anecdote, or it could just be as simple as a deep rooted affection for the aircraft preventing them from giving harsh criticism.

 

I really value the objective view of a contemporary warbird pilot who is operating a wider variety of aircraft and has a better basis for comparison and likely to be free of the same ego based burdens.

Edited November 26, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[ParaB]

I had a chance last year at the ILA in Berlin to have a little chat with the pilot of the "Rote 7" BF-109G. We're talking about a very experienced test pilot here with thousands of hours of flight experience.

 

In his words landings with the 109 were always a bit tricky. In fact just the day before he had almost crashed the 109 while landing in Berlin because of a problem with the gear.

 

 

http://www.spiegel.de/video/jagdflugzeug-me-109-crash-bei-flugschau-in-berlin-video-30912.html

 

Luckily the 109 didn't suffer any significant damage and would fly again the next day. Together with a Me-262. Will never forget those two aircraft flying by.

Edited November 26, 2013 by ParaB

[Crump]

 

I really value the objective view of a contemporary warbird pilot who is operating a wider variety of aircraft and has a better basis for comparison and likely to be free of the same ego based burdens.

 

That article is anything but objective.

 

Here is another pilots review of the exact same airplane.  Quite a difference in opinion.

[Quax]

Nice find !

 

f.e.:  "The ailerons were light and extremely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50% faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips"

[DD_bongodriver]

That article is anything but objective.

 

Here is another pilots review of the exact same airplane.  Quite a difference in opinion.

 

a very interesting part was the description of extreme directional instability, it fits perfectly with the reputation of the 109.

[Sternjaeger]

That article is anything but objective.

 

Here is another pilots review of the exact same airplane.  Quite a difference in opinion.

 

Is this the same chap that pranged Black 6?  And btw how's that different? He doesn't really mention anything relevant on the landing related stuff.. 

 

Once again, we're not saying it's a hard machine to land, it can be tricky if you don't have experience on the specific aircraft, because the peculiar geometry of the wheels might behave in a manner different than the standard taildragger one. Capisc'?

Nice find !

 

f.e.:  "The ailerons were light and extremely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50% faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips"

 

Quax, it's interesting, but bear in mind that those considerations can be misleading sometimes, since these are not fully armed aircraft.

[DD_bongodriver]

it is indeed Charlie Brown, the very same guy that crashed Black 6 in a landing accident at Duxford, interestingly as you say nothing mentioned about the landings other than how happy he was to have made a good one.

[Dakpilot]

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_501760.pdf

 

Accident report of Black Six

 

"the very same guy that crashed Black 6 in a landing accident at Duxford"

 

"Is this the same chap that pranged Black 6?"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

So it was precautionary landing that went wrong, really don't see how the engine problems could have affected how the aircraft behaved on landing, had the aircraft been easier to handle it might not have gone so wrong.

[Dakpilot]

If you read the report, the reason for the "accident" was due to too high speed on landing trying to get into the field when expecting a total engine failure.

 

Nothing to do with it being hard to "handle" anyway is off topic for this thread.

 

I just posted for some people to see the Facts about the "prang" or "crashing" incident and the Pilot that was quoted

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Dakpilot

[HW2013]

Having now tested the Friedriech a little, I can say it IS easy to land. The LaGG is more difficult, and I think the reason is because the 109 responds to controls so much better.

[MiloMorai]

from the accident report:

 

The aim should always be a 3 point landing and attention must be paid to touching down without drift and

maintaining firm directional control throughout the landing roll.

 

Sure sounds like things could go wrong if not kept straight.

[Dakpilot]

 

from the accident report:

 

The aim should always be a 3 point landing and attention must be paid to touching down without drift and

maintaining firm directional control throughout the landing roll.

 

Sure sounds like things could go wrong if not kept straight.

 

 

Sounds like sound general advice for any Taildragger to me 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

A phrase like 'always' is unusual, there is no strict rule that a taildragger must 'always' land 3 point, it sounds very indicative of a requirement to have the tailwheel in contact with the ground for stabilisation, this fits I well with Crumps attached article as the pilot indicated an extreme directional instability once the tail was raised.

 

to elaborate on this, we know the aircraft is directionally stable with the tail wheel in contact with the ground, we know the aircraft is directionally stable when it is airborne, the article indicates directional instability of an extreme nature in the phase between and that can only mean it is the main gear that causes it.

Edited November 26, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[Crump]

 

the article indicates directional instability of an extreme nature in the phase between and that can only mean it is the main gear that causes it.

 

 

it does not come from the landing gear geometry, it is the result of the CG relationship transitioning from the characteristics of the arm of the gear to the CG to the arm of the aerodynamic center of the aircraft and CG as it enters flight.

 

Edited by Rama, Today, 11:26.

removing off-topic content

 

What in the world was off topic?  Stop editing my post please without a good reason.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Crump

[DD_bongodriver]

it does not come from the landing gear geometry, it is the result of the CG relationship transitioning from the characteristics of the arm of the gear to the CG to the arm of the aerodynamic center of the aircraft and CG as it enters flight.

 

What in the world was off topic?  Stop editing my post please without a good reason.

 

1. you are acknowledging the extreme directional instability exists.

2. you are claiming it is a relationship between aerodynamic centre and CoG without taking into account this will affect pitch stability rather than directional.

3. a moderator may moderate as they see fit and shall not be questioned in public forum, it is clearly defined in the rules.........

Edited November 26, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[Sternjaeger]

it does not come from the landing gear geometry, it is the result of the CG relationship transitioning from the characteristics of the arm of the gear to the CG to the arm of the aerodynamic center of the aircraft and CG as it enters flight.

 

..I've read it three times and still don't understand what that's supposed to mean.

 

Uh and a bit of friendly advice: if I were you I wouldn't question the operation of moderators in a forum, that's normally the best way to get yourself a ticket to Banville.. 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

He is desperately trying to avoid the gear geometry issue by attempting to make it seem like the gear is causing a CoG shift due to rolling drag from ground contact, of course this exists but how the hell it causes directional instability is a mystery.

[JtD]

The aerodynamic centre is at ~25% MAC* while the gear touches ground at 0% MAC or even in front of the MAC. Naturally, this gives different handling characteristics. In particular if the landing gear is that much in front of the CoG as in the 109's case. This, leading to the high tail wheel load and in combination with the main wheel camber, is the problem with the 109. All nicely explained in the pdf linked in post #18. There's really not much more to say, as the analysis is simple, easy to understand and still complete.

 

And whether or not this made the aircraft "hard" or "easy" to land, depends on pilot skill. Fact is it could have been easier with vertical wheels and a more rearward landing gear position.

 

*MAC - mean aerodynamic chord

Edited November 26, 2013 by JtD

[II./JG27_Rich]

Tricky but not too bad once you get use to it. What would you guys do without me ? Oh you have to turn it UP!! 109 starts at 4:00 minutes. It's test pilot Dave Southwood.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrpcamspLw

Edited November 26, 2013 by II./JG27_Rich

[DB605]

Of course to a skilled and experienced military pilot who exclusively flies one type they would always consider the aircraft they fly as 'normal' there will almost certainly be elements of ego that make them say how easy it is for them to handle particularly when the aircraft has a reputation, just as when pilots claim to be able to out turn a Spitfire, an ego based claim because it was known to be difficult and it makes for a good anecdote, or it could just be as simple as a deep rooted affection for the aircraft preventing them from giving harsh criticism.

 

I really value the objective view of a contemporary warbird pilot who is operating a wider variety of aircraft and has a better basis for comparison and likely to be free of the same ego based burdens.

 

Most of those finnish pilots mentioned had lots of experience from very different aircrafts (Brewsters, Fiat G50s, Fokker DXXi's etc) so they definitely know what they are talking about and it has nothing to do with "ego based claims".

I rather listen pilot who knows his plane and know how to get best of it than someone who have only flew one or two test flight with it.

Edited November 26, 2013 by DB605

[II./JG27_Rich]

Opps

 

   This does't count at all. This is the emergency landing Black 6 had to do in a dirt field. Not an airfield at all. He also had his gear down which he shouldn't of had. I have the five page accident report on this and he shouldn't have even done this it was concluded. He would have made it back fine.

Edited November 26, 2013 by II./JG27_Rich

[DD_bongodriver]

Tricky but not too bad once you get use to it. What would you guys do without me ? Oh you have to turn it UP!! 109 starts at 4:00 minutes. It's test pilot Dave Southwood.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrpcamspLw

 

I sense a recurring theme here, the 109 has become more difficult to fly over the years and somehow has developed the very traits that it's mythical reputation had......clearly it was the easiest plane in the world when in service

Edited November 26, 2013 by Rama

[DD_fruitbat]

It sure is easy in this game anyway....

[DD_bongodriver]

Way too easy, I had to make an effort to screw it up.

[II./JG27_Rich]

Also how many hours did those pilots have in the last year of the war before they were flying one. You ain't going to get it changed remember.

Edited November 26, 2013 by II./JG27_Rich

[MiloMorai]

 

Opps

 

   This does't count at all. This is the emergency landing Black 6 had to do in a dirt field. Not an airfield at all. He also had his gear down which he shouldn't of had. I have the five page accident report on this and he shouldn't have even done this it was concluded. He would have made it back fine.

 

 

 I wondered when someone would pick up on that it was Black 6.

[II./JG27_Rich]

 I wondered when someone would pick up on that it was Black 6.

Oh it was 1997 that I first saw that picture I think

[Karost]

The aerodynamic centre is at ~25% MAC* while the gear touches ground at 0% MAC or even in front of the MAC. Naturally, this gives different handling characteristics. In particular if the landing gear is that much in front of the CoG as in the 109's case. This, leading to the high tail wheel load and in combination with the main wheel camber, is the problem with the 109. All nicely explained in the pdf linked in post #18. There's really not much more to say, as the analysis is simple, easy to understand and still complete.

 

And whether or not this made the aircraft "hard" or "easy" to land, depends on pilot skill. Fact is it could have been easier with vertical wheels and a more rearward landing gear position.

 

*MAC - mean aerodynamic chord

 

That is very useful information.  Thanks

 

after I read  Taildragger Related Documentation  at

http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx

 

That make me clear to understand that all Taildragger plane need not only experience but also knowledge.

to landing the plane look like easy.

 

and this is my homework 

BF-109 F4 Cross wind take off and landing 

 

Edited November 28, 2013 by Karost

[Crump]

 

It's test pilot Dave Southwood.

 

 

Dave Southwood has a bachelor's degree in the same area of study.  He may or may not have had aircraft design classes including landing gear design.  In this particular case, I would have to disagree with him on the geometry contributing anything to the handling characteristics of the aircraft on landing.  The gear by design, rolls straight when properly adjusted.

 

On landing any tail dragger has to be landed straight ahead.  The reason is there is if you put any conventional landing gear design down asymmetrically, it will diverge from the runway.  

Edited December 2, 2013 by Rama

[Crump]

Unbelievable that a tail dragger has to be landed straight ahead? 

 

If there is really one word that sums up all you need to know about landing a taildragger, that

would world be "straight".

 

http://www.supercub.co.nz/taildraggernotes.pdf

 

When a Taildragger touches down it must be perfectly straight with no side drift.

 

http://advancedtailwheeltraining.com/tailwheel_basics

 

It’s really important to remember with a tailwheel aircraft to NOT let the tires touch the (dry, paved) runway if there is ANY crab.  The aircraft must be pointed in the direction it is moving, before you allow the tires to touch the runway.  If the aircraft touches down with even 5 degrees of crab, it will launch itself towards the side of the runway, and it’s up to the pilot fix that.  More about that below.

 

However, if you can touch a tailwheel aircraft down perfectly aligned with its direction of travel, it will continue straight down the runway unless something disturbs it, like a gust of crosswind or you poke a rudder.  This is an important detail to remember.

 

http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/Tailwheel.htm

 

I am sorry I have yet to find anything that warns "Only if your gear has camber......land it straight". 

[MiloMorai]

So what is the difference between a tail dragger a/c and tri gear a/c touching down on its main wheels?

[Sternjaeger]

no, it's unbelievable that we're saying one thing and you understand another, Crump.

 

A conventional taildragger will have camber but not diverging wheels, the 109 did. This peculiarity needed some prompt rudder and aileron response to compensate a landing done on one gear, because the wheel's diverging alignment would have caused a swerving motion on the yaw axis. 

Edited December 2, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I always thought a taildragger came in on the mains..then settled down on the tail!? A hard 3 point would break its back..or so I thought. Hum learn something new every day I guess.

[Finkeren]

So what is the difference between a tail dragger a/c and tri gear a/c touching down on its main wheels?

The taildragger has its CG behind the main wheels, while the tri-cycle aircraft has it in front of the main wheels. Makes a huge difference in how it handles on the ground.

[Sternjaeger]

I always thought a taildragger came in on the mains..then settled down on the tail!? A hard 3 point would break its back..or so I thought. Hum learn something new every day I guess.

 

there isn't a rule for all. Some taildraggers though must be landed exclusively on the main wheels first (i.e. the DC-3 and C-46).

 

But a taildragger that can be landed on three points can also be landed on two, it depends on your wind conditions, length of runway, runway surface and skills. 

Edited December 2, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I see..well as I said learn something new everyday...now I got to go try 3 point landings. I have always come in on the mains only..so this should be fun!

[Sternjaeger]

I see..well as I said learn something new everyday...now I got to go try 3 point landings. I have always come in on the mains only..so this should be fun!

 

oh yes mate, by all means give it a try, it's extremely satisfying once you nail it! 

 

Try the tutorial I posted here, and if you have questions feel free to ask 

Edited December 2, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Thanks for the link..off to try it