Why are the 109s so easy to takeoff and land ?...

[Guest deleted@50488]

According to every single pilot report I read about ww2 and modern pilots who fly the 109s, these aircraft are tricky to takeoff and land with.

 

On takeoff rudder effectiveness comes to life only when airflow is enough for the tail to lift up, and even a slight nose heavy stab trim being used to help with that,

footwork is mandatory, including differential braking because they're really difficult to keep running ligned up with the rw.

 

In il2 G-2, F-4, F-2 and E-7, I just have to use right rudder, which becomes effective the moment I "set takeoff power" and start my takeoff run, and I can even take the hands from my stick.

 

I can even do it with an unlocked tailwheel !

 

Also, during taxi, I think rudder feels too effective at the low power settings used during there.

 

This contrasts for instance with the Mig-3, other VVS fighters and some of the twins / bombers.

Edited November 23, 2016 by jcomm

[Quax]

And when BoS came out, at least 90 percent were complaining, that it is unrealistic difficult to take off the 109. (difficult is not realistic I did read a hundred times). I don't think, the change of the gear model made the difference.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

While I don't find the rudder to be too effective for taxiing I guess thing will chabge overall once devs get new prop data to revise their current model.

 

Also, real pilots have to be way more cautioned when operating fighter aircraft like the 109 since they have to worry about system failures and their controll workload is overall bigger than in a sim.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I really can't recall how it was initially 100%, but I guess it was a bit more difficult and sometimes even required having to use toe brakes, which looks realistic.

 

Presently, as I wrote above, even with the tailwheel unlocked, I can perfectly control the 4 109 models in il2 just with right rudder from the start of the takeoff run - really smooth and easy, contracting with what we can hear described by a rw 109 G and E pilot commenting on how "tricky" it can be to takeoff on this 109s.

 

Start listening around 14:20..

 

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/9/a/f9a4e46e96be2a2e/Episode_32_Warbirds_Over_the_Beach_BF-109G_Pilot_Rick_Volker.mp3?c_id=11781892&expiration=1468408503&hwt=6b730c22db11fd1bfd034b766db089aa

 

Later as he talks about the takeoff run it is evident that rudder authority comes to live only when enough speed has been achieved so that the tail starts to lift from ground. In il-2, even at taxi power, rudder is very efficient, and OTOH the tailwheel lock not quite like so...

Edited November 23, 2016 by jcomm

[novicebutdeadly]

TBH I have had enough sliding takeoffs (due to impatience) to confirm that raising the tail too early will have a most undesirable effect....

From what I have read off takeoff and landing issues, those that had proper training and could maintain their composure had no issues, those that didn't have the proper training/ were paralyzed in fear of the 109's deadly reputation had issues (they would forget to use the rudder/ be unable to due to frozen in fear), which we don't experience because we have a "re-fly" button..



However thoughts from people who flew the aircraft in real life:



Me 109 G-6:
"Only on takeoff, if you raised the tailwheel before you had enough speed to control the yaw with the rudder, you would be in serious trouble. The torque of the prop would take over and the plane would veer to the side. Without enough speed to control it with the rudder, this usually lead to a broken plane. Therefore it was important to keep the tailwheel down until you had enough speed for rudder control. Flying and landing was easy. Like it is well known, many young pilots wrecked MT's on takeoff, usually because they lifted the tailwheel too soon."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.


Me 109 G: 
"As a plane the Me was a typical wartime fighter equipped with a powerful engine. If you pushed the throttle to full suddenly you might lose control, if the pilot's legs were stiffened because nervousness. But if one was calm, he could control the plane. A cool pilot could easily control the plane's direction and change it when accelerating. When the pilot applied the correct procedures there wasn't any real danger."
-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 E-4:
"The tail felt like it should be raised just as the airspeed started to register i.e., at 50-60 kmh. Once the tail was off the runway the familiar extreme change in directional stability became apparent - from almost absolute stability to almost absolute instability. The aircraft flew herself off at 110 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50


Me 109 G-6: 
The cooling system was a little too tricky, you had to do taxiing with high rpm to ensure the cooling to work. 
The take-off was executed in following way: Hand was placed lightly to the stick, stick to center position. Slowly open up the throttle, revs would increase gradually. Small directional corrections were done with brakes. As the speed increased, the tail would come up on its own, and the nose was held horizontal with light stick movement. Plane would take off from this position without any further control at the take-off speed. If the take-off was performed like this, the plane went like on rails, without the smallest swerve. 
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane. 
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5
 

[EAF19_Marsh]

IIRC, Hannig makes a similar observation in Luftwaffe Fighter Ace. Also that failure to lock properly the canopy led to it detaching suddenly, to great embarrassment / amusement.

 

 

[wtornado]

I could of imagined the pilots getting out of a bi-plane and hopping

into a 109 why the documented stories would of been hair raising

at the time.

 

 

I think it is more realistic now compared to what it was except

for the lighter tail and that the engine is not to the boiling point

at takeoff power other than that they did a good job making it

more realistic.

 

 

I would like to share this with you boys it is a magazine I dug out from my bookshelf and I have 100' of WWII magazines

that I had bought for years like Flypast,Flight Journal,Fana de L'aviation just to name a few.

 

Now the info I am giving is from my 2005 Flight Journal ''special issue'' on German Fighters.

 

Flight Journal is an excellent book to pick up with good articles and great photos and you can get them at pratically any good bookstore.

 

The article on the BF-109 was written by the Late Mark Hanna and Capt.Eric Brown P.44 in the magazine.

 

The article covers incredible detailed flight info on everything for pre flight to taxiing to takeoff engine

adjustments and landing just to name part of what is written.

 

Now when the pilot explains taxiing from detailed article of the 109 from page 46. 

 

 

'' The 109 needs a lot of power to get moving,so you need to allow the engine to warm up a little before you pile on the power.Throttle up to 1,800rpm and

suddenly,you're rolling;power back.To turn while taxiing,push the stick forward against the instument panel to lighten the tail,add some throttle and jab the

brake(do this in a Spitfire and you're on your nose!).The 109 ,however is very tail-heavy and is reluctant to turn;you can very easily lock up a wheel.

If you do not use the above technique,you will charge off across the airfield in a straight line!''

 

On P. 50 on the paragraph ''Airborne'' 

 

''Power up and keep it coming smoothly up to 40 inches.Keep the tail down initially,and keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique.

Tail is coming up now,and the rudder is becoming effective.I'm subconsciously correcting the rudder all the time.It is incredibly entertaining to watch the 109 lift

off the ground;the rudder literally flashing around!''

 

''The fighter is now bucking along,accelerating rapidly.As the tail lifts,there is a positive tendancy to swing leftThis can easily be checked; however,

if you are really aggressive in lifting the tail,the left swing tendency is difficult to stop and happens very quickly.It's a wild rough ride on grass,and

with all the noise and smoke from the stacks,it is very exciting''

 

Quick glance at the airspeed indicator(ASI):160kp/h,a light pull-back on the stick,and you're flying.''

 

The plane does not do that with me.

Edited November 22, 2016 by WTornado

[Sokol1]

Virpilov's are strange people: some complain that (virtual) planes are difficult to take off/landing, others that are too easy... 

[JG300_Olrik]

French article, but very interesting ; demanding but not so hard to fly.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Well, everyone says everything about it, sometimes even completely contradictory stuff.  A lot hype and hysteria, but these are the men that flew it.

Me 109 G:
"-About the tendency of the Messerschmitt to veer at start and takeoff. This is a mythical subject. Some say it was very difficult, others say that as long as you knew what you were doing it was an easy to control plane.
It was not difficult if you had a good instructor who told you what she would do. And you can control her if you only hold the tailwheel on the ground and let her up not until there is enough speed for you to feel the vertical rudder having effect.
- In Tampere in a meeting of Ilmasilta I met two younger Messerschmitt pilots who had been trained in 1946: one of them had the opinion that there were two styles of takeoff: one veering and one not veering. Some applied full power at once, treading on the right pedal. Others applied power slowly and allowed the thousand hp.s pull the plane up at leisure. "She took off by that method too".
"You moved the power lever slowly and as you felt that the vertical rudder responds, the tail could be allowed to rise and then she took off on her own."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

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."
- 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"

 

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:
"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.

 

Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

 

ME 109 E/F/G:
"The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems starting with the gear.  You know it was a high, narrow gear.  And we had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it anyway happens. "
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

[Jade_Monkey]

Im not saying it explains everything, but nobody mentioned the learning curve.

 

Maybe 2 years ago many of us werent as good as we are now at taking off in the game's 109?

[Guest deleted@50488]

Im not saying it explains everything, but nobody mentioned the learning curve.

 

Maybe 2 years ago many of us werent as good as we are now at taking off in the game's 109?

 

I surely took that into account too when I posted this thread, but it is really feeling different to me.

 

I understand that slamming the throttle with an unlocked tailwheel will / would, for sure, bring problems to a 109 pilot / vpilot. As it is right now, I can perfectly use this technique and even let go of my joystick roll / pitch control ( which act over the virtual stick ) and use only my rudder pedals controlling my virtual rudder, without having to use toe brakes under any circumstances, and actually only using some more or less constant amount of right rudder until it lifts the tail.

 

Also, while taxiing, even at low to med ( 0.8 up to 1.0 ) power settings, rudder is very effective at least for countering the torque effects that want to make me head portside, while the tailwheel locking mechanism is pretty much useless...

Edited November 22, 2016 by jcomm

[Gambit21]

Now I'm curious. I've never once even touched a 109 in this new version of the sim. Also I'm rusty from not having flown much this past year. I'll take one up later and see how she goes.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Now I'm curious. I've never once even touched a 109 in this new version of the sim. Also I'm rusty from not having flown much this past year. I'll take one up later and see how she goes.

 

Looking fwd for your report :-)

[curiousGamblerr]

Now I'm curious. I've never once even touched a 109 in this new version of the sim. Also I'm rusty from not having flown much this past year. I'll take one up later and see how she goes.

 

Same, not for two or three versions now, and I don't remember it being easy at all... Will definitely be practicing in a 109 soon tho, as 19.GIAP is thinking about going Axis for the next TAW campaign. I flew an '88 the other day and it felt pretty much the same as I remembered.

[Gambit21]

Found a great link with tons of 109 accounts - but can't post the link from my phone. I'll do so later.

 

In short - stay cool and follow procedure and you're golden. Fail to do so - like ramming the throttle forward and you have problems.

[[TWB]80hd]

Ya'll just never stop...

 

Patch comes out...

 

 

Patch comes out....

 

 

 

 

Man, when I was a kid, this is the crap we had to fly, and WE LIKED IT....

 

[Gambit21]

I remember that game - good times.

[NN_Elanion]

@ F/JG300_Touch: A very interesting document to compare our sensations in flight with the sensations of a true pilot of a real 109.

[Gambit21]

Here's some interesting stories/feedback from actual pilots.

I found it on my phone earlier - haven't read most of it yet.

 

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

 

 

[Gambit21]

Ok jcomm here's my take.

I took the G2 up 3 times...all three times I mashed the throttle forward as fast as it would go and I'd characterize

the pucker factor when doing that at almost zero. The second time I got a little drift and corrected with rudder.

The third time and mashed forward with a little rudder already applied - easy peasy. Feels like a rocket ship after

only flying Russian fighters this whole time in the new sim.

I can see why the dweebs love Luftwaffe (not that you're a dweeb if you fly Luftwaffe)

 

It's been a long time, but I seem to remember the 109's in the old sim as behaving more like I'd expect on take-off, but

I can't confirm that for sure. I'm pretty sure mashing the throttle all the way forward on an aircraft this powerful

would make things a bit more interesting...first hand accounts seem to corroborate that.

 

Again - I'm fairly green right now. My stick time can be measured in minutes over the last 8 months, and this was my first

time in the new 109's. Take that for what it's worth, which maybe isn't much.

 

edit - I should add that I can't properly simulate a truly green pilot - it's sort of like riding a bicycle.

There are no true nerves/or fear at work either. A truly inexperienced pilot in the real world, with fear of the 109's bad

reputation playing on his mind...we can't simulate that. 

 

All that said, the 109E was one of my favorites in the old sim - I think I'll play around with her a bit now.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Gambit21

[216th_Jordan]

Well two things come to my mind regarding these plane dynamics:

 

1. Propwash gives too much tailcontrol authority in this sim

2. Engine torque seems to have less effect than in real life (compare stories of fighters flipping upside down on landing when applying too much power in a short time)

 

Those are, I think, also dynamics that are being talked about in above pilot accounts.

[Gambit21]

2. Engine torque seems to have less effect than in real life (compare stories of fighters flipping upside down on landing when applying too much power in a short time)

 

Yep - I would think that especially in the late models, that would have to be well respected when applying throttle, especially given the narrow landing gear.

It demands rather little respect at the moment it seems.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Gambit21

[Gambit21]

The one thing I'm struck with really after a bit of stick time in the 109 and Yak 1b just now - the light cockpit workload of the German planes.

Stick and throttle, just point it and yank. Not much to think about.

 

In the Yak I feel like my hands are full with the radiators and pitch, checking temps and remembering about the super charger.

Life seems much easier in the 109, take-offs aside, WHICH by the way, seem much more pucker-inducing in the Yak FWIW.

[LLv34_Temuri]

In the Yak I feel like my hands are full with the radiators and pitch, checking temps and remembering about the super charger.

Life seems much easier in the 109, take-offs aside, WHICH by the way, seem much more pucker-inducing in the Yak FWIW.

Funny, I don't feel the workload is heavy enough in the Yaks :D

[Lusekofte]

If this is the "sim" everyone believe it to be, it would not be so cheap. In my point of view they have made a fantastic simulation for the money spent. And not just that, they continuously update it.

I too remember those claiming the takeoffs was far to difficult compared to the real thing. Unless you got 4+ million € you aint touching a 109 or Spit unless you got a military lifelong career . So we are rendered to guessing and take German aces word for it.

Galland did not look at 109´s takeoff/landing as a challenge , yet the catastrophic accident rate was stable throughout the war. Eric Brown said in a article.

While the Spit was relatively effective with a inexperienced pilot and became very good with a experienced one, it still had a ceiling . Compared to the 109 witch was close to lethal with a inexperienced pilot, seems to improve together with pilots experience for ever.

My point is , there is limits on what this sim can do, and the continuous opposite opinions about how it should be is not helping the developers knowing what we want

[Gambit21]

Funny, I don't feel the workload is heavy enough in the Yaks :D

I don't remember feeling that way a year ago - it's the rust from not flying.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well guys, thank you All for the many notes ( very informative and important for me because I use the sim much more from a flight dynamics pov than from a combat sim perspective... ).

 

Gambit21, thank you for taking the time to make your 109 tests too !

 

I also think that il2 battle of is probably the Best ww2 simulation ever made available for the PC, in many aspects.

 

I can only comment on the feel of flight and flight dynamics, and always within the limited knowledge I assume I have about ww2 combat aircraft ( or any combat aircraft as a matter of fact... )

 

I think that the experience I had with the first 109 I used in il2 BoS was more challenging, and I also recall the many complaints about it. I complained by that time regarding the taxiing and very intense torque / slipstream effects coupled with an almost totally ineffective tailwheel locking.

 

From some interesting emails I was able to exchange with Klaus Plaza I learned some really nice stuff about how the models he flies for the Messerschmitt Museum "handle". I was able to get a good feedback regarding the completely ineffective rudder until the aircraft starts moving at a significant speed during takeoff, and also the rather ineffective tailwheel locking mechanism... the pitching up tendency on takeoff requiring nose heavy trim on some models, etc...

 

I also find AMAZING how 1C / 777 has kept this sim going since it's release. Actually, I find it as an example for any developer, and I find no other flight simulation producer providing anywhere near the same support for it's user's hungry expectations ( we're hungry every wednesday... ).

 

So, please understand, my post was meant to question if something can be done even better, and not to troll.

 

Looking fwd for the upcoming updated fuselage interference physics !

Edited November 23, 2016 by jcomm

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Many here talk about Catastrophic Accident Rates, can somebody here actually bring some numbers of Accidents and total Losses, Fatalities etc. and compare them to other Aircraft, Spits, Ponies, Kittyhawks, P-47 etc.?

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Well guys, thank you All for the many notes ( very informative and important for me because I use the sim much more from a flight dynamics pov than from a combat sim perspective... ).

 

This is definitive the case with me too, I really cannot decide what to make of this game.

First I got a feeling it could be so much more

Second I got the feeling that in some planes the simulation of environment and a plane flying in them could not be better.

Then again I felt this could have been so much more

Then I understood what the dev´s wanted, they wanted a sim that was realistic enough , but still did not scare away new simmers. And I have to admit , they have nailed it.

I fly DCS when I want more, then I come back for the feel of flight, then I go Clod , then DCS and back to this. I have not regretted this purchase one second.

This is why I give them a little slack, they have done a splendid job. This simulator / game should have gotten a lot more credit than it already have, and a lot of criticism is just not fair 

[Guest deleted@50488]

This is definitive the case with me too, I really cannot decide what to make of this game.

First I got a feeling it could be so much more

Second I got the feeling that in some planes the simulation of environment and a plane flying in them could not be better.

Then again I felt this could have been so much more

Then I understood what the dev´s wanted, they wanted a sim that was realistic enough , but still did not scare away new simmers. And I have to admit , they have nailed it.

I fly DCS when I want more, then I come back for the feel of flight, then I go Clod , then DCS and back to this. I have not regretted this purchase one second.

This is why I give them a little slack, they have done a splendid job. This simulator / game should have gotten a lot more credit than it already have, and a lot of criticism is just not fair 

 

A perfect snapshot of my mind :-) regarding simming and  il2, dcs ...

[Irgendjemand]

According to every single pilot report I read about ww2 and modern pilots who fly the 109s, these aircraft are tricky to takeoff and land with.

 

On takeoff rudder effectiveness comes to life only when airflow is enough for the tail to lift up, and even a slight nose heavy stab trim being used to help with that,

footwork is mandatory, including differential braking because they're really difficult to keep running ligned up with the rw.

 

In il2 G-2, F-4, F-2 and E-7, I just have to use right rudder, which becomes effective the moment I "set takeoff power" and start my takeoff run, and I can even take the hands from my stick.

 

I can even do it with an unlocked tailwheel !

 

Also, during taxi, I think rudder feels too effective at the low power settings used during there.

 

This contrasts for instance with the Mig-3, other VVS fighters and some of the twins / bombers.

 

Because you trained it a million times already.

For a newb its not that easy.

I fly 109s since release of BOS and I ALWAYS have to use excessive rudder and brakes during takeoff.

But whatever. Just make it harder. I dont care.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Gambit21]

Many here talk about Catastrophic Accident Rates, can somebody here actually bring some numbers of Accidents and total Losses, Fatalities etc. and compare them to other Aircraft, Spits, Ponies, Kittyhawks, P-47 etc.?

Those numbers don't exist

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Those numbers don't exist

Well, I'm not sure wether the perception of Accident Rate of the 109 could simply be caused by the 109 the most numerous of all Luftwaffe Aircraft (With almost 35 000 against the 190s 20 000) , the fact that it was the Primary Training type for quite some time (The P-40 also had high Accident Rates for the very same reason) and most likely the type that Relatively Speaking probably also flew more Sorties in Total than a 190 (given the more readily available 87 Octane) as well as it's use on the worst Airstrips, while the 190s enjoyed the easy life in the West from Proper Airfields.

Edited November 23, 2016 by CuteKitten94

[Lusekofte]

Actually they do,  will see if I can find them. They are huge. I saw one from Norway well over 50% was lost due to take off and landings. This issue is also brought up in many good old documentaries , and I do not mena History Channel.

The narrow gears was a design That Willy simply would not change, And when the planes grew heavier and the power plant stronger the accident increased. Late war there where even more inexperienced pilots not lightening the losses. In my opinion I think the historians see this as a major design flaw, and I agree. The BF 109 remained a popular plane for it pilots, but that was for other reasons. I can understand that, many with 100 + victories, but the fact remain , it got the worst imagined canopy resulting in history worse view, Even the Razorback P 47 was much better, because the pilot could move sideways and had plenty room for leaning

Edited November 23, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Gambit21]

I've seen numbers, but also seen the veracity of those Numbers questioned for various reasons.

[ACG_daffy_]

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

 

The link above is a pretty cool read on the 109.  Myth vs Fact

 

You'll see that most pilots, German and Allied in test flights disagree with the suggestion that it was Hard to Takeoff and Land the birds.  The general consensus is that "bad landings and takeoffs and ground control" was much more the result of poor training than it was the birds characteristics.  Hell, the damn thing practically flies itself off the ground as long as you're patient and let the tail come up on its own.  I personally (only personal feeling) is that the birds are a little bit over-complicated in the Sim(s) we play them on.  

[Guest deleted@50488]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26260-why-are-109s-so-easy-takeoff-and-land/?p=412433

 

On the recording linked in this post, a rw modern Bf109 pilot talks about it... It doesn't seem to me as a badly trained pilot....

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I have spoken to some of the Bf109 pilots mentioned in that article from Virtualpilots. They all said the same: Bf109 quirks were exaggerated a lot even by their German instructors. Training was the keyword. When knowing what and how to do it the plane was like any other plane to fly in. Sadly a few of these gentlemen have joined the Ghost Squadron already  

[HagarTheHorrible]

I suspect toe-in for the wheels isn't accounted for in the (flight model ?), uneven distribution of weight on the main wheels during the transition from lift too not enough lift phase of landing/take off could quickly lead to things getting out of hand, I suspect. I also suspect it's just not a coding or desirable difficulty priority for the developers.

 

I wonder if 3 point landings, as opposed to flying landings, helped alleviate landing accidents on 109's as the transition from being light on the gear to having full weight, and possible more scrubbing of the wheels, rather than just running away, was shorter ?

Edited November 25, 2016 by HagarTheHorrible