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

[ACG_daffy_]

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 ?

I think that the 109 was probably a true...need to 3 point land...airplane.  From the history that I've read and watched, in the 109 and 190 pilot crowd, not landing on all 3 was considered poor form, inappropriate, and was a practice that was frowned upon.  The German pilots seem to have been pretty sincere about that, in training doctrine, and in the ranks.  Also, they seem to have favored crabbed especially, but certainly offset approaches to their airfields.  For speed reduction, and for view.  At least according to the accounts I've enjoyed.

The 109 line is a favorite of mine.  I'll have to see if i can get any pictures digitized for it.  My Grandfather flew them against the allies.  I loved his stories and loved to here his thoughts.  I guess by default I was drawn to this airplane.  He was not a bad man, at all.  Very good man.  He was just fighting for his family and friends he always said.  He hated the war, but he loved to fly.  

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

The Finns noted that the 109 was a good fit for their Airfield, since they had to Three-Wheel all of their Aircraft due to the Short Airfield Lengths and Runway Qualities.

The 109, by it's very Design is meant to be Landed on all Three. Starting with the Far Forward Mainwheels, Slats and large Ground Angle.

The Far Forward Mainwheels would accelerate Ground Loops on 2-Wheel Landings. It is quite definetly not something meant to be landed on Two-Wheels.

[Guest deleted@30725]

He was not a bad man, at all.  Very good man.  He was just fighting for his family and friends he always said.  He hated the war, but he loved to fly.  

[HagarTheHorrible]

I imagine that the dynamics/ parameters that contributed to landing/ take off accidents in 109's, that transition between flying and non-flying are quite complex, more complex than the purely flying stuff, and if you tried to sit down and give it some real thought would probably end up making your brain hurt. Between lift, speed, torque, air density, altitude, aircraft weight, uneven tire pressure, bumps in the runway, camber of runway, friction of the ground surface, all of these things and probably more, I would have thought, could contribute to spoiling a 109 pilots day and exacerbating a wheel quickly running off in an undesired direction.

 

I would be interesting to know if accidents went up as 109's got heavier. Presumably added torque, the transition time between getting light on the gear, full lift and adequate aileron authority became progressively worse as the war went on, making what might have been an acceptable irritation and design compromise (toe-in of the main wheels) in early models a real handful by the end ?

[Guest deleted@50488]

I imagine that the dynamics/ parameters that contributed to landing/ take off accidents in 109's, that transition between flying and non-flying are quite complex, more complex than the purely flying stuff, and if you tried to sit down and give it some real thought would probably end up making your brain hurt. Between lift, speed, torque, air density, altitude, aircraft weight, uneven tire pressure, bumps in the runway, camber of runway, friction of the ground surface, all of these things and probably more, I would have thought, could contribute to spoiling a 109 pilots day and exacerbating a wheel quickly running off in an undesired direction.

 

I would be interesting to know if accidents went up as 109's got heavier. Presumably added torque, the transition time between getting light on the gear, full lift and adequate aileron authority became progressively worse as the war went on, making what might have been an acceptable irritation and design compromise (toe-in of the main wheels) in early models a real handful by the end ?

Excellent thoughts Hagar!

[69th_chuter]

I grew up reading all kinds of contradictory information of all sorts about the 109 (a well illustrated late '70s Wings magazine article on the 109K which I found out later didn't have a single photo of an actual K in it for instance) which started me on the quest to get as much straight as I could about it.  (It's an OCD thing.)  My take on the various pilot reports of it being "scary/dangerous" vs "not scary/dangerous at all" could simply be how comfortable the pilot was with the limited visibility.  One pilot who transitioned to 109s from 88s did a couple landings with an instructor in a G12 who then jumped out and told him to do it again solo (the instructor was probably a bit uncomfortable in the back seat - I certainly would be).  He claimed it was the single scariest thing he did in the war.  As a pilot I've been in unfamiliar planes with significantly less visibility than I was used to and it can be very nerve-wracking the first few landings no matter how good/competent you are/believe yourself to be.  It's a head thing.

[andyw248]

I imagine that the dynamics/ parameters that contributed to landing/ take off accidents in 109's, that transition between flying and non-flying are quite complex, more complex than the purely flying stuff, and if you tried to sit down and give it some real thought would probably end up making your brain hurt. Between lift, speed, torque, air density, altitude, aircraft weight, uneven tire pressure, bumps in the runway, camber of runway, friction of the ground surface, all of these things and probably more, I would have thought, could contribute to spoiling a 109 pilots day and exacerbating a wheel quickly running off in an undesired direction.

 

I would be interesting to know if accidents went up as 109's got heavier. Presumably added torque, the transition time between getting light on the gear, full lift and adequate aileron authority became progressively worse as the war went on, making what might have been an acceptable irritation and design compromise (toe-in of the main wheels) in early models a real handful by the end ?

 

Also, in the sim we always take off under very predictable runway conditions. No pot holes, no muddy spots, no furrows when the runway gets dry after a few days of rain... So we can develop one fixed brain / left hand / feet coordination and be sure it will always work. Not so for RW pilots back then...

[Guest deleted@50488]

What I find in BoS is that the rudder becomes alive too soon, or at relatively low power settings, like during taxi, which contrasts with every note I've read about the real aircraft and the inneficiency of it's rudder until good airflow is available over it, and not just propwash...

 

Another aspect is the efficiency of the tailwheel lock, and yet another the fact that taking off or landing with it unlocked would be a certain call for problems, which does not happen presently in BoS. I can take off in any of the 109s with the tailwheel unlocked, but if I try to do the same for instance with the Mig-3, I'll be a hole at one of the runway sides in less than a minute .-)

[Quax]

There have been 109 pilots, who never locked the tailwheel.

[Asgar]

There have been 109 pilots, who never locked the tailwheel.

and you know that because you were a 109 pilot in WW2, weren't you?

[Dakpilot]

I was not a WWII Luftwaffe fighter pilot, but I know of  accounts of some of them doing fast taxi in 109G with the tail wheel off the ground

 

even a case of a junior pilot copying this procedure failing at it, and and damaging two aircraft and ending up on a charge, which he was lucky enough to get away with

 

I have read some books though 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Guest deleted@50488]

I was not a WWII Luftwaffe fighter pilot, but I know of  accounts of some of them doing fast taxi in 109G with the tail wheel off the ground

 

even a case of a junior pilot copying this procedure failing at it, and and damaging two aircraft and ending up on a charge, which he was lucky enough to get away with

 

I have read some books though 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Dakpilot, you mean like this ?  In a 109 ? Wow - have to try it in the E-7 :-)

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by jcomm

[Dakpilot]

Yes jcomm, the incident is reported in Norbert Hannig's book Luftwaffe Fighter Ace: From the Eastern Front to the Defence of the homeland

 

highly recommended 225 page book that covers many aspects of Luftwaffe Pilot training and BF 109G and FW 190 experiences

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15584-free-pdf-luftwaffe-fighter-ace-norbert-hannig/

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thx for the book reference Dakpilot!

Edited December 1, 2016 by jcomm

[Legioneod]

I agree that the 109 feels too easy to take off and fly. The DCS 109 and 190 were difficult to learn so I was expecting the same learning curve when I came to this game.

 

Currently the 109 is very easy to fly aswell, you don't need much input to keep it steady, while in DCS you need to be on the stick constantly.

 

It may all be down to training though, having learned the DCS 109 probably helped.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

I agree that the 109 feels too easy to take off and fly. The DCS 109 and 190 were difficult to learn so I was expecting the same learning curve when I came to this game.

 

Currently the 109 is very easy to fly aswell, you don't need much input to keep it steady, while in DCS you need to be on the stick constantly.

 

It may all be down to training though, having learned the DCS 109 probably helped.

Our 109s are far less powerful and Slats are actually modelled very well in this game.

[Mmaruda]

I'll add my 2 cents. First the DCS 109 is a completely different beast with heaps more HP under the hood the the ones in IL-2. Second, the DCS 109 is also easy to take off, taxi and land after recent patches - it was like this with every WWII plane of theirs. It's super-difficult at first and completely erratic unless you follow the procedure to the letter and then they fix it and it's manageable. Also, I have never ever had a taxing or take-off accident in the DCS 109.

 

Now as for 109s being difficult with ground handling. This is a rough estimation on my part based on a few books I have read and some documentaries. Well, it wasn't really difficult, it just required more attention and was less forgiving of grave errors. Think of it this way - you say it's too easy, yet people still manage to screw up sometimes because they aren't paying attention, because they are tired or in a hurry or not paying attention - this concerns all planes in the game. Normally you chalk this up as a minor error on your part and when doing things in a deliberate manner it's all easy again. You do not count your failures, you just shrug off and hit re-fly. The Luftwaffe did count them, because they lost pilots and planes in those accidents. There were no re-tries in the war. Pilots were not always trained, or well rested. Hell, from the interviews with Hartman that I have read, you can easily get the impression that they were drunk or hangover, or just exhausted almost every day. It's a completely different thing to sit in your comfy chair and play a flight sim for the fun and relaxation and it's different when you are expected to fly the real thing with the notion that each flight might be your last, when you have been sleeping for 3 hours a day for the past month and when the equipment is heavily exploited and not always working properly.

 

What I am trying to say is, the 109 was not as difficult to taxi take-off and land as we think, no air-force would allow a plane that is a death-trap into it's service. The pilots were expected to operate the plane and stay safe while doing so. The 109 just required a little bit of skill and caution, something that rookie pilots and even veterans fatigued by the battles could sometimes not produce. Think of it this way - it's quite easy to drive a car, yet even experienced drivers have accident because they were tired. I once heard a policeman say on TV that a driver who had not slept for 20 hours straight has the same reflexes as a guy who drank 3 beers. Sleep is a rare commodity in war and flying real planes when other people are shooting at your is more stressful than playing a game.

 

I think the devs approach on realism has been solid so far, they base their physics model on hard data, not on opinions. One has to remember that even a renowned WWII veteran is not a reliable narrator. It's something I have been saying for ages on IL-2 boards - for each pilot who survived that says a certain plane was good, there is at least 20 who died in that same plane and would disagree with him, if they could speak today.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well written Mmaruda.