Skoshi_Tiger Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Good video. 7 minutes 45 secons - Handling malicious - 1,500 student pilots killed flying the 109 in the first few years of the war? Wow that is startling! He is very complimentary about the leading edge slats.
pilotpierre Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Says it all methinks. Thanks for posting.
=RvE=Windmills Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 I always wondered if the 109 was statistically more dangerous than for instance Spitfires and Hurricanes though? Seems like those don't have much wider spaced gear.
Original_Uwe Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Moelders actually described the spit and Hurri as childs play (or childishly simple, can't remember the exact phrase) compared to the 109 regarding landing. But inferior to the 109 in most other regards lol.
Sternjaeger Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) very nice find Siggi, it's good to see yet another professional confirming what we have been saying about the peculiarity of the 109's landing gear geometry. Edited December 4, 2013 by Sternjaeger
Karost Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) Siggi Thank you for the video the combination of bf-109 which most terrify to student pilot. - high wing load - hi engine torque - 85 degree narrow landing gear - slats automatic all element become a deadly machine that student pilot must to learn and master it. there is no second chance for the mistake there is no flight simulation training like we have this day. Edited December 4, 2013 by Karost
MiloMorai Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 I always wondered if the 109 was statistically more dangerous than for instance Spitfires and Hurricanes though? Seems like those don't have much wider spaced gear. The u/c track of the Spitfire is ~6" narrower than the Bf109. Hurricane's u/c track is 7'10" or almost 0,4m wider than the B109.
Panzerlang Posted December 4, 2013 Author Posted December 4, 2013 Richie posted the video originally guys, about something else at 9 minutes in. I caught the bit about the wheels by luck.
ParaB Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Very interesting, thanks for posting this vid. The number of 1.500 pilots killed in training in the 1st two years is staggering. Especially when you consider that during the early war Luftwaffe pilots still received quite a thorough training compared to the ever-shortening training programme from '43 onwards.
Finkeren Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) I'm in the "camp" who thinks, that the Bf 109 is propably a bit too forgiving in landings, but still I would really like to see a source for the 1,500 number, that just seems extreme. I'm not sure exactly how many Luftwaffe pilots ever flew the Bf 109, but honestly I think the number has to be below 100,000 (a ratio of a little less than 3 pilots to every plane seems a safe bet). A mortality rate of several percent during training alone sounds completely unsustainable, especially considering the number of planes that would be lost as well in those accidents. Edited December 4, 2013 by Finkeren
siipperi Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Interesting number. I wonder how good the training was and how many hours those guys had on other planes than 109 before the first landing. Heck I have hundreds if not thousands of hours on ww2 planes so landing should be a piece of cake but for the guy that haven't ever landing plane before or not even trained it, it could be pretty hard and then you take to account the real life wind and turbulence and lumpy airfields I'm not surprised by the number.
FlatSpinMan Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Interesting. Do you mean real or virtual ww2 planes, slipperi?
ParaB Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Interesting number. I wonder how good the training was and how many hours those guys had on other planes than 109 before the first landing. During the 1st half of the war a German pilot would get ~100-150 hrs in training aircraft before transitioning to fighter school.
Finkeren Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 The total production of Bf 109s of all types was less than 8,000 before 1942. That would mean, that almost 20% of the entire production would be lost or damaged in accidents during pilot training alone (supposing that most accidents severe enough to kill the pilot would also destroy or damage the plane) I honestly can't believe that number.
Panzerlang Posted December 4, 2013 Author Posted December 4, 2013 I'm going to try landing on one wheel in the snowy field off the side of the runway and see what occurs.
Finkeren Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) Ok, I found some references claiming that the total annual output of the entire Luftwaffe training programme was fairly stable at around 15,000 graduates per year up til 1943, when the programme was severely restructured to speed up the training. Only around 1/3 of these were pilots, and only a minority of these 5,000 were fighter pilots. If the stated number of 1,500 fighter pilots killed in training accidents during "the first few years of the war" (let's say 1939 through 1941) were to hold true, it would mean, that the fighter pilot training programme had a mortality rate of 20 - 25%! Even officers of the VVS would balk at such loss rates. I simply don't think that this number can be true. Edited December 4, 2013 by Finkeren
II./JG27_Rich Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Richie posted the video originally guys, about something else at 9 minutes in. I caught the bit about the wheels by luck. I've had that video up for years. I first saw that program on TV back in the mid 90s. I was tickled to death when I found it on youtube so I posted my own vid up
mondog Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 The total production of Bf 109s of all types was less than 8,000 before 1942. That would mean, that almost 20% of the entire production would be lost or damaged in accidents during pilot training alone (supposing that most accidents severe enough to kill the pilot would also destroy or damage the plane) I honestly can't believe that number. Its not so hard to believe when you compare peacetime losses of F104s, using pilots trained in peacetime.
=LD=Hethwill Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Both planes center of gravity is different, this could have a definite influence especially on the ground handling. Spit was reported being way more tricky to land, and even warbirds pilots today go by the book, using flaps down only on gliding approach and straightening them full upon ground contact and take most of the runway. 109's could, in emergency, use a quarter of the runways for takeoff and flap-air-braking landings, which the spit cannot do or else would bounce like a 'garoo.
Finkeren Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Its not so hard to believe when you compare peacetime losses of F104s, using pilots trained in peacetime. Actually it is. The F-104, which was a notoriously accident-prone aircraft, had an accident rate of around 30 per 100,000 flight hours. This includes all accidents from the slightest mishap to a fatal crash. Before 1943 there were never more than 1000 serviceable Bf-109s in service with the Luftwaffe at any given time. Even if we presume, that every single one of them was used only for training new cadets, and every single one of them was kept in the air for 8 hours every single day (all of which is out if the ballpark by several orders of magnitude) we still get a figure of nearly 18 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours for the Bf-109 compared to the 30 per 100,000 hours for all accidents (of which only a small minority were fatal) for the F-104. The figure of 1,500 fatal accidents on the Bf-109 in just a couple of years is so ridiculously high, that it simply has to be wrong.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 There were 1500 ground accidents from 1939 to 1941 many of which wouldn't have been write offs. I find it hard to believe in the 1500 deaths up to 1942 in accident.
Finkeren Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 There were 1500 ground accidents from 1939 to 1941 many of which wouldn't have been write offs. I find it hard to believe in the 1500 deaths up to 1942 in accident. A total of 1500 ground accidents in 3 years for the type is a high number, but totally believeable. 1500 fatal accidents just during training in the same period is not believeable.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 That is what I said Those accidents will include all kinds of small ones I suspect.
Finkeren Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Assuming, that we're talking about 1500 ground accidents and not 1500 fatalities over a 3 year period, we can use the numbers I crunched before (using a more reasonable but still high average of 4 hours of flight time per day for each serviceable 109) we get an average of 34 ground accidents per 100,000 hours flight time, which is a very high number (remember we're only talking about ground accidents and still reach a number higher than for all accidents for the notorious F-104)
Skoshi_Tiger Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 If you go to Wikipedia they quote "At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941.[20]" which is different to the commentary in the film but uses the same figure. They attribute the source as being "Boyne 1994, p. 30". Anyone got access to this source?
Finkeren Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) If you go to Wikipedia they quote "At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941.[20]" which is different to the commentary in the film but uses the same figure. They attribute the source as being "Boyne 1994, p. 30". Anyone got access to this source? Yeah, I would like to know what the source say as well, because this still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Assuming that the Wikipedia-quote is talking about 1500 accidents which resulted in the loss or write-off of the aircraft between 1939 and '41, then that represents more than 20% of the entire Bf-109 production up to that point, including the hundreds of pre-war A - D types. This would mean, that the accident rate in 1939-41 was at least four times higher than in the years 1943-45, when the quality of training for LW pilots was much worse. Edited December 4, 2013 by Finkeren
siipperi Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Interesting. Do you mean real or virtual ww2 planes, slipperi? Real planes when speaking about real life conditions and comparing that to our experiences with pretty easy landing. Sorry if my post was confusing. During the 1st half of the war a German pilot would get ~100-150 hrs in training aircraft before transitioning to fighter school. Thanks! Pretty safe to say that something was "wrong" with 109 design.
von_Tom Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 What on earth is the wheel and landing debate? The 109's undercarriage causing landing accidents stuff? It's easy to sum up. The 109 could be easily landed. A huge number were damaged or written off in landing or takeoff accidents but there are no stats available to say what number or percentage was due to the undercarriage configuration and what to other things. It is possible that some accidents were caused by the undercarriage configuration but as the aircraft could be landed safely this suggests that either pilot error or mechanical problems were the cause of the accidents, not the configuration. I reckon the Spitfire undercarriage was dodgy based on this report: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10048657/Spitfire-crash-landed-after-pilot-pulled-wrong-lever.html Sheesh, move on everyone. Hood ps And because people love a challenge, try and find a damage report that directly states that the 109 undercarriage configuration was the direct cause of an accident.
MiloMorai Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Flying hours, http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/ This is a must read. 1
Sternjaeger Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Hood, I'm afraid you're missing the point here.. a Ferrari can be easily driven, but if you don't do it properly it will kill you.. 2
MiloMorai Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 According to the AAF Statistical Digest, in less than four years (December 1941- August 1945), the US Army Air Forces lost 14,903 pilots, aircrew and assorted personnel plus 13,873 airplanes --- inside the continental United States. They were the result of 52,651 aircraft accidents (6,039 involving fatalities) in 45 months.Think about those numbers. They average 1,170 aircraft accidents per month---- nearly 40 a day. (Less than one accident in four resulted in totaled aircraft, however.) 2
Sternjaeger Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 crumbs, those are mind boggling numbers that really give an idea of how expensive WW2 was!
MiloMorai Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/ For those interested in history and not gaming. Luftwaffe starts at #150. crumbs, those are mind boggling numbers that really give an idea of how expensive WW2 was! By type, http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t214.htm
Sternjaeger Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 great info, it'd be interesting to know the proportion with the number of aircraft produced. According to those numbers the P-47 seemed to be quite a challenging aircraft..
MiloMorai Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 great info, it'd be interesting to know the proportion with the number of aircraft produced. According to those numbers the P-47 seemed to be quite a challenging aircraft.. 15,660 P-47 produced Almost 20% involved in accidents. Not as challenging as the P-39. 9584 produced with 4719 going to the Soviets 1934/4865 = 40%
6S.Manu Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) From Steinhilper's book about his first flight in the Emil. The first three lines of the second page say it all. Edited December 4, 2013 by 6S.Manu
von_Tom Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Hood, I'm afraid you're missing the point here.. a Ferrari can be easily driven, but if you don't do it properly it will kill you.. I haven't missed the point. Your analogy is just a different way of saying the same thing. A 109 might be trickier to land/takeoff safely than another aircraft but do it right and you're just as safe. Hood
Sternjaeger Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 I haven't missed the point. Your analogy is just a different way of saying the same thing. A 109 might be trickier to land/takeoff safely than another aircraft but do it right and you're just as safe. Hood yep, this thread is a follow-up to previous conversations, and is aimed at ensuring that the landing gear peculiarities of the 109 and its particular behaviour in certain situations are faithfully represented, so that the aircraft behaves as faithfully as possible to the original.
BigMotor Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Maybe this was already said but most of us sim/RL pilots have hundreds if not thousands of flying hours more than the RL WW2 trainees at the time. A tricky plane for them might not necessarily be a trickly plane for us. If we change BOS to where 1500 of us are pranging on each landing, the handling might be wildly off the real one.
Recommended Posts