Me-109 Question

Kyleb · **Posted:** Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:29 pm

I submit that the Me-109 must have the worst ground handling characteristics of any design that made it into mass production. Almost every surviving example has been groundlooped at one time or another and the Germans lost thousands of them in takeoff/landing operations during the war.

I saw a comment in this forum once about a 2 seat Ha-112, with the thought that the 2 seat configuration provides the opportunity to scare the stuffing out of two people at once.

My question is: Why is this aircraft's ground handling so bad? What makes this aircraft unique? The ground track doesn't look much different from say, a Spitfire, yet the 109 has a horrible record and the Spit is considered to be docile in comparison.

Is the 109's fin/rudder undersized? Does the canopy/turtledeck blanket the rudder when the aircraft is in the 3 point attitude?

What gives?

gregv · **Posted:** Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:39 pm

In short, from what I can gather as a layman, is that its the geometry of the gear, not the track width, that is the real culprit, but others here will know much more.

And if you think that the Spanish 2-seater was bad, read some accounts of flying the German 2 seater, the 109-G12....

greg v.

dhfan · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:01 am

I may have made this up but I think I read that the mainwheels toe out and when it starts to go offline, it just keeps going.

lmritger · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:32 am

Dhfan, there may be something to that... there's hardly a 90 degree angle anywhere in the landing gear system. Plus, the length of the legs themselves doesn't help... note that the legs of a Spitfire are substantially shorter. Factor in a massively torquey V-12 and small tail surfaces which confer little to no controllability at low speeds, along with rough fields with rocks and divots that would cause any light aircraft to dart and jump about, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Interestingly, when looking at loss reports and photos of 109s damaged in gear failures, it seems the early models up through the F were most susceptible... and these were the ones with the lightest weight and thinnest wheels. The wheels were redesigned to keep pace with the spiraling weight of the Gustav series, and that seems to have had some kind of positive effect... not great, of course, it was still a handful, and this isn't a scientific result, but empirical evidence suggests ground handling DID improve somewhat towards the end of the war.

Lynn

Dan K · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:56 am

lmritger wrote:

Dhfan, there may be something to that... there's hardly a 90 degree angle anywhere in the landing gear system. Plus, the length of the legs themselves doesn't help... note that the legs of a Spitfire are substantially shorter. Factor in a massively torquey V-12 and small tail surfaces which confer little to no controllability at low speeds, along with rough fields with rocks and divots that would cause any light aircraft to dart and jump about, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Interestingly, when looking at loss reports and photos of 109s damaged in gear failures, it seems the early models up through the F were most susceptible... and these were the ones with the lightest weight and thinnest wheels. The wheels were redesigned to keep pace with the spiraling weight of the Gustav series, and that seems to have had some kind of positive effect... not great, of course, it was still a handful, and this isn't a scientific result, but empirical evidence suggests ground handling DID improve somewhat towards the end of the war.

Lynn

And don't forget the dramatic improvement in ground handling provided by the extended tail wheel on the late G's and K's.

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:18 am

I posted this link a long time ago......

The historical perspective on flying the beast is quite a read.

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

The rest of this web site is also a blast

Quoted ffrom the link below.

Quote:

"Me 109 was hard/dangerous plane to take off."
- The standard takeoff procedure for 109 was to use rudder to keep the plane straight. There was basically to ways to take off the plane. Either you throttled up fairly fast and gave full right rudder, easing it off as speed increased, or you throttled up slowly so there was minimal torque effect. In practise that was similar to anybody who had flown other types before and it took usually just one flight to know how to do it. The myth that there was something hard in taking off in 109 stems mostly from highly exaggerated claims - or the fact that for new pilots converting to 109 from various trainers had not flown such highly powerful aircraft before. With proper teaching - no problems. In Germany that was rare thing in the last years of war though. The Finnish Air Force chief instructor colonel Väinö Pokela told, that one of his key points in teaching new pilots to 109s was to instruct them very carefully - and told them to forget any horror stories they've been told. He said, that many pilots were already scared from the horror stories other pilots and non pilots had been telling, and after showing how easy 109 was to handle there was seldom any problems.
- Colonel Pokela also told that most 109 crashed he had seen resulted because the pilot had forgotten to lock the tailwheel before applying takeoff power. If that happened then the pilot couldn't keep the plane straight when accelerating. Take notice that you need to push rudder in all other planes as well - for example Spitfire requires similarly full right pedal while accelerating.
- Torque can indeed send a plane off the runway during a takeoff, especially if there's a crosswind to start it off. But 109 is no different from a P-40 or a Spitfire in this situation. The bad reputation most likely comes from pilots flying it for the first and perhaps only time, and that the veteran pilot would instinctively make the adjustments needed to keep it straight while rolling on the ground.

"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:38 am

The three Merlin powered Spitfires I have flown do NOT "require full right rudder pedal while accelerating" for a normal takeoff at plus 7 lbs. boost. Maybe if you got up above 10 lbs. The Pilot Notes manual does recomend full right rudder TRIM for takeoff, but I and some other Spit pilots have found less trim is fine, otherwise as soon as gear comes up and you accelerate you must hold some left rudder until you can turn the trim back to neutral. If anyone tells you a Spit lacks rudder power, they must have a different flying experience than I have.
As for the 109, I have not flown one. Steve Hinton told me the original German type with the Diamler engine handles better than the HA one with the Merlin. Both do turn the same way. I watched John Romain fly the Russell 109 and it didn't appear to handle badly, but then John is very good. That is an E, pretty light and it takes off and lands pretty short.
The Merlin Spitfire lands well for several reasons. First the wing design is so good that the slow flight and near stall handling is not only better than other warbirds, but better than most civilian planes, such as my Bonanza. So you come in fairly slow, 80 mph at fence, and have good control. Also very easy if you need to go around. It is pretty blind as you slow, but with lots of control. Elevator is powerful, needs a light touch, not a yank, rudder good, still enough ailerons. If you touch down straight at the right speed, (and all is ok mechanically such a strut inflation, tailwheel friction) it wants to roll straight. Many times you don't even need to use the rudder unless there is a crosswind and mostly you don't need brakes. Heavy brake use can be a little touchy. I have not (yet) flown a Griffon Spitfire.

51fixer · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:50 am

The 109 seemed to be designed to use dirt or grass and to be flown from a field where you can use any direction so you are into the wind.
Operations from hard runways seem bring out the gear issues.
At POF they moded their Buchon to make it appear more 109ish. It looked real good. The one airshow started with a formation of P-51D, Zero, Buchon and Spitfire.
No one seemed to like flying the Buchong though.
Rich

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:29 am

51fixer wrote:

The 109 seemed to be designed to use dirt or grass

It certainly was. It was intended to be a field operable aircraft, as far as possible, in both senses of the word.

While Michel's quote from the Finns is an excellent one, the Hispano Buchon currently has a 100% failure rate in warbird operation, as far as I'm aware - i.e. there's not a Buchon that has operated in the last thirty years that hasn't come to grief at least once. (I think the Tom Blair machine might be virgin...)

Given that several Buchon pilots have been among the best pairs of hands, I'd suggest the Buchon's reputation is in line with its performance.

The Buchon is, of course, essentially a 109G aft of the firewall. However the position, mass and thrustline of the Merlin are very different to the DB, and all 'worse'.

The undercarriage geometry of a 109 and Spitfire are only similar at a glance. The 109 has the wheel, leg, height and angles all very awkward to say the least, while the Spitfire's undercarriage is relatively narrow, it's generally benign, although the Seafire's undercarriage limits were a wartime standard acceptable only.

Bradburger · **Posted:** Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:07 am

One other thing that I don't thing has been mentioned at to why the 109/Buchon had ground handling issues & big tendancy to groundloop, is the fact that the CoG is located quite a long way behind the mainwheels, something that is a trait of quite a few aircraft such as some of the AT6's/SNJ/Harvards, Bearcat & Sea Fury, hence the reason (like the 109/Buchon), they have a tailwheel lock!

I've read many reports by the likes of the late Mark Hanna, Sir John Alison, Dave Southwood & Charlie Brown on flying both types, and it's clear that you HAVE to be on the ball when taxing and especially when landing them.

Mark Hanna said that the it was "Just as likey to wrap itself up at 80mph as it was 20", and that "A ropey landing would run straight as die, whilst an immaculate 3-pointer could turn into a potential disaster". This is a good reason why probably never see a 109/Buchon perform a rolling exit at the end of it's landing run!

As Bill has mentioned, the Spitfire has no tendancy to ground loop, as indeed does the Hurricane, (just a slight tendencey to wander from the pilots reports I've read), and providing you apply the rules you would for any taildragger, are quite easy, as I'm sure Bill will testify!

Cheers

Paul

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:35 am

Paul, do you think anyone would have believed it if we claimed a Spitfire was a handful to fly and ONLY A GREAT PILOT COULD MANAGE ONE ? I landed my MkIX,( calm wind) on Fri after not flying it for two months, and as I was rolling I noticed I was using only small inputs, about 1/3 rudder travel and no brakes.
A story on Buchon 109, the CAF had one that was flown well by Carl Payne,but they wanted to get a 2nd pilot. People aren't exactly standing in line. I have a friend who is a very experienced warbird pilot and longtime CAF sponsor. He's a take charge guy, not easily scared off. One day at Midland the top officers call him in to conference and asks him to sponsor AND FLY the 109. He didn't say yes, didn't say no, but got off the hot seat when the plane had a problem.

Chunks · **Joined:** Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:02 am **Posts:** 361

I remember as a kid growing up in Harlingen there was an article in the paper where someone (I believe Lefty Gardner IIRC) described flying the 109 as "making love to a beautiful woman...with your wife watching. That was enough for me never to want to try...

Jack

Warbird Information Exchange

Me-109 Question

Who is online