Warbird Information Exchange

Oh~NO!


The video of this landing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4S4YFnmzCU

I wonder if the left gear had fully deployed? It might just be the angle. Whatever the case may be, it shows how tricky the aircraft can be under crosswind conditions. Hopefully just a scuffed up wingtip.

109s are notoriously tough to handle on the ground due to the very narrow undercarriage. I've read some accounts that indicate as many as one-third of all 109s produced were written off due to takeoff or landing accidents. I would surmise that the pilot of this particular plane is very, very experienced, yet still dragged a wingtip. Imagine just being out of flight school and having to fly one of these in combat fully loaded with fuel and ammunition.

Perhaps in reaction to the 109s narrow undercarriage and the accidents caused by it, the Focke Wulf 190 had the widest undercarriage width of any single engine fighter up to that point. I'd be curious to see if the 190s track compares to the P-47.

It was either Bud Anderson or Bob Hoover who commented about how hard 109's were to land in their book.

I have it on good authority that if you always land into the wind and on a grass runway, they handle OK. Deviate from that and your risk goes up dramatically.

I think she is fine now.
This video was shot yesterday,she flied with Me262

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTxGDI2-wDs&feature=player_embedded

You're right, bdk. The 109, like most fighters of the era, was designed to take off and be landed directly into wind from all-over grass airfields. In the modern airfield environment, the 109 and its pilots have a hard time. Glad to hear the incident was no worse.

The narrow undercarriage of the 109 is (IIRC) a function of attaching it to the fuselage (for ground transport advantage) but other factors for modern ground handling challenges are the angle of the wheels and (IIRC) the nature of the 'toe in' or 'out' depending on the fuselage's ground angle.

The Hurricane (1935) had a wide track undercarriage, while the Spitfire's (1936) was nearly as narrow as the 109's, (1935) but without the advantage of being hung from the fuselage. However the Spitfire's wheel geometry, track-width and leg angles as well as a higher thrust line (and thus lower stance) all made it better than the 109's. The following Hawkers - Typhoon (1940) Tempest, Fury, etc all had the wide track. P-47 (1941) and Mustang (1941) also stuck to the wide track gear. The P-40 (1938) had the P-36's gear geometry of 1935. Really only the 109 and Spitfire tried the narrow route.

How much the Fw 190s track had to do with 109 issues is an interesting question as the Fw 190 actually first flew in 1939, only two years after the 109's introduction into service.

IMHO, some designers saw an advantage with narrow track undercarriages, but most (sensibly, with hindsight) avoided it.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

There was an excellent post (which I can't find) here on the forum that explained the gear issue with the 109. IIRC it had little to do with the narrow track (Spit is about the same) but everything to do with the gear leg and wheel angles. Basically the left gear wants to turn the aircraft right and the right gear wants to turn the aircraft. Both wheels on the ground: no problem. Aircraft tracks straight. Unload one of the the other and you have unequal turning tendencies. Wish I could find the original post.

Yesss, I vaguely recall the thread too, can't find it either!

However an interesting shot in this thread showing the geometry issue.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2666

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

There is indeed a noticeable degree of toe-in on the 109's gear, a function of the wheel well geometry as well as helping it to track straight while on the ground (there's little to no rudder authority on this thing until you're almost fully in the air). But as noted, get one wheel up, and you better hold on tight because you're going for a ride!

One of the regular pilots of "Black 6" made a comment about operating the 109 from grass vs concrete; namely, don't operate it from concrete unless you absolutely cannot avoid it. Nowadays, unfortunately, with the exception of rural fields, it's virtually impossible to avoid concrete runways, and in those instances, you just have to live with whatever the wind is doing. What happened here looked like a straightforward case of a wicked crosswind gust and a relatively light aircraft at a sensitive point in it's flight regime... the pilot did a masterful job getting it gathered up quickly with no further issues.

Lynn

Looked a tad fast as well...

The other Lynn...

Great to see the G4 flying again and had a lucky escape, that second lot of footage above is all shades of awesome!

I very well believe the ground handling of the 109 is blown way out of proportion. This G4 as well as the Messerschmitt foundations other 2 109's as well as Paul Allen's 109E opperate of paved runways almost exclusivley and the pilot of FHC's E model claims it is easier to land on a smoth paved runway vs a not smoth/level grass runway. As for everything I've read on the topic the 1/3 # destroyed is also flawed. This was true of the Avia 199 but had nothing to do with the German 109's. Guenther Rall and Hartmann claimed to never have groundlooped a 109 and was only common with the low time untrained pilots at the wars end. As for the 2 E models currently flying as well as the 3 G models and numerous Buchons, I've only seen 1 landing accident in the last few years. This being the LH main colapse on The Messerschmitt Foundations G10. How many Spits groundloop or have accidents in comparison? I agree the 109 definately takes more skill for sure, but it's NOT an impossible airplane to fly. I own 2 Luscombes and it has a really bad rap on the ground. This again is blown WAY out of proportion as well as the Globe Swift. Flown Luscombes and Swifts and they are no propblem whatsoever as long as they are flown within their limits as well as the pilot's ability. Forgive my ramblings, just my observations/2 cents worth.

I'd agree.

Hmmm. Fact remains it was designed for and intended for grass fields (not runways) to land and take off directly into wind.

And a good grass field should be reasonably level and clear - rather than some of the afterthought grass strips on modern airfields devoted to their metalled runways.

IIRC, it's a myth - there's data to show so, if someone wants to check.

Every single Buchon that has been airworthy in the last 30 years has groundlooped or had a significant ground handling incident resulting in major or workshop-level damage.

Many of those have been grounded often unofficially where the owner/pilots have decided it all gets just too interesting. To be fair, the Buchon has a couple more strikes against it compared to a 109 proper.

But IIRC, all of the MBB Me 109Gs have also had incidents at one time or another.

The currently airworthy 109Es are both lower power, lighter, and more valuable aircraft compared to the Buchons and 109Gs that have been flying before them. More cautious and perhaps better trained / experienced pilots have done well with them. However all those that have flown 109Gs are hardly less experienced; and they've undertaken much more activity than the very low time local ops only Es.

The incidents with 109G-6 10639 'Black 6' were pilot originated.

Very few, in comparison, and in the total number of incidents.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

IIRC the minima for operational airfields for the Luftwaffe in the beginning was 1000 x 1000 metre, later extended to 1200 x 1200 m. Though not all were rectangular, even when (nearly) round they should have a diametre of 1200 m minimum. When I visited a former German airfield in Austria, in the 1960´ies the Austrian Airforce still operated an original WW II airfieldroller. It was used quite regularly to keep the airfield even. As you wrote above, a far cry from todays semi-usable grass strips. Mainly for gliders or in case of work in progress on the paved runway.

Michael

P.S.: I read an old report by Walter Eichhorn last week, probably the most experienced past WW II pilot on Bf 109 and Buchons. He stated, he would always use grass if possible, paved runway only if it could not be avoided. And paved runway and crosswinds would be a no go.