ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

[Race 29]

AP News is runninga video clip of an ME-109 that had a gear collaps on landing at an airshow in Germany. The pilot appears ok and looks to be pretty minimal damage to the airframe. Does anyone have any details? All I could find was the video and that didn't have any info on it.

Race 29

[Red]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

Wow what a bummer. Hopefully its not too bad. Looks like the pilot did an excellent job of keeping it straight as long as he did

[AirDOGGe]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

BIG bummer. It was a BF-109, not an "ME".

QUOTE:
"This afternoon the Bf 109 G-10 "black 2" of EADS heritage Flight made a crash landing at the Berlin Airshow. Pilot Walter Eichhorn is unhurt."

I've only located one screen capture, but few details. Looks like the worst damage is the propeller and the right wing.





Is it true that more 109's were lost due to gear problems and ground loops (due to a narrow landing gear layout) than were shot down, or is that an old tale with no truth behind it?

[bergschrund]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

I read that out of more than 33,000 Me109s built 11,000 were destroyed in training and in landing accidents. Most were due to the narrow and splayed out landing gear. B

[flyingjibus]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

I have read that The majority, if not all, Frontline fighter aircraft suffered much more losses to landing incidents and other mechanical problems than to enemy fire.

I have heard that specific claim about 109's as well...

[Red]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

I've heard many stories.....but what exactly are the differences between a ME and Bf

[flynundertaker]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

you can see the vid on comcast's home page..hope thats ok to post..

[W J Pearce]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

I've heard many stories.....but what exactly are the differences between a ME and Bf

Why type it up when I can copy from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

Bf 109 was the official Reichsluftfahrtministerium (German Aviation Ministry, RLM) designation, since the design was submitted by the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke company, and was used exclusively in all official German documents dealing with this aircraft family. The company was renamed Messerschmitt AG after July 1938 when Erhard Milch finally allowed Willy Messerschmitt to acquire the company; from that date forward, all Messerschmitt aircraft were to carry the "Me" designation except those already assigned a Bf prefix. Wartime documents from Messerschmitt AG, RLM, and others continued to use both designations, sometimes even on the same page but there were several RLM orders to deny acceptance of documents carrying the Me prefix for the Bf 109. Me 109 is known to have been the name used in print by Luftwaffe propaganda publications as well as by the Messerschmitt company itself after July 1938, and Luftwaffe personnel, who pronounced it may hundert-neun. The Me 109 ("emm ee one-oh-nine") designation was usually used in the English-speaking world. However, in both wartime and contemporary literature, both the "Bf" and "Me" as well as "ME" prefixes are used. All extant airframes are described as "Bf 109" on identification plates, including the final K-4 models.

[Red]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

Thanks Bill! I guess I could have looked it up myself I had heard the struts, no struts thing and never believed it.

Just got reading the book "Black 6"....great read if you're into 109's

[Race 29]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

Thanks Bill, I was going to say the same thing!

Accually, I've always called them "BF-109's" untill I read pretty much the same thing you posted at the Evergreen Museum a couple weeks ago.

(Off topic) that museum has really grown since the last time I was there! I got to have my picture taken in the pilots seat of the Spruce Goose (I know....HK1 Hercules for the purists) I also visited Tillimook for the first time. Both had some great aircraft. Evergreen even had Pardue's Corsair!

Race 29

[W J Pearce]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

I have a lot of books. Many times I will find, almost verbatim, the same information in several. Sometimes even the mistakes are repeated, and rumors treated as fact. I do not know the true store of the Bf 109's gear nor have I ever looked into it, but I did find the following here (edited for clarity):

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

Myth - "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."

Fact - 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

Myth - "11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine

Fact - The magazine has it wrong or has misinterpreted the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practice to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

Myth - "The specific problem with the Bf 109 was the very narrow / weak undercarriage track."

Fact - Narrow landing gear was not that uncommon at the time - all biplanes also had narrow landing gear. Me 109's undercarriage was connected to the fuselage rather than the wings. This had several reasons. Most importantly the wings were easily and quickly changed if needed, without special preparations or tools. Wings were also one single structure, which made it possible to make them very strong. Because this the plane needed some care when operating. The claim that the narrow undercarriage was a problem is a myth, though. In comparison the undercarriage of Supermarine Spitfire was even narrower - it had its own share of problems from this. Imagine what it was to takeoff and land the Spitfire's carrier version to carriers for example? Especially later marks of Spitfire with enormous amount of installed power were quite a handful to operate. But that is conveniently usually ignored.
- The width of undercarriage in Me 109 E is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters.
- The real problem was the center of gravity behind the undercarriage. This made it possible to brake unusually hard in landings, but it also required the pilot to keep the plane straight in takeoff and landing. Because this it was easier for a small sideswing to develop into a groundloop or the plane might drift off the runway, if the pilot was not awake. Of course, if the tailwheel was not locked, the tendency would be pronounced and more difficult to counter. As with any plane.
- Contrary to the popular myth, the landing gear could take the plane 'dropping' in from about 8-10 feet.

[Red]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

Bill

Good read. But I have to wonder what is meant by the c.g. behind the gear. It is that way on all conventional geared aircraft or they'd sit on the nose. Maybe they meant the distance was greater than usual?

[W J Pearce]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

Bill

Good read. But I have to wonder what is meant by the c.g. behind the gear. It is that way on all conventional geared aircraft or they'd sit on the nose. Maybe they meant the distance was greater than usual?

That is what I took it as. If you look at a picture of a 109 sitting on the ground the main gear seem pretty far forward.

[AirDOGGe]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

That might make for an interesting investigation. What's the distance from the gear to the center of gravity of a 109, versus a 'Stang or Spitfire?

Is there enough of a difference to explain the ground loop problem with the 109, or does the wider stance of the P-51 have more to do with it than the book allows for?


I have a little bit of a personal interest in this. When I went to the Reno Air Races in 1981 for the very first time, the first plane I saw there was a BF-109, sitting on it's belly on the runway directly in front of the grandstands, another victim of an uncalled-for ground loop during landing.


.


Meanwhile, here's some more info from another source, with a few more clues to the cause of the ground control problems of the ME/BF-109:

The Bf 109 was notoriously difficult to take off and land, and many fighters simply veered off or tipped over to one side during a seemingly perfect run. To make things worse, the landing gear struts were comparatively long. This left the nose pointing up at quite a steep angle with respect to the ground.

The Bf 109 suffered from ground accidents due to "swing" on takeoff and landings throughout its life. It has been suggested that 5% of all 109s were lost this way, or even one third; the Luftwaffe's loss records on the other hand show that approximately 1% of the Bf 109s had suffered landing incidents or accidents at the beginning of its career, a figure comparable to the other monoplane fighters introduced at the time. This feature was, however, more of a problem with rookie pilots, especially during later stages of the war.

The Spitfire had a similar, narrow landing gear arrangement, but there has not been widespread talk about operational losses due to this, and it has been speculated that the swing was due to the toe-in of the main landing gear wheels. Most Finnish pilots report that the swing was easy to control, but some of the less experienced pilots lost fighters on startup.

[First time Juke]

Re: ME-109 down at airshow in Germany

All good facts all right.

Nevertheless the Walter Eichorn landing with G-10 was just an unfortunate accident nothing to do with the mythical 109 landing or take-off difficulties. Gear just did not lock into extented position.

One notion when comparing Me-109 and Mustang and Spitfire gear is that Me-109 had about 3 metre dia prop and Mustang somewhere closer to 4 metre dia...and Spit likewise.

However the engine layout in Me 109 made it possible to install through propler hub firing 20 and 30 mm cannon eventually into the 109, thus making it very leathal weaponsystem. If you look at the Supermarine Spitfire F24 propellor the hub points several degrees down.

Mark Hanna had some ideas written down how one takes off with a 109...it was in some aviation mag some 17-20 years ago. I could look it up if interested. I recall one wannabe aviator in Finland during WWII tried twice and ended up ditching two 109s before assignment in the office work elsewhere.

I am glad Walter was ok after that gear collapse.