| 41Sqn_Stormcrow |
04-18-2012 10:33 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir
(Post 410958)
Er,I think you have misinterpreted and I suggest you re-read. I can tell you that for all the hours that Bf-109G-2 Black 6 was in the air, Charlie Brown was behind the stick for more than half that time. He's familiar with the 109. This was his first test flight in the E. He said the almost complete lack of longitudinal stability at tail-off was familiar - i.e it was a charactersitic of the 109G and was also inherent in the E. What is different is that the E does things at lower speeds, which one can presume is from the lower weight of the E variant compared to the G.
|
Oups, my mistake, I should have been clearer. I wanted to say that he was unfamiliar with the E type, not with the 109 in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir
(Post 410958)
Any WW2 era fighter is of 1000+HP on an airframe under 10 tonnes is gonna be a handful at full power and the low end of the speed range - the sheer physics of forces says so - the difference lies in the aerodynamic power of the control surfaces at these speeds to compensate or correct. Clearly the 109s are lacking. Sure the Spitfire could bite but it remained longitudinally controllable and had effective rudder down to walking speed. The fact the the 109 is 'almost completely unstable longitudinally at tail up' even with propellor driven airflow over the tail surfaces speaks volumes. Even in the air you have to work the rudder hard during maneouvres to keep co-ordinated (source: Me109 - One Summer Two Messerschmitts DVD).
When adequately trained and experienced flyers are allowed near the 109 it's a capable aeroplane - Erich Hartmann alone demonstrates this. However what this shows is that to get it off the ground and back on it again requires attention, a good experience of flying tail-wheel aircraft and of airmanship in general. These are things which a peacetime air force or one that is riding a cresting wave of victories can readily supply in the training syllabus. However, these are not characteristics I would associate with the backbone of the Luftwaffe by 1944. And the reason the 109 wasn't replaced by then is because no one in the 3rd Reich had the foresight to work on a successor back when it counted; they thought the war would be over and won by 1943!
|
As I said I (I am repeating myself): albeit I do believe that the 109 was tricky I do not believe that it was so tricky that 30% of all losses (from 1939-45) pertained to take-off and landing accidents because of the 109 being tricky in this phase.
I concede that the accident rate will have risen towards the end of the war in 44/45 when only badly trained youths were litterally thrown into the air against the bomber flows but we're talking here about the early stages (BoB). It does not say anything about the 109 being intrinsically dangerous, simply tricky. If the 109 would have been so inherently dangerous during take-off and landing it would have been it from the start throughout all stages of the war. If it would have been that dangerous the armament ministry would have done something about it and be it requesting some modifications to the 109 design (for instance increasing the tail surface could have been a countermeasure). Nothing in that direction was ever undertaken indicating clearly that there was no importance attributed to take-off / landing difficulties thus indicating that the problems were not so significant to justify any modifications.
If the accidant rate increased towards the end of the war it can only be attributed to the training level of the average pilot not to the plane itself.
Again (repeating again): It was surely not easy to take off and one may discuss if it is too easy in game but I do think that this bad reputation of the 109 being dangerous to take-off and land is unjustified and a modern myth. |
