PDA

View Full Version : The wing bulges on the 109G14 & 109K4



XyZspineZyX
04-01-2006, 05:22 AM
The long wing bulges on the above Messerschmitts, what were they for?

mandrill7
04-01-2006, 05:25 AM
The 109 series had ongoing problems with stability when landing due to narrow wheel base. 1 of the last measures undertaken to resolve this was to equip late models with extra-thick wheels and tires. As these were now so thick that they could not completely fit into the 109's normal wing, a bulge had to be made into the upper wing surface to accomodate them.

Xiolablu3
04-01-2006, 05:51 AM
Because the 109's wings were so weak, the wheels had to be fitted to the body of the plane.

This caused many many accidents as the wheels were both close togther and at a funny 'spread out' angle, to try and give them more width between them.

As has been said by Mnadrill, thicker tyres and bigger wheels were added to try and stop some of the accidents, resulting in the bulges.

Compare a cross section of the Me109 with other aircraft and you will see that most have the wheels attached to the wings as it gives much more width to them without having to have them at very hi angles.

tigertalon
04-01-2006, 06:04 AM
Spit had the same problem.

Xiolablu3
04-01-2006, 06:31 AM
Are you sure? I was just looking at a picture of a Spitfire and its wheels are connected to the wings not the body.

Also there are loads of Spitfires flying today and they never seem to crash often?

109's only seem to last a few years before they crash on landing.

Maybe the Spit had the same idea of undercarriage but it wasnt as dangerous? I was just looking for info on Spitfire landing problems compared to 109's and there isnt very much info.

VW-IceFire
04-01-2006, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Spit had the same problem.
Spitfires indeed had a similar problem but it wasn't quite as bad apparently. The track was a bit wider (not much) and the Spitfire behaved better on the ground according to those who have flown both.

Ratsack
04-01-2006, 07:18 AM
The 109 had a steeper ground angle than the Spit because the centreline of the spinner was lower on the DB than on the Merlin. This meant the legs had to be longer to ensure prop clearance.

In addition, in Dave Southwood's description of flying Black 6 (restored original Bf109G-2) he says the 109 floats a lot just before touchdown, but that any attempt to avoid the 'float' by lowering the landing speed would result in a sudden drop and a very heavy landing.

He also goes on to say that the plane should be landed in a 3 point attitude, and that an attempt to do a two-wheel landing is likely to result in a ground loop, although he doesn't elaborate on why. He also adds that the rudder is completely ineffective after touch down.

I think, though, that the most telling comment is this:

'As my experience on it has grown, I have gained a good degree of understanding [of Black 6's] peculiarities. In some aircraft, this level of confidence can lead to one being able to fly in more demanding situations. With the '109, I become more and more convinced that our stringent limits for take-off and landing are essential!'

The exclamation is Southwood's. Another adjective he uses to describe flying it is 'demanding'. He seems to be saying the '109 is a bit of a handful. And before somebody comes in with some cr@p about Black 6 being in a parlous state, it was captured in an undamaged state and was flown in tests during the war before being stored.

I have to say that the G-2 in the game is a very tame little puppy indeed.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kocur_
04-01-2006, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Because the 109's wings were so weak, the wheels had to be fitted to the body of the plane.


Its the other way around: because gear legs were attached to fuselage (in the same place where lower engine bed connection with first bulkhead was located - arranging joint that way was weight efficient), wings could be made lighter, as they didnt have to carry stresses resulting from land operations. Bf-109 was designed with lightness as the very first matter in minds of designers.

Spifire case is similar in a way, contrary to what we see looking at externals: technologically speaking Spitfire gear legs were attached to fuselage too, because central section of wing was integral part of fuselage structure - outer wings were attached it with bolts.


Because of mentioned above difference in engines design, Bf-109 gear legs had to be considerably longer and to make things worse, they were oblique (looking from 12 or 6) when gear was lowered, because of where the were attached to airframe - both resulted in them being prone to breaking. OTOH Spitfire gear legs were quite short and because of where they were attached to airfreme, i.e. further from longitudinal axis, their position was vertical when lowered.

AKA_TAGERT
04-01-2006, 09:09 AM
wow and all this time I thought that is where the pilot stored his ego, in light of the cockpit being too small to fit a normal size head.

Grendel-B
04-01-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
The 109 series had ongoing problems with stability when landing due to narrow wheel base. 1 of the last measures undertaken to resolve this was to equip late models with extra-thick wheels and tires. As these were now so thick that they could not completely fit into the 109's normal wing, a bulge had to be made into the upper wing surface to accomodate them.

Correct about the bulges, incorrect reasoning.

The enlarging of the wheels had nothing to do with the mythical, and in reality nonexistent "instability" of the 109. Wheels and struts had to be enlarged, as the plane gained weight with later variants and the older gear/wheels did not withstand that weight. Hence, stronger, larger gear and wheels.

Grendel-B
04-01-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Spit had the same problem.
Spitfires indeed had a similar problem but it wasn't quite as bad apparently. The track was a bit wider (not much) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the other way around.

Me 109 E gear width is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters.

VW-IceFire
04-01-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Spit had the same problem.
Spitfires indeed had a similar problem but it wasn't quite as bad apparently. The track was a bit wider (not much) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the other way around.

Me 109 E gear width is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahhh touche...I didn't realize. Thanks!

OldMan____
04-01-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
The 109 series had ongoing problems with stability when landing due to narrow wheel base. 1 of the last measures undertaken to resolve this was to equip late models with extra-thick wheels and tires. As these were now so thick that they could not completely fit into the 109's normal wing, a bulge had to be made into the upper wing surface to accomodate them.

Correct about the bulges, incorrect reasoning.

The enlarging of the wheels had nothing to do with the mythical, and in reality nonexistent "instability" of the 109. Wheels and struts had to be enlarged, as the plane gained weight with later variants and the older gear/wheels did not withstand that weight. Hence, stronger, larger gear and wheels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also because 109 were being used in russian front, on ground contitions that needed stronger gear, since small wheel work well only on tarmac.

Xiolablu3
04-01-2006, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:
and in reality nonexistent "instability" of the 109..

So why so many landing accidents? (thousands of planes were lost in landing accidents, many more than other types) Just asking, not baiting.

OldMan____
04-01-2006, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grendel-B:
and in reality nonexistent "instability" of the 109..

So why so many landing accidents? (thousands of planes were lost in landing accidents, many more than other types) Just asking, not baiting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many planes had to operate in such large numbers in muddy, frozen and cratered airfields of eastern front? Specially since the 109 was not made to operate on such an environment. How many planes were used in such large numberss by 16 yea old boys at end of war, that had never driven a bicycle on their lifes and sudently were supposed to learn how to pilot a 1800 hp beast in 10 hours of training?

LStarosta
04-01-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
wow and all this time I thought that is where the pilot stored his ego, in light of the cockpit being too small to fit a normal size head.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Abbuzze
04-01-2006, 10:04 AM
The bulges were not a result of the bigger wheels, which were added to later 109´s!
The tires are mounted in a different and better angle, so this made the bulges necessary!

Kocur_
04-01-2006, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The bulges were not a result of the bigger wheels, which were added to later 109´s!
The tires are mounted in a different and better angle, so this made the bulges necessary!

But they werent necessary until bigger wheels (ot tyres actually?) were installed - even though the angle you mention was about unchanged over the years, earlier Bf-109s (including Gs - meaning "early Gs") didnt have bulges on wings.

http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/2272/bulges8le.th.png (http://img335.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bulges8le.png)

Ruy Horta
04-01-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
How many planes had to operate in such large numbers in muddy, frozen and cratered airfields of eastern front? Specially since the 109 was not made to operate on such an environment. How many planes were used in such large numberss by 16 yea old boys at end of war, that had never driven a bicycle on their lifes and sudently were supposed to learn how to pilot a 1800 hp beast in 10 hours of training?

Since I am in a kind mood I'll just express mild surprise at 16 year old German boys flying Bf 109s.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kinda reminds me of a documentary (or book) I once saw.

There was a US veteran explaining how they were told that the Germans were down to HJ and old men. But after the armistice they passed a column of (I think it was) Waffen-SS Panzergrenadieren, still fully armed heading the other way and an grim looking officer smiling at him. I may represent some of the story, but it how I remember it. Plenty of hardened veterans left even in May 1945, not only small boys and old men...

But back to the topic at hand.

The 109 was made with grass runways in mind, just not badly cratered ones, nor poorly suited ones. The Luftwaffe did remember many of the lessons of WW1, one of them being mobility.

When I read about all these so-called shortcomings, I just remind myself of the Soviet description: a soldier's plane.

Again contrary to opinion there were plenty of smart Soviets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Ruy Horta
04-01-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The bulges were not a result of the bigger wheels, which were added to later 109´s!
The tires are mounted in a different and better angle, so this made the bulges necessary!

But they werent necessary until bigger wheels (ot tyres actually?) were installed - even though the angle you mention was about unchanged over the years, earlier Bf-109s (including Gs - meaning "early Gs") didnt have bulges on wings.

http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/2272/bulges8le.th.png (http://img335.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bulges8le.png) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOTE of warning.

Do not use wings as your only identification method when looking at late war 109s, since they were interchangeable and this was certainly made use of if either supplies or cicumstances dictated such a switch.

Grue_
04-01-2006, 11:05 AM
I read somewhere that the undercarriage being attached to the fuselage made it much easier to replace the wings in the field.

I'm not sure if this was a design consideration though.

JG52Karaya-X
04-01-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Grue_:
I read somewhere that the undercarriage being attached to the fuselage made it much easier to replace the wings in the field.

I'm not sure if this was a design consideration though.

Yes one major advantage of the Bf109 over the FW190 and many of its contemporaries was its ease of maintenance owing to the fact that it could open its cowl completely with the least possible effort and damaged wings could be changed in the field as the gear was connected to the fuselage - that's not possible on say the FW190, Spitfire, P40, P47, P51, ...

tigertalon
04-01-2006, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grendel-B:
and in reality nonexistent "instability" of the 109..

So why so many landing accidents? (thousands of planes were lost in landing accidents, many more than other types) Just asking, not baiting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem was 109 had worse handling at very low/stall speed. Germans lost 1500 109s in first two years of war only to takeoff/landing accidents...

Heh, on the other hand, in a 5g turn fuselage weights 5x more than it does on the ground, so I'm pretty sure wings were not that weak... LOL, just crossed my mind: according to this, a single pair of P51 wings with legs should be able to carry 14 fuselages!

wayno7777
04-01-2006, 01:06 PM
Of the 35000+ BF109 built, over 11000 were lost to T/O and landing mishaps....

horseback
04-01-2006, 02:32 PM
The 109 was always recognized as an expert's fighter plane; possesing great combat potential, but accessible only to the men with the skills and time to discover that potential. The few expert pilots who fly them today are still very leery of showing off in the landing pattern, which I find telling...

The relatively forgiving nature of the 190, as well as its combat effectiveness, must have made it much more attractive to a Luftwaffe trying to refill its pilot quotas more quickly. It was easier to learn & master its combat capabilities and far easier to land (the exact opposite of the in-game situation) than the 109.

Many accounts I've read state quite flatly that the 109 was easier to land on a grass field than on a concrete or tarmac surface. I would hazard a guess that it has to do with the relative 'slickness' of the surface, since the 109 was a groundlooping terror in the right conditions. Landing on a smooth 'prepared' surface would be similar to landing on ice compared to landing on soft springy turf; the slightest bit of sideslip at the moment of landing on a smooth surface could be a real problem if not handled just right.

Throw in damp or icy weather (winter in Central Europe, anybody?), a crosswind, and even a moderately experienced pilot is looking at a cr*pshoot.

With a large enough grass field, you can adjust your direction of approach according to the wind. 'Permanent' runways are generally aligned so that they are good for 'usual' wind directions, but that means that a certain percentage of the time, unusual wind conditions will be experienced.

Wider tires with a bit softer inflation would be a big help under those conditions. Landing in a field and having the tires sink just a bit into the turf would also be desireable with an aircraft that loses a lot of rudder authority once it's on the ground.

So, yes, the wheels and tires got wider and thicker to improve ground handling as well as to compensate for the increasing weight of the 109. The result was the bumps on the tops of the wings, starting with the G-3/4 as a couple of kidney shaped humps and eventually leading to the condo-sized protrusions the width of the wing on the G-10/K-4. There was also much experimenting with larger tailwheels and longer tailwheel legs as well, in the ongoing battle to make the 109 more tractable on the ground.

cheers

horseback

JG53Frankyboy
04-01-2006, 03:10 PM
the Bf109 used the follwing tire sizes:
109E - G4
650mm x 150mm

109G5-G10
660mm x 160mm
=small bulges on the wings

late 109G and K
660mm x 190mm
=huge bulges on the wings

i never heard about that the angle of the wheels/gear changed !

Charos
04-01-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Grue_:
I read somewhere that the undercarriage being attached to the fuselage made it much easier to replace the wings in the field.

I'm not sure if this was a design consideration though.

Yes, it was a design consideration.

Also another reason for the undercarriage placement in the BF109 was to transfer the Engine weight from the engine bearers and firewall down through the Gear.

It was an integrated hard point.

Another consideration was the magnesium alloy hubs to save weight and lessen the load on the wings while the gear was retracted.

mandrill7
04-01-2006, 03:57 PM
Can anyone explain why the 109's rudder would be so useless on the ground? I mean, a little float you can deal with (while incidentally peeing your pants, etc.); but no directional control after your wheels touch would be a disaster on 90% of my landings!

OldMan____
04-01-2006, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
How many planes had to operate in such large numbers in muddy, frozen and cratered airfields of eastern front? Specially since the 109 was not made to operate on such an environment. How many planes were used in such large numberss by 16 yea old boys at end of war, that had never driven a bicycle on their lifes and sudently were supposed to learn how to pilot a 1800 hp beast in 10 hours of training?

Since I am in a kind mood I'll just express mild surprise at 16 year old German boys flying Bf 109s.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kinda reminds me of a documentary (or book) I once saw.

There was a US veteran explaining how they were told that the Germans were down to HJ and old men. But after the armistice they passed a column of (I think it was) Waffen-SS Panzergrenadieren, still fully armed heading the other way and an grim looking officer smiling at him. I may represent some of the story, but it how I remember it. Plenty of hardened veterans left even in May 1945, not only small boys and old men...

But back to the topic at hand.

The 109 was made with grass runways in mind, just not badly cratered ones, nor poorly suited ones. The Luftwaffe did remember many of the lessons of WW1, one of them being mobility.

When I read about all these so-called shortcomings, I just remind myself of the Soviet description: a soldier's plane.

Again contrary to opinion there were plenty of smart Soviets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

never said ONLY boys were flying it. Anyways.. how many of these accidents were with veterans? very few. And there WERE 16 year boys piloting, includig na relative of mine (not close grandfather cousin) that started flying in 45 just before turning 17. On these conditions is not strange that any plane would face accidents.

Tator_Totts
04-01-2006, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grendel-B:
and in reality nonexistent "instability" of the 109..


Problem was 109 had worse handling at very low/stall speed. Germans lost 1500 109s in first two years of war only to takeoff/landing accidents...

I do not understand. Talking about this subject 109 has bad low/speed stall. Yet when we talk about FM. the 109 has great low speed stall with slats. Confused. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

danjama
04-01-2006, 05:24 PM
I actually find the 109 one of the easiest and nicest planes to land in the game, bring it in at around 200 until just before the runway then throttle down and stick back a little at around 180 so you hit with all three wheels. Then again this procedure is possible for almost all planes in game once youve done it enough, i just really enjoy it in the 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Landings are maybe too easy in game or ive been doing it so long that its just easy to me....

SnapdLikeAMutha
04-01-2006, 05:30 PM
The bulges are filled with helium, this assists climb rate and altitude performance as well as enabling the pilots to talk in a funny voice should they so wish.

Taylortony
04-01-2006, 08:09 PM
If you want to see bulges walk down the cabin of an HS125 exec jet or a Hawker to you colonials, the rear of the centre isle has 2 of them to allow for the inwardly retracting gear.................. see somethings never change http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
04-01-2006, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
Can anyone explain why the 109's rudder would be so useless on the ground? I mean, a little float you can deal with (while incidentally peeing your pants, etc.); but no directional control after your wheels touch would be a disaster on 90% of my landings!

Look at the desired landing angle (3 piont as mentioned earlier) and the rudder. Looking from the side, the fuselage "hides" the rudder from the airflow during the landing attitude. I believe this is part of the reason they went for a taller rudder later in production: to get the rudder peeking up high enough to help solve the problem.

horseback
04-01-2006, 11:36 PM
Coming in at a high AOA, the wingroots will mask the rudder too.

Oldman, you might want to check on the statistics before making claims about the 109 veterans not having a much of a problem. As stated in earlier posts, the aircraft was very touchy in the landing pattern; a crosswind could be extremely unhealthy for anyone, and landing at permanent airfields was harder than landing on grass fields.

Most of the permanent facilities in Germany had paved runways, so Reich Defense units took a beating every time the weather turned ugly.

Until late 1943, the majority of the jagdewaffe were still recipients of an excellant training program, with a great deal of success on all fronts, and by that point in the war, they were flying the third series of 109 undercarriage; the 109F series changed the angle of the undercarriage (1941), the 109G3/4(1942) added wider wheels & tires, the 109G-6(1943) strengthened the undercarriage & started experimenting with longer tailwheel legs. If it weren't a problem, they wouldn't have expended so much effort on it.

As for the Soviets, their concern with it was as a weapon in the air, not landing the damned thing.

The sim does not manage (maybe it doesn't even attempt) to duplicate the handling problems of the later, heavier models of the 109, or its landing quirks in any model, but pilot memoirs and responsible historians have noted that the handling of the 109 peaked with the 109F-4, and went downhill from that point onwards.

I respect Oleg and Co., but I'll take the historians' and pilots' version of events on this point. The 109G series and later in this sim are seriously overmodelled, at least in terms of ease of handling and landing.

cheers

horseback

ElAurens
04-02-2006, 12:27 AM
I fully agree with horseback here.

Fully one third of 109 losses were attributed to takeoff or landing accidents, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Yet in the game the 109 is the easiest aircraft to land, regardless of airfield type. Something is serioulsy amiss here.

zugfuhrer
04-02-2006, 01:35 AM
Did the germans have helium-cannisters to fill the tires in the field?
The landing characterstics where awful according to many fliers that have flown it for real.
Heinz Knoke writes about it.

Unexperienced pilots never got the chance of getting experienced because of this bad behaviour.

Tully__
04-02-2006, 05:18 AM
I don't think anyone has mentioned one of the reasons that ground handling on the 109 was so difficult. Because of the angle and which the struts were hinged, the wheels had what is called "toe out", which is to say that they were not parallel and the point where the "line of roll" for the wheels met was behind the axle line. This condition is dynamically unstable with respect to rolling in a straight line, meaning that any deviation between the direction of rolling and the direction the aircraft is actually pointed will get bigger (ground loop) if not actively and aggressively corrected by the pilot.

For stability, the ideal is a small amount of toe in which tends to self correct accidental yaw during taxi operations provided the deviation is not too large.

For the 109's this toe out condition was particularly hazardous during crosswind landings as a number of factors lead to a high probability of yaw developing into a nasty high speed ground loop early in the landing roll while speeds were still comparatively high. When yaw develops, the wheel in the direction of turn is pointed even further from the direction of travel creating drag, while the wheel on the other side is pointed closer to the direction of travel reducing drag. This imbalance accelerates the yaw rapidly into a ground loop. This also explains why grass or slippery fields were actually easier to land on in dodgy conditions than sealed airstrips, as the slippier conditions mean wheels were not able to generate as much drag during yaw conditions and it was easier for the pilot to recover before a full ground loop developed.

polak5
04-02-2006, 05:53 AM
is all this modeled in the game?

Aaron_GT
04-02-2006, 07:17 AM
For stability, the ideal is a small amount of toe in which tends to self correct accidental yaw during taxi operations provided the deviation is not too large.

A small amount of toe in seems to be common on aircraft with wide-track undercarriage descending from the wings.

Tully__
04-02-2006, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by polak5:
is all this modeled in the game?
The ground handling instability isn't.

Bremspropeller
04-02-2006, 08:52 AM
The bulges were necessary to stow the huge amount of Mojo this fighter has.

Allied planes don't have so *many* bulges - due to lack of Mojo.

http://teknesia.com/images/movies/austin-powers--fook-mi--fook-yu.jpg

JG52Karaya-X
04-02-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The bulges were necessary to stow the huge amount of Mojo this fighter has.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif


YEA BABY YEA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TX-Bomblast
04-02-2006, 10:22 AM
If my 109 books are correct, the bigger wheels were needed for the extra weight the later models carried. Thus making ground handling on grass fields easier.

TX-Bomblast

ElAurens
04-02-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The bulges were necessary to stow the huge amount of Mojo this fighter has.

Allied planes don't have so *many* bulges - due to lack of Mojo.


Pffftttt....

It was just the German equivilent of stuffing a sausage in their pants to make the Allies think they had more Mojo.

In reality it was just a band aid applied to an obsolete design.

Cajun76
04-02-2006, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The bulges were necessary to stow the huge amount of Mojo this fighter has.

Allied planes don't have so *many* bulges - due to lack of Mojo.



Well, all that mojo definatly caused a lot of new bumps and bulges to appear. You can keep the mojo in this case....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/RowanAtkinson01b.jpg

Bremspropeller
04-02-2006, 12:35 PM
No, you musta got something wrong...

"Mojo" is teh shaggadelic gene - not teh shockshyt gene http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

polak5
04-02-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
is all this modeled in the game?
The ground handling instability isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kol deal! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Grendel-B
04-06-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by wayno7777:
Of the 35000+ BF109 built, over 11000 were lost to T/O and landing mishaps....

Urban myth.

The Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures, during whole war.

Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise 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.

As wiser men than me have said...

The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer.

Me 109 G-6:
Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer.

"The Me was stable on landings. The quickly reacing automatic wing slats negated any swaying on slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to small fields. The problem in stall landings was the long nose, which hindered visibility forward. Because this controlling at the last stages of landing was done partly by sense of touch on the controls."
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot.

"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories

"Landing was normal."
-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot

There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot.

luftluuver
04-06-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:
Urban myth.

The Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures, during whole war.

Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise 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.

Could be said that there was not 35000+ new airframes produced then?

The NASM's 190 has at least 2 and maybe 3 WNr. This would seem to indicate that new WNr were given to a/c upgraded.

HayateAce
04-07-2006, 01:22 AM
Just another brick in Oleg's 109 fantasy wall. He has simply made this aircraft out to be much more than it ever was in real life. Great fighter, but not the helium-filled prank mobile we have in IL2. C'mon Oleg, you still have at least one more chance to come clean and give us a realistic 109 FM.



Real life: 11,000 lost in takeoff and landing accidents


Oleg Life: 109 is one of the top 2 or 3 easiest planes to take off and land in the game....

bank-n-yank
04-07-2006, 03:21 AM
A few things to put right. The 109 was NOT a twitchy or unstable (relatively speaking) aircraft to fly. At low to medium airspeeds the aircraft handled well and would've been able to outmaneovure most of the enemy fighters it came in contact with at the time.
However, as the airspeed increased above 250 ktas the controls became progressively heavier, it becoming more difficult for the pilot to maneovure the aircraft.
The stalling characteristics of the aircraft were also quite benign with minimum wing drop and the pilot being able to recover from the stall at will by simply relaxing the back pressure on the stick. By comparison the stall characteristics of the P-51 have been described as (and are) viscious.
Landind accidents? There is a difference between gear failures and landing accidents. I would have thought there would have been more undercarriage failures than 1,500 over the two decades that the aircraft was in service, but I'm not sure.
However, a large percentage of the fleet was indeed written off in landing and takeoff accidents in the latter part of the war. As the pool of experienced pilots shrank and the number of new pilots with limited experience began to increase the accident rate skyrocketed.
The landing itself was a bit of a non-event the pilot being able to fly a nicely stabalized approach, rounding out and holding off/flaring the aircraft to the landing attitude very easily.
Whilst the aircraft was in most respects pleasant enough to fly, its ground handling characteristics left a lot to be desired.
The narrow track undercarriage (again relatively speaking, the Spitfires was narrower ) was not, I repeat, not the main problem with the 109's propensity to rap itself up in a ball.
With the aircraft in the landing attitude the centre of gravity was a long way behind where the gear contacted the ground. THIS was the main probem. The C of G acted like a giant pendulem and once a swing started, if the pilot wasn't quick enough to stomp hard on the rudder the swing couldn't be stopped. The negative camber on the gear legs/wheels would cause the undercarriage to dig in and groundloop/cartwheel the aircraft down the runway, the pilot a very unhappy passenger.
One thing about the gear fairings on top of the wings. They were indeed there to cover the larger and heavier ply tyres that were required as the aircraft gained weight over its service career.
Yes the gear legs, wheels and tyres were beefed up to compensate for the increased loads, but the undercarriage geometery remained the same all the way through.
A change would have meant a complete redesign of the wing. This would have resulted in a major interruption to the production schedule, something that would not have been tolerated at the time.
Whilst the 109 was not a particulalry hard aircraft to fly, it was a high performance fighter and in that context it had to be treated with the respect it deserved (and it deserved plenty).
Remember the Sopwith Camel ? About 1500lbs and approximately 100HP, a high performance fighter of its day and how many did it kill in stall/spin accidents ? Lots.
The 109 shot down more enemy aircraft than any other type and
some might argue that it is the greatest fighter aircraft of all time.
What do you think?

Ruy Horta
04-07-2006, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
And there WERE 16 year boys piloting, includig na relative of mine (not close grandfather cousin) that started flying in 45 just before turning 17. On these conditions is not strange that any plane would face accidents.

Not that I don't take your word for it, but I am pretty curious about the unit he flew with - it would probably be to much to ask for full name and rank etc?

Ruy Horta
04-07-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
In reality it was just a band aid applied to an obsolete design.

That's the P-40 you are writing about, right?!

horseback
04-07-2006, 11:33 AM
Cannot let this pass.

The issue is not merely "undercarriage failure" (nice misdirection ploy, guys), it was the whole problem posed by landing and groundhandling with the 109 throughout its operational career with the Luftwaffe, which was not quite 10 years.

This is important because you have to take off and land on EVERY flight-everything else is optional.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, the first two major attempts at fixing the problem took place while the jagdewaffe was still composed of well trained and experienced pilots, in early 1941 with the 109F and in mid-late 1942 with the introduction of the wider tires of the G3/4. German fighter pilots took a certain pride in the 109's difficulties, because it marked them as being particularly skilled.

ALL high performance fighters of the age were somewhat harder to fly than a Piper Cub, and had to be treated with respect. Each had its vices, but few were considered as unforgiving as the Bf 109. The Mustang may have had a vicious stall, but it gave ample warning, and a pilot who didn't back off a bit when the stick started to waggle back and forth only got what was coming to him. It was much easier to take off and land than the 109, however, and far more forgiving if you followed the rules.

The Messerschmitt had a number of problems, not all as obvious as narrow track landing gear. Cramped cockpit, poor pilot visibility (especially when looking down) and low endurance all complicate the landing process, especially in the kind of poor weather conditions that prevailed over German in the winter of 1943/44.

Under good weather conditions, landing on a grass field may have been a 'simple' operation, even a non-event, but landing it after a high altitude combat, low on fuel (endemic to flying a 109) going through heavy cloud cover to land on a paved field enshrouded in mist, rain, or blowing snow had to be a cast iron b!tch.

Now, consider that all of the surviving 109s that crashed over the last twenty years were damaged or destroyed in excellent mechanical condition under near 'ideal' conditions while being flown by exceptionally skilled and experienced pilots...

cheers

horseback

TX-Zen
04-07-2006, 11:36 AM
Stop it Horse, you're making too much sense

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

HayateAce
04-07-2006, 01:15 PM
There you go again, bringing up facts and common sense. Remember, this is OlegLand.

ploughman
04-07-2006, 02:00 PM
Horse is quite illuminating. It's odd to look at 109 loss rates and see that 'accidents' account for nearly as many aircraft and pilots as operations. Just getting the thing up and back again was as dangerous as mingling with the enemy. Most fighters of that era had high accident rates and non-combat flying takes its toll even today but the 109 really stretched the envelop.

I currently have no data to hand to substantiate this, however.

OldMan____
04-07-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
And there WERE 16 year boys piloting, includig na relative of mine (not close grandfather cousin) that started flying in 45 just before turning 17. On these conditions is not strange that any plane would face accidents.

Not that I don't take your word for it, but I am pretty curious about the unit he flew with - it would probably be to much to ask for full name and rank etc? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

name was Olaf Stein. But don´t know the unit, neither my grandfather (you know. 99% of people don´t give **** about this stuff... do you know what is the school name where all your cousing studied from 8 ato 12 ? ). He died in land few weeks later.

luftluuver
04-07-2006, 03:03 PM
Before putting down the 109 to much, how many Allied a/c were lost due to landing 'accidents'?

The USAAF lost 7421 fighters in the ETO and 5107 in the MTO to combat and accidents.

JG5_UnKle
04-07-2006, 03:52 PM
This thread is hilarous

one of you mentionms 11,000 109's lost in landing accidents (totally false btw) and all the allied fanboys fall over themselves to try and get in a quick 109 bash.

I mean HeyIateHisFace - get some better whines dude - You actually used to be funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pretty funny guys keep it up.

Sheesh, and we get called luftwhiners LOL

Kurfurst__
04-07-2006, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Horse is quite illuminating. It's odd to look at 109 loss rates and see that 'accidents' account for nearly as many aircraft and pilots as operations. Just getting the thing up and back again was as dangerous as mingling with the enemy. Most fighters of that era had high accident rates and non-combat flying takes its toll even today but the 109 really stretched the envelop.

I currently have no data to hand to substantiate this, however.


This one by Butch2k a while ago:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3761090943/p/3

butch2k Posted 05-08-23, 12:12
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a lanfing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.


1000 takeoff/landing accidents out of 26 000 incidents/accidents, hmm, indeed horrible statistics, the infamous groundloop being responsible for, well, 3.8% of the cases, including cases when the a/c was having sustained only minor damage.

Sorry for trying to make sense for a minute, keep on bashin, you can do that w/o any facts, personal prejudices are appearantly so much better, nicely illustrated by horseback and co, not to mentions to worser ones.. NP, I'll be going now.

MLudner
04-07-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grendel-B:
and in reality nonexistent "instability" of the 109..

So why so many landing accidents? (thousands of planes were lost in landing accidents, many more than other types) Just asking, not baiting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many planes had to operate in such large numbers in muddy, frozen and cratered airfields of eastern front? Specially since the 109 was not made to operate on such an environment. How many planes were used in such large numberss by 16 yea old boys at end of war, that had never driven a bicycle on their lifes and sudently were supposed to learn how to pilot a 1800 hp beast in 10 hours of training? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though, yes, I know you are exaggerating for effect .... still:

It wasn't quite that bad. Luftwaffe pilots were receiving 150 hours of flight training at war's end before being sent to the front.

HayateAce
04-07-2006, 05:09 PM
Yeah, and IL2 USED to be more realistic. It's taken some turns downward.

Make the 109 realistic.

MLudner
04-07-2006, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Stop it Horse, you're making too much sense

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Not according to the Finnish pilots quoted above.

horseback
04-07-2006, 06:49 PM
Of course, a strong case could be made for the Finnish pilots quoted being a significant cut above the average. It has always been my understanding that the wartime Finnish Air Force had higher standards than even the Luftwaffe. As I pointed out, there was a certain stature accorded the 109 experts, and it would ill behoove the 'heroic' persona to make much of the difficulties of the 109. Humility, you know. Even so, they would occasionally comment upon the problems of the younger or less experienced pilots.

The average pilots who survived have made their difficulties known, as have the administrative/command types who were constantly looking for a replacement for the 109 from 1942 on. Most of the people posting on the boards here imagine themselves as among the elite, not as the average guy whose best hope was to avoid being a combat statistic.

I have no illusions about my own abilities. I'd be lucky to make a positive contribution to my unit and survive combat, assuming that I made it through flight training, and I've always been better than average at anything I put my mind to. The fatality rate in the modern air forces is around one in three over the course of a man's flying career; it goes up significantly during wartime even for men who never make it to the combat theater, as training tempos pick up and the level of 'acceptable risk' goes up.

I don't buy the 11,000 or two-thirds figure for the 109 series, but I am under the impression that close to one-third of all Allied combat aircraft were lost operationally, far more than the numbers lost in combat, and that most of them were lost in the relatively fair weather and non contested skies of the continental United States.

"Operational Losses" includes any non combat cause, including collisions, getting lost and running out of fuel over the ocean or desert, flying into mountains (there are mountains and hills in Europe, right?) at night or in clouds, mechanical malfunctions, as well as taxiing, takeoff and landing accidents, which would also include things like crosswinds at bad moments, blown tires, and pilot error.

The list of experienced Allied pilots lost in accidents includes a lot of notable aces flying in the most mundane situations.

It seems to me that it is not unreasonable for an aircraft reputed to be hard to master to have suffered at least as high a ratio of operational loss when the less benign weather, contested airspace, limited training & familiarization flight time, problematic maintenance (USAAF combat units' availability rates were MUCH better than those of the LW units that faced them), and as the war ground on, initial manufacturing quality were so much against its operational safety record, compared to the Allies'.

cheers

horseback

Kurfurst__
04-08-2006, 04:05 AM
Indeed non-enemy related accidents amount to a very high percentage in every WW2 airforce, far higher than most people would be aware of, typically in the range of 30-40%...

Wood and Dempster for example gives the following breakdown of losses September 1940 for the RAF and LW s-e fighters during the BoB.

RAF :

Cat2 (damaged but repairable)

In Combat / In accidents :
Spitfire : 80/56
Hurricane : 95/60

Cat3 (total loss)

In Combat / In accidents :
Spitfire : 130/13
Hurricane : 228/21

(other types ommitted)

Ie. apprx 40% of all damaged airplanes resulted from non-combat related accidents, and 10% of the total losses. It's fairly typical for the era.

Ruy Horta
04-08-2006, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Now, consider that all of the surviving 109s that crashed over the last twenty years were damaged or destroyed in excellent mechanical condition under near 'ideal' conditions while being flown by exceptionally skilled and experienced pilots...

Really, didn't know that Black 6 fell under those variables...

JG52Karaya-X
04-08-2006, 06:37 AM
The crash of Bf109G2/trop "Black 6" was pure pilots error - he had "a cunning plan" of disabling the automatic prop. governor and as a result wrecked the engine while still airborne. Then on his forced landing he gave the bird the "coup de grace"

Must have been an amazingly skilled and experienced pilot there... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Abbuzze
04-08-2006, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Now, consider that all of the surviving 109s that crashed over the last twenty years were damaged or destroyed in excellent mechanical condition under near 'ideal' conditions while being flown by exceptionally skilled and experienced pilots...


Hmm, maybe a stupid question, but all crashes of P51, Spitfires are related to mechanical failures of the engine or did they lost wings? Bad quality of the planes maybe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pilot failures are the usuall cause for loosing a good maintanced historical plane.

Beside, the last 109 Pilot who crashed was not experianced at high performance warbirds. He was experianced at civil jets, but comparing this kinds of planes...

Grendel-B
04-10-2006, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Of course, a strong case could be made for the Finnish pilots quoted being a significant cut above the average. It has always been my understanding that the wartime Finnish Air Force had higher standards than even the Luftwaffe.


Well, depends. The pilots I've quoted or many 109 pilots I know were not above anyone. Of the chaps I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread, well mr. Pakarinen was trained into 109s on spring 1944 and barefly had 3-4 months of flying on 109s before the war ended. And he said "landing was extremely easy and pleasing".

Mr. Tallgren trained into 109s only post war. Lasse Kilpinen or Suhonen, don't even recall who they might have been. The only "hero" of the bunch with ace status was mr. Karhunen.

Remember that aces were the minority even in Finnish Air Force.

And also, German training was definitely superior to FInnish training on some regards. The new pilots coming into a front line squadron were just as green, clueless and couldn't understand anything for his first sorties, no matter if he was Finnish or German pilot. On both FiAF and Luftwaffe the pilots received their final training in the front lines.

luftluuver
04-10-2006, 03:55 PM
Grendal, how many flight hours did Mr. Pakarinen have before being assigned to a 109.

Landing (approach) was easy in the 109, be sure. It was when the wheels touched the ground that the troubles began.

Grendel-B
04-11-2006, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Grendal, how many flight hours did Mr. Pakarinen have before being assigned to a 109.

Landing (approach) was easy in the 109, be sure. It was when the wheels touched the ground that the troubles began.

First flight on 109s, MT-246, 11.04.1944. The logbook on that page ends with 266 hours 35 minutes. Includes all flying on training squadron + in front line squadron. 87 combat sorties so far, 1 kill a LaGG-5, a dozen or so aerial combats.

I'd say that any plane requires the pilot to keep it straight on landing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But that's what the rudder is there for.

mynameisroland
04-11-2006, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
wow and all this time I thought that is where the pilot stored his ego, in light of the cockpit being too small to fit a normal size head.

Lol
funniest thing I have read for a while

mynameisroland
04-11-2006, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The 109 was always recognized as an expert's fighter plane; possesing great combat potential, but accessible only to the men with the skills and time to discover that potential. The few expert pilots who fly them today are still very leery of showing off in the landing pattern, which I find telling...

The relatively forgiving nature of the 190, as well as its combat effectiveness, must have made it much more attractive to a Luftwaffe trying to refill its pilot quotas more quickly. It was easier to learn & master its combat capabilities and far easier to land (the exact opposite of the in-game situation) than the 109.

Many accounts I've read state quite flatly that the 109 was easier to land on a grass field than on a concrete or tarmac surface. I would hazard a guess that it has to do with the relative 'slickness' of the surface, since the 109 was a groundlooping terror in the right conditions. Landing on a smooth 'prepared' surface would be similar to landing on ice compared to landing on soft springy turf; the slightest bit of sideslip at the moment of landing on a smooth surface could be a real problem if not handled just right.

Throw in damp or icy weather (winter in Central Europe, anybody?), a crosswind, and even a moderately experienced pilot is looking at a cr*pshoot.

With a large enough grass field, you can adjust your direction of approach according to the wind. 'Permanent' runways are generally aligned so that they are good for 'usual' wind directions, but that means that a certain percentage of the time, unusual wind conditions will be experienced.

Wider tires with a bit softer inflation would be a big help under those conditions. Landing in a field and having the tires sink just a bit into the turf would also be desireable with an aircraft that loses a lot of rudder authority once it's on the ground.

So, yes, the wheels and tires got wider and thicker to improve ground handling as well as to compensate for the increasing weight of the 109. The result was the bumps on the tops of the wings, starting with the G-3/4 as a couple of kidney shaped humps and eventually leading to the condo-sized protrusions the width of the wing on the G-10/K-4. There was also much experimenting with larger tailwheels and longer tailwheel legs as well, in the ongoing battle to make the 109 more tractable on the ground.

cheers

horseback

The Messer design team modified the Bf 109 G10 onwards to have the same landing and take off attitude as the Fw 190

luftluuver
04-11-2006, 05:42 AM
Thanks Grendal. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Another question: What was the average flight time of Finnish fighter pilots during the Winter War with Russia?