PDA

View Full Version : Hartmann, Galland, Marseille etc.... accounts



jayhall0315
04-22-2009, 05:22 PM
About six months ago (roughly) someone put up an interesting story (perhaps from some book) about an allied pilot's run in with Hartmann. I dont remember that much about it, except it was fun to read.

I dont know nearly as much about WWII aviation history etc... as many of the guys on this forum, but I am interested in reading accounts by allied pilots of their run ins with German Masters. If anyone can provide me with weblinks that would be cool (dont have enough time right now to get into purchasing books).

Also, not to stir the pot but it seems that even many German aces agreed that Hans Joachim Marseille was actually the 'best'. Anyone have good comments on this ?

jayhall0315
04-22-2009, 05:22 PM
About six months ago (roughly) someone put up an interesting story (perhaps from some book) about an allied pilot's run in with Hartmann. I dont remember that much about it, except it was fun to read.

I dont know nearly as much about WWII aviation history etc... as many of the guys on this forum, but I am interested in reading accounts by allied pilots of their run ins with German Masters. If anyone can provide me with weblinks that would be cool (dont have enough time right now to get into purchasing books).

Also, not to stir the pot but it seems that even many German aces agreed that Hans Joachim Marseille was actually the 'best'. Anyone have good comments on this ?

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 05:47 PM
I think that was a story of a guy in a P51, which I think was proven to be a 'false account'.. a lie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Vaguely remember that Hartman never remembered such an incident, and judging from the 'Blond Knight', his memory is pretty good.

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 05:55 PM
AFAIK - The story goes something like this ..
The Me109 pulled up next to me and I saw this laughing pilot. we did a vertical climb and the messy climbed beyond my P51, he came down behind me 'and did some moves', and the pilot was then next to me, laughing. I then 'did some moves' and he was gone.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WTE_Galway
04-22-2009, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
About six months ago (roughly) someone put up an interesting story (perhaps from some book) about an allied pilot's run in with Hartmann. I dont remember that much about it, except it was fun to read.

I dont know nearly as much about WWII aviation history etc... as many of the guys on this forum, but I am interested in reading accounts by allied pilots of their run ins with German Masters. If anyone can provide me with weblinks that would be cool (dont have enough time right now to get into purchasing books).

Also, not to stir the pot but it seems that even many German aces agreed that Hans Joachim Marseille was actually the 'best'. Anyone have good comments on this ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Discussion on Experten here will usually end up in a flame war as some people take acknowledgment of their skill as either endorsing fascism or as a personal affront to their own country.

Back on topic ... Marseille was regarded as a phenomenally good shot even by his fellow aces invariably hitting the engine and cockpit every time he fired. In fact his ability to take out aircraft with a minimal amount of ammo has often led to accusations of kill exaggeration.

What also helped Marseille was the use of very radical tactics for the period. For example the allies in North Africa often resorted to a defensive Luftbury Circle when attacked. Conventional slashing attacks left you vulnerable to the next aircraft in the circle.Marseilles counter was to dive under the formation come up under one plane, take it out in a quick burst and then deliberately stall and spin out. He would recover a few 1000 feet below and do it all over again.

Xiolablu3
04-22-2009, 06:03 PM
If its theone where teh German pilot makes a 'slitting throat' gesture, then its complelety false.

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
For example the allies in North Africa often resorted to a defensive Luftbury Circle when attacked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was mentioned only once.. AFAIK.
What made Marseille different besides his accuracy (as you mention) was his ability to fly his plane in the 'near stall' condition, as mentioned by his cameraden 'there were always vapour trails from his wingtips'
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If its theone where teh German pilot makes a 'slitting throat' gesture, then its complelety false. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Forgot that.. that's the one

horseback
04-22-2009, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Back on topic ... Marseille was regarded as a phenomenally good shot even by his fellow aces invariably hitting the engine and cockpit every time he fired. In fact his ability to take out aircraft with a minimal amount of ammo has often led to accusations of kill exaggeration.

What also helped Marseille was the use of very radical tactics for the period. For example the allies in North Africa often resorted to a defensive Luftbury Circle when attacked. Conventional slashing attacks left you vulnerable to the next aircraft in the circle.Marseilles counter was to dive under the formation come up under one plane, take it out in a quick burst and then deliberately stall and spin out. He would recover a few 1000 feet below and do it all over again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The other enormous factor was that in a 109F, Marseille enjoyed a significant performance advantage over the Hurricanes and Tomahawks he normally faced. Bear in mind that the Vokes filter attached to the noses of Hurris in the Northern Desert badly degraded an already marginal performance by that stage of the war, and many Desert Air Force fighters normally flew with their canopies slid back or removed completely because the perspex tended to accumulate scratches quickly in the desert, and the extra drag was preferable to not being able to see.

The phrase 'shooting fish in a barrel' seems apt to me. My impression was that for most of the German fighter pilots, it was little more dangerous than hunting boar back home.

I posted a section from The Eagles' War a few times about a squadron of Spit Vs caught after a strafing mission by a pair of experten-it gives a very clear idea of the relative abilities of the two fighter arms and the effect it had on the Commonwealth pilots' morale. While the pilot who was quoted mistakenly seemed to think that it was one of the big names of the period, it is still very clearly a horrific memory well told.

here it is (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/740100701?r=101108221#101108221)

cheers

horseback

na85
04-22-2009, 09:07 PM
Thanks for sharing, horseback, that was an interesting read!

Re: Marseille being the best.

I would certainly agree that he was the best at gunnery. I would probably also agree that he was the best dogfighter (in the 109 anyway).

I seem to recall reading that Hartmann didn't consider himself a very good shot- he relied on closing to almost point-blank before firing. At that range it doesn't matter what the relative angles or flight paths of the two fighters are.

It's a case of vastly different styles. I would say that each of them are the masters of their chosen schools.

WTE_Galway
04-22-2009, 09:27 PM
If Marseille had not died prematurely he probably would have been elevated to demi-god like status.

Aside from his obvious verified combat skills Marseille also had style and flair ... which suited the personality cultism of the Third Reich to a tee. Combine that with the fact that Rommel's Afrika Corp was seen in Germany as romantic and exotic and you have the makings of a potential propoganda super hero.

Stachl
04-22-2009, 09:28 PM
Horseback,

FYI, In Africa during this time period, Rudorffer flew a FW 190 with JG2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
04-22-2009, 10:44 PM
As I said in my previous post, the pilot was misinformed about the probable identity of the enemy pilot, but the point was that a 109G-2/-4 with a tropical filter would be more than a match for the overwhelming majority of aircraft they faced in the Western Desert. To be honest, the Commonwealth guys were badly buffaloed, and most were more concerned with defensive tactics than with doing unto the other guy before he did unto them in 1942.

JG 27 and the other German fighter units in N. Africa had it pretty easy until the Spit Mk IX and the P-38 showed up, and they were there in very limited numbers. Marseille's legend is probably greater than it would have been if someone from the Polish Fighting Team or God forbid, some American in a P-38 or P-40F had nailed him...

Lots of great dogfighters got fat on easy opposition and got surprised when the other guy got better when he wasn't looking.

cheers

horseback

jannaspookie
04-22-2009, 10:54 PM
I once read that Marseille was so good, that he averaged only 15 rounds per kill (or something like that). He trained himself to shoot better and better until he reached what he described as a sort of harmony with his aircraft. Truly amazing.

JG52Uther
04-23-2009, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
I am interested in reading accounts by allied pilots of their run ins with German Masters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If they ran in to a true experten most probably didn't live to tell the story!

crucislancer
04-23-2009, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
I dont know nearly as much about WWII aviation history etc... as many of the guys on this forum, but I am interested in reading accounts by allied pilots of their run ins with German Masters. If anyone can provide me with weblinks that would be cool (dont have enough time right now to get into purchasing books).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've rarely seen anything where a pilot was aware of who he was flying against, though they knew it if they were flying against someone who was skilled. The Luftwaffe (for the most part) didn't have fancy or distinctive paint jobs like those see on U.S. planes in theater, so chances are a Allied pilot wouldn't know who he was up against unless he did some research after the fact. That Hartmann story was entertaining but like everyone else has said it's untrue. I wouldn't say it's a lie, more like miss-identification.

Here are some links you might be interested in:

WWII Ace Stories (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/aces.htm)

Not really pilot accounts, but a good overview of various aces. It might give you a place to start.

Aviation History on Historynet (http://www.historynet.com/magazines/aviation_history)

Various articles from the magazine.

Chapter 1 from To Fly and Fight (http://www.cebudanderson.com/ch1.htm)

This is the first chapter of Bud Anderson's memoirs, from his website. Bud flew P-51s with the 357th FG, and had 16 1/4 victories. I highly recommend this book.

Phillip58
04-24-2009, 06:35 AM
One thing most people either forget, or don't know, is that H-JM only had 7 confirmed during the Battle. It took him awhile before he "hit his stride" and found the best way for him to shoot. Alot of LW aces had hundreds of combat sorties to their credit before they even got the first kill. And then, most of the time (41-45) they were out numbered and flew in what we call today a "Target-rich enviroment", as were the Allies sometimes flew 20 or moresorties before they even saw a enemy plane.

raaaid
04-24-2009, 07:12 AM
hartmann suffered 2 nervous breakdowns just like me

shame hero worship avoids info on this on the net

i really wonder what did he do while the nervous breakdowns

Bremspropeller
04-24-2009, 07:17 AM
Marseille had somewhat poor landing-skills.

He pranged more than one aircraft.

KIMURA
04-24-2009, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Marseille had somewhat poor landing-skills.

He pranged more than one aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad landing skills, in the desert? I think that there are very few today's pilots who would make an proper landing on an air strip somewhere in the desert. The enviroment these pilots were in were so harsh and hard and things like soft or uneven runways were out of the things they got influence to or control. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bremspropeller
04-24-2009, 09:02 AM
Werner Schroer said that, I'm just recollecting it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
04-24-2009, 10:54 AM
More than one experte was killed in a landing or taxiing accident in a 109; for all its virtues in the air, almost EVERYONE dispised its takeoff and landing characteristics.

The Allied equivalent of the 109 in this regard wasn't the Spitfire, but the P-40, which was a real killer in much the same way; hard to taxi, take off and land in, and a nightmare in a crosswind. The difference was that it was sturdier and the pilots who pranged one had a better chance to walk away.

On the other hand, you just had to take the bad with the good, because fixating on the bad usually makes it more likely to happen.

JG 27 was a pretty experienced bunch though, so Marseille's landing skills may have been graded on a pretty high curve. God knows he could fly the thing once he got it into the air.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
04-24-2009, 11:00 AM
The one incident Schroer told of was while flying a Macchi, not a 109.

Might have had to do with the reversed throttles...

horseback
04-24-2009, 11:23 AM
I'd prefer to think that the landing gear was too widely spaced...

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
04-24-2009, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">More than one experte was killed in a landing or taxiing accident in a 109; for all its virtues in the air, almost EVERYONE dispised its takeoff and landing characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this is a function of the aircraft but rather the experience of the pilot. The reputation of the Bf-109 has more to do with sticking 25 hour pilots in an operational type, complex, high performance, tail dragger.

Just like the fact the P40 was the USAAF primary transitional trainer. It too was operated by inexperienced pilots cutting their teeth on their first operational type, complex, high performance, tail dragger.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Allied equivalent of the 109 in this regard wasn't the Spitfire, but the P-40, which was a real killer in much the same way; hard to taxi, take off and land in, and a nightmare in a crosswind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the best,

Crumpp

ultraHun
04-24-2009, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... Also, not to stir the pot but it seems that even many German aces agreed that Hans Joachim Marseille was actually the 'best'. Anyone have good comments on this ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In his memoirs Galland subtitled a photo of Marseille with "unsurpassed virtuoso among fighter pilots of WWII" (edition of "Die Ersten und die Letzten" printed in 1972)

I do not remember the exact wording, but in "Die Strasse von Messina" (engl. "Messerschmitts over Sicily") Steinhoff names Müncheberg as the best of the best. Obviouly he had not yet forgiven Hans-Joachim ...

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
hartmann suffered 2 nervous breakdowns just like me

shame hero worship avoids info on this on the net

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey man, glad you hung in there!, my Brother had 2 breakdowns too, I know how tough they can be. Just posting on here and getting involved after that is a great step. My Bro would just sit for hours on his own not doing anything at all, just thinking.

I can tell from talking to him how hard it is to get back into real life after that has happened. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jamesblonde1979
04-25-2009, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
More than one experte was killed in a landing or taxiing accident in a 109; for all its virtues in the air, almost EVERYONE dispised its takeoff and landing characteristics.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finnish pilots got on alright with it, but then their training doctrine was a little more open minded. There is a wonderful PDF on the 109 somewhere that illustrates this perfectly.

*LOCK TAILWHEEL*

Tooz_69GIAP
04-25-2009, 05:08 PM
A lot of people find it hard to believe in Hartmann's case that he didn't score many victories in his first few months - in fact he scored his first kill one month after arriving at JG52 in October 1942, and it took him a further three months to score his second. And it wasn't really until around the middle of 1943 that he started to score regularly. It's quite something to think that Hartmann scored the vast majority of his 352 kills in just 2 years or so!

uppurrz
04-26-2009, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">More than one experte was killed in a landing or taxiing accident in a 109; for all its virtues in the air, almost EVERYONE dispised its takeoff and landing characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this is a function of the aircraft but rather the experience of the pilot. The reputation of the Bf-109 has more to do with sticking 25 hour pilots in an operational type, complex, high performance, tail dragger.

Just like the fact the P40 was the USAAF primary transitional trainer. It too was operated by inexperienced pilots cutting their teeth on their first operational type, complex, high performance, tail dragger.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Allied equivalent of the 109 in this regard wasn't the Spitfire, but the P-40, which was a real killer in much the same way; hard to taxi, take off and land in, and a nightmare in a crosswind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will always be those who think the Germans were supermen and fatigue and exhaustion did not effect them. Most airfields were just open spaces of land, especially in the east, having all kinds of irregularities. The expert returning from a mission drained from months and months of high stress aerial combat could very easily botch a landing like a 25hr pilot. (One is told not to drive one's car when tired. Can you imagine flying an airplane when tired?)

Must be comforting to those P-40 pilots with 100s of flight hours to know despite risking life and limb in aerial combat when the P-40 was the 'latest and greatest' fighter that it was only a TRAINER.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 05:54 AM
The P40 was the major transitional fighter used by the USAAF. If you flew single engine fighters in the USAAF, chances are you cut your teeth on a P-40 in advanced training before shipping overseas. That is why it had such a high accident rate in the USAAF, quite a few inexperienced pilots were learning to fly operational type complex high performance tail draggers in it.

Just the like the Luftwaffe was forced to place inexperienced pilots in the Bf-109. High performance aircraft with an inexperienced pilot is an accident waiting to happen.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/7914/p40trainer.jpg (http://img165.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p40trainer.jpg)

http://www.au.af.mil/AU/AFHRA/...d/aafsd_pdf/t047.pdf (http://www.au.af.mil/AU/AFHRA/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t047.pdf)

You make a very good point about the airfields in the last year of the war. One that Oscar Boesch related to me in our last conversation. It was tough to land in the small unimproved fields under constant threat of Allied fighters. The typical pattern was to fly at top level speed once over centerfield to ensure it was clear. Then on make one turn to final and reduce your vulnerability and exposure time land in the shortest time possible, slow to Vref, dirty up the aircraft, and land. Every landing was like a rushed LAHSO!

It was certainly a tough environment to operate in for any pilot, much less the vast majority of poorly trained Luftwaffe rank and file.

All the best,

Crumpp

uppurrz
04-26-2009, 06:26 AM
Tell me Crumpp what fighter were those P-40 pilots going to transition to in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943?

If you look at the data you posted it is for 1944 and 1945. Horeseback was talking about the time when the P-40 was a primary fighter of the USAAF and RAF.

It was more than just in the last year of the war that the Luftwaffe used such airfields but from Sept 1939 to May 1945.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 07:52 AM
CONUS, the P40 was the primary fighter used for taining:

http://www.au.af.mil/AU/AFHRA/...d/aafsd_pdf/t048.pdf (http://www.au.af.mil/AU/AFHRA/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t048.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you look at the data you posted it is for 1944 and 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the number of graduates!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> After a week or so off to go home and see family in Wausau, it was off to bigger and better things for Gerry Wergin as well, starting at Dale Mabry Base at Tallahassee, Florida for two weeks and finishing up with intense P-40 flight training at Sarasota Army Air Base (AAB) in Tallahassee, Florida.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryWWWIIFtrPilot.html

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was more than just in the last year of the war that the Luftwaffe used such airfields but from Sept 1939 to May 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got some proof?

uppurrz
04-26-2009, 10:20 AM
Do you have trouble understanding that data you posted Crumpp?

The P-40 was used as a trainer AFTER the P-47 and P-51 became the first line fighters. One would think if the P-40 was a trainer from 1939 to 1943 there would be fatalities but there isn't. Now why would that be?

Bremspropeller, all you have to do is look at the airfields the Luftwaffe used in the Soviet Union or North Africa. Do you think there was time to set up proper airfields like back in Germany with hangers and hard runways?

horseback
04-26-2009, 10:47 AM
My understanding, taken from pilots' memoirs was that most aircraft of the early WWII period were intended for grass fields--not necessarily unimproved fields, but not the paved concrete or tarmac that we take for granted today.

Sidenote: there's an old story of Bob Hope bringing in a USO troupe to entertain Allied servicemen at an isolated field, and as their C-47 was circling the field he noticed that it was just a grass field. He turned to his writers and said "Quick boys, gimme some grass runway jokes!"

Once they had landed, he greeted the base CO, saying "Nice of you to mow the runway..."

From these same pilots' accounts I got the strong impression (and I know one or two guys stated this flatly) that some fighters were actually better behaved on reasonably well tended grass fields than on paved ones. The 109 was one of those specifically mentioned, and the P-40 wasn't so much, but US airfields were more likely to be paved, and it was definitely a handful there.

There were many high performance taildraggers used in WWII, but the 109 and the P-40 are the ones most likely to be singled out as being difficult to taxi, take off and land in.

If they were even less well behaved on paved surfaces, bad weather, where a grass field would be unuseable, would be even more hazardous when trying to takeoff or land these types. Regardless of the pilot's skill level, stuff can happen.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you think there was time to set up proper airfields like back in Germany with hangers and hard runways? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm familiar with frontal airfields.

The issue is not the surface-quality, but the geographics, such as proximity to forrests and difficult approaches, whereas airfields in the SU or NA were generally of easier type.

csThor
04-26-2009, 11:50 AM
It's actually a misconception to envision "real" airfields of WW2 with a concrete or asphalt runway. Those existed (and became more numerous as time passed and aircraft got heavier and heavier), but the majority of the airfields in the early 40s had a simple grass runway.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you have trouble understanding that data you posted Crumpp? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously you do, troll.

With 6 posts’ you are somebody’s alias.

Ponder this statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:

That is the number of graduates!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand your hard on for me, but you are ignored.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but the majority of the airfields in the early 40s had a simple grass runway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">US airfields were more likely to be paved, and it was definitely a handful there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tail draggers, generally speaking are better behaved on grass as opposed to paved runways. You can let some of the air out of your tires to improve behavior on pavement.

The point was not that the Luftwaffe was landing on grass strips. The point is the inexperienced pilots were always landing under pressure. Anytime you start making approaches at the margins, you accident rate is going to go up.

I watched a guy rip the wings off a DA-20 because he accepted a LAHSO. That is Land And Hold Short Operations.

http://www.airliners.net/aviat...ps/read.main/208122/ (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/208122/)

He rushed it, panicked, and stall out on botched go around. I thought the guy was dead.

Landing an airplane is stressful enough. Adding inexperience and pressure is a recipe for accidents.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The Warhawk was a gigantic step up from the North American Texan/AT-6. Once I soloed in the Warhawk, I knew I had 'arrived.' I was ready for bigger and better things.'"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To graduate in 1944 and reach an operational squadron, a guy had to enlist shortly after Pearl Harbor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In early January 1942 he decided to respond to the call of duty. He got with Archie Towle, the manager of the Wausau Airport, an aerobatic pilot, and a flight trainer, and decided to pursue flying through the Army Air Force Cadet Training program.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to graduate an be posted to an operational unit by 1944:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There was a war to fight and Wergin was sent back to Dale Mabry in Tallahassee to await his orders to go to war. He got 'em on January 3, 1944. Gerry's notes recorded the orders this way:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In September of 1943, Lt Wergin graduated from basic flight school and began the transition to being a fighter pilot. Like most USAAF trainees, he flew the P40 as part of his advanced fighter pilot training.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> While at Craig Field, Wergin qualified in the P-40F after only 10.1 hours flying time in the transition from the AT-6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lt Wergin enlisted in January 1942 but it was not until January of 1944 that he graduated as USAAF Fighter Pilot and was given orders to his first duty station.

The P40 was the major USAAF transitional type fighter. Anytime you place inexperienced pilots at the controls of a complex high performance tail dragger you will see the accident rate rise.


http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryWWWIIFtrPilot.html

All the best,

Crumpp

CUJO_1970
04-26-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm not a pilot, but I have flown (passenger) in light aircraft and ultralites on both concrete and grass airfields.

I'll take a grass airfield any day of the week.

WTE_Galway
04-26-2009, 05:14 PM
Whilst the narrow track of the 109 obviously was a concern on rough strips it doesn't seem to have been a huge problem for the pilots of the time.

In fact figures show the 109 had a better accident record than the 190:

Following figures are for the Bestandsmeldungen from early 1942 to December 1944 :

Me 109: 9681 losses to enemy action, 8791 other losses - 47.6% of the losses are without enemy action
Fw 190: 5389 losses to enemy action, 4934 other losses - 48.8% of the losses are without enemy action

(http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/flugbew.htm)

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In fact figures show the 109 had a better accident record than the 190: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not surprised. IIRC, the FW-190 has a higher approach speed.

That puts the pressure on every landing as your time to react is shorter.

All things being equal, the aircraft with the slower approach speed is the easier aircraft to land.

A 1.2% spread from such a small sampling is not really conclusive except to say there is nothing unusually unsafe about the Bf-109 landing characteristics to a qualified pilot.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-27-2009, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
there is nothing unusually unsafe about the Bf-109 landing characteristics to a qualified pilot.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It wierd that real Bf109 pilots such as Mark Hanna and Reg Hallam say the reality is much much different to your maths.

These guys owned flew and thrashed loads of different warbirds with the 'Old flying machine company' (SPits, P51's, Bf109's, P40's) and explain that the Bf109 is very difficult to land safely compared to other warbirds.

http://www.ofmc.co.uk/

There is a clip of Mark Hanna standing next to the aircraft which was to kill him, explaing just how incredibly difficult it was too land. He was to die in the aircraft when the motor failed and he attempted to land. He had 100's of hours showing the aircraft, I think thats 'qualified'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxXPPPuL9fg

http://www.livevideo.com/video...anna-s-spitfire.aspx (http://www.livevideo.com/video/0C14899680E64262A15A0BBBCB03765B/mh434-mark-hanna-s-spitfire.aspx)

Mark Hanna on the Bf109 :-


"Its a good aeroplane, its fast, it turns well, but the problem with [the Bf109] is landing , its extremely difficult, and I am not making any exaggeration here.
You are always a bit nervous about landing in one of these, and if you arent then you are foolish becasue you will end up crapping it up. Reg Hallam used to fly [bf109's] and he used to get out of the aircraft pause at about 10 feet and turn and say 'You didnt get me this time you little b*stard!' and I feel the same way"


Reg Hallam explains that the splayed landing gear, slight toe in, and poor forward view means its very easy for a wheel to dig in and bycycle round if you dont land it exactly straight on two wheels.

And before you say 'its a buchon, it doesnt count' these guys flew it for months as a real 109G2, but the engine was so unreliable and kept sutting out in flight, so they returned it to a Buchon. (109G2 airframe, just a merlin engine)

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It wierd that real Bf109 pilots such as Mark Hanna and Reg Hallam say the reality is much much different to your maths.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it’s weird that these guys do not have the flight hours a pre-war trained Luftwaffe pilot posting to an operational squadron would have in his service type aircraft.

That is why insurance rates are through the roof and type certifications is required when flying a war bird.

You don't do it for a living and do not have near the experience of even a typical graduate from the user nations Air Force.

All the best,

Crumpp

jamesblonde1979
04-27-2009, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

And before you say 'its a buchon, it doesnt count' these guys flew it for months as a real 109G2, but the engine was so unreliable and kept sutting out in flight, so they returned it to a Buchon. (109G2 airframe, just a merlin engine) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would only make the thing twice as deadly... I've heard those things are absolute dogs.

But history reflects that well trained and briefed pilots had little trouble landing the 109.

The Finns did it on strips much more dangerous than many of those in Germany and many Finnish pilots reported that so long as one was aware of the quirks of the aircraft it was no problem to land or take off in.

I'm putting my money with the veterans on this one. I read a review of the 109 in Flypast and there was no concerns expressed by the pilot on the takeoff and landing performance of the 109 by the reviewing pilot, in fact I think it was Hanna taking up a 109E.

I am aware that there is a considerable difference between the E and the G but the historical record stands to be read by any who care to read it.

JZG_Thiem
04-27-2009, 07:23 AM
Xiolablu3:

Afaik Walther Eichhorn had to land a 109 without engine more than once. He not only managed not to kill himself but avoid fatal damage to the airframe. Yet (afaik) he is maybe quite experienced with this plane. Imho that fits to Galway and Kettenhunde.
The "Red 7" also had an accident, this time with a rather old and unexperienced pilot. The pilot survived without major injuries.

squareusr
04-27-2009, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by uppurrz:
and fatigue and exhaustion did not effect them.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure didn't, until they started to develop a certain level of tolerance for the drugs they were taking...

Of course, the following applies to that even mroe: "One is told not to drive one's car when tired. Can you imagine flying an airplane when tired?"

Xiolablu3
04-27-2009, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

And before you say 'its a buchon, it doesnt count' these guys flew it for months as a real 109G2, but the engine was so unreliable and kept sutting out in flight, so they returned it to a Buchon. (109G2 airframe, just a merlin engine) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would only make the thing twice as deadly... I've heard those things are absolute dogs.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are thinking of the Avia S199 which was a Bf109 airframe with a Jumo 213 bomber engine.


The Buchon is extremely similar to a normal BF109.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2009, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
Xiolablu3:

Afaik Walther Eichhorn had to land a 109 without engine more than once. He not only managed not to kill himself but avoid fatal damage to the airframe. Yet (afaik) he is maybe quite experienced with this plane. Imho that fits to Galway and Kettenhunde.
The "Red 7" also had an accident, this time with a rather old and unexperienced pilot. The pilot survived without major injuries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mark Hanna landed that Bf109 in its BF109G2 form (an original DB engine) many times with a failed engine before he died. He explained that while it had an original DB engine they made 4 forced landings in only 20 hours of flight because of engine trouble.


Whoever landed it however doesnt change the fact that 2 extremely exprienced warbird pilots tell us that the BF109 is extrmely difficult to land.


I will repeat, these guys flew the aircraft for months as a real Bf109G2, not a Buchon. ANd anyway, the Merlin has very similar power to the DB engine but is even lighter, so it shouldnt be an issue.

Bremspropeller
04-27-2009, 03:38 PM
The Avia had Jumo 211s afaik - that's the Stuka engine.


Generally, the 109 combines low weight with heavy torque.
It certainly will be a handful, but then again, all prop-fighters are.

As already stated: the Finns didn't have any trouble operating it.
And I for myself learned to take any pilot's account with a grain of salt after having made my own experiences with "dangerous" aircraft.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2009, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It wierd that real Bf109 pilots such as Mark Hanna and Reg Hallam say the reality is much much different to your maths.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it’s weird that these guys do not have the flight hours a pre-war trained Luftwaffe pilot posting to an operational squadron would have in his service type aircraft.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OF COURSE they do, I'll even bet they have many more! They OWNED this aircraft!

How many hours do you think a well Luftwaffe pilot had in a BF109 before he went to a squadron, 30 hours? 40?

Hanna will have many hundreds of hours in his own aircraft...these guys didnt just fly them, they thrashed them...

Here is Marks dad, Ray Hanna just so you can see what I mean :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3UtmHLKUU


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

Deathwing67
04-27-2009, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The phrase 'shooting fish in a barrel' seems apt to me. My impression was that for most of the German fighter pilots, it was little more dangerous than hunting boar back home.

I posted a section from The Eagles' War a few times about a squadron of Spit Vs caught after a strafing mission by a pair of experten-it gives a very clear idea of the relative abilities of the two fighter arms and the effect it had on the Commonwealth pilots' morale. While the pilot who was quoted mistakenly seemed to think that it was one of the big names of the period, it is still very clearly a horrific memory well told.

here it is (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/740100701?r=101108221#101108221)

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good read, thanks.
Not sure about 'shooting fish in a barrel' though, just read an account in 'Five of the Few' where 213sqdn. (12 Hurri IICs) ran into 8 109s, claimed 5 destroyed and 1 damaged for no loss. (26th June '42).
Not necessarily a 'typical' encounter, but I think the hunting boar analogy does the desert RAF pilots a disservice.

horseback
04-27-2009, 04:55 PM
Obviously, you've never hunted wild pigs of any sort...

cheers

horseback

Deathwing67
04-27-2009, 05:51 PM
Touche...
I have read Lord of the Flies though... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Galway
04-27-2009, 10:16 PM
It should be noted that the official investigations into Mark's accident were inconclusive and a number of factor's including potential wake vortices from earlier aerobatics were flagged as potential contributing factors.

Kettenhunde
04-28-2009, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OF COURSE they do, I'll even bet they have many more! They OWNED this aircraft! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you pay the operating cost as an owner! It's only 500USD plus to put oil in the tank and another 3,000 USD to fill the tanks in a P51.

Oh yeah, average fuel burn is ~300-500USD an hour not mention insurance payments. With fixed cost your hourly operating expense is in excess of 2000 - 3000USD an hour for a typical war bird.

Let’s see, 10 hours of flight = 20,000 USD and the average of 100 hours per year is 200,000 USD in operating expenses alone. That does not include outside maintenance if you prang or break something. That can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars real quick.

If you have the money tree of the taxpayer as an Air Force, you can get lots of experience in Warbirds.

If you own them you better be willing to throw millions away in the blink of an eye.

You have some misconceptions there Xio about how often these aircraft are flown.

It gets even more restrictive as they hold special type certifications from the FAA. A war bird certification is only allowed to fly within very narrow confines close to home field for proficiency. Cross country flight is approved on an individual basis for travel to and from air shows. Each trip must be approved by the FAA FSO in your area.

War birds fly under a Special Type Certificate in the limited category.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/ai...n/sp_awcert/limited/ (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/limited/)

Even Bill Gates would go broke flying a WWII aircraft trying to rival the thousands of hours a typical fighter pilot gained in his career. Facts are most modern war bird pilots do not have the experience a typical graduate received from the user nations Air Force.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-28-2009, 04:11 PM
You are just kidding yourself if you think the Hannas and their pilots didnt have many hundreds of hours flying and showing their own WW2 aircraft.

How confident do you think you have to be in an aircraft to fly under a bridge in it? How about flying it one foot off the air to buzz a reporter?

Mark had been flying since a kid with his Dad.

TYhese guys have shown these aircraft all over the world, they have rebuilt them and tested them, they fly aircraft for other people to help them out by testing them.

Just see how many videos of Mark and Ray hanna there are on youtube, these alone add up to loads of hours and they certianly werent videod when they were testing or working out their displays!

http://www.youtube.com/results...+hanna+spitfire&aq=f (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=+hanna+spitfire&aq=f)

These guys were experts, here is Mark testing a rebuilt SPitfire for someone....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT-7IsQIU0Y


Its pretty crazy that you arte suggesting Mark Hanna, Ray Hanna and Reg Hallam arent qualified pilots in their own aircraft.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif They were incredible pilots, two of them ex RAF! All of them had jobs which meant they flew WW2 fighters every day.

Deathwing67
04-28-2009, 04:40 PM
From the OFMC site: "Mark had flown over 4000 flying hours of which 2300 were on historic aircraft."

Kettenhunde
04-28-2009, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Mark had flown over 4000 flying hours of which 2300 were on historic aircraft." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Piper Cub is a Historic aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fly the Historic Piper J3 Cub

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://franklinflyingfield.com/Fly_The_Cub.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-28-2009, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are just kidding yourself if you think the Hannas and their pilots didnt have many hundreds of hours flying and showing their own WW2 aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, when you total it up, you definitely get some experience in a large variety of aircraft.

That is not the same thing as having many hundreds of hours in the same type.

That is why insurance companies are concerned with number of hours in type.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-29-2009, 06:16 AM
Sorry mate, but the Hannas had hundreds of hours in their own aircraft, this is common knowledge.

Even so, we are getting off the subject. You say there is nothing dangerous about the Bf109's landing characteristics, 95% of the pilots who have ever flown it seem to disagree with you....

Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, in 1939, said, “The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statistics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.”

Seems like he agrees with Mark Hanna and Reg Hallam?

Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company: “To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the ‘109’ and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! “

Kettenhunde
04-29-2009, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry mate, but the Hannas had hundreds of hours in their own aircraft, this is common knowledge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which has what to do with his experience in the Bf-109??

You don't have any idea what hours he has in any specific type he flew.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, in 1939, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet this guy had a ton of hours in a Bf-109, too.

If he even ever flew one, I bet it did seem rather scary to him compared to the Fokker Triplane he was used too.

Big difference in approaching at 100mph compared to 30 mph.

Not to mention the pre-war Luftwaffe was not the bastion of experience for much of its existence. IIRC, they had to train and equip in secret up until just a few years before the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So What??

Any number of airplanes have the same caveat. Go buy yourself a Mooney, Bonanza, Thorp T-18, Pitts Special, Lancair, C210, Glasair, or any number of high performance aircraft. You will hear those EXACT same words. It does not mean the aircraft is not safe. It means it is a high performance aircraft and you cannot be asleep at the wheel when you operate it.

Once more it is WWII fighter and they all have to be respected as extremely powerful, heavy, conventional gear aircraft.

Heck you make that statement of requiring respect about any airplane as they all will kill you.

Facts are you ignore the service of the aircraft in air forces with an experience and well trained pool of pilots as well as Luftwaffe accident rate data..

You are getting all of your data and are reading an awful lot into a very small opinion pool.

http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. My knowledge and experience leads me to a very different conclusion.

Tell me, why don’t we see the same reputation with the F4F Wildcat or Brewster Buffalo? Can you tell me why even more so than the 109 or P40 those aircraft should have a very bad reputation for handling??

Why don't they have the same reputation?

Well, they were not flown by inexperienced pilots on a regular basis for starters.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-29-2009, 07:33 AM
Here is a plethora of opinion from experienced pilots:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/fe...e/articles/109myths/ (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/)

Xiolablu3
05-01-2009, 07:34 AM
Yep I have read them many many MANY times. DO you notice who some of the quotes are from?&gt; 'Mark Hanna' :-

"The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow"

Crummp, I know more about your own aircraft than you do, even tho I have never flown one or flown IN one, did you know that?


Whenever you talk about how it handles in the future, I will say you are wrong.



Do you see how crazy that would be?^ Think how crazy it would be for you to go up to a guy who flies 109's all the time and you tell him he's wrong.

Xiolablu3
05-01-2009, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry mate, but the Hannas had hundreds of hours in their own aircraft, this is common knowledge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which has what to do with his experience in the Bf-109??

You don't have any idea what hours he has in any specific type he flew.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He OWNED the Bf109 and showed it at air shows, thrashed it, tested it. Gave his opinions on it compared to the qualities of the P51 and Spit. THATS what it has to do with it.

About the hours he had in the aircraft...

He quoted in an interview that while they had the DB engine (for a few months) in it, it was unreliable and he had 4 forced landings in 40 hours of flying. SO they put in the Merlin. I think you get the idea just how many hours he has in the aircraft when they flew the Bf109 most of the time as a Buchon with a Merlin engine in.

Kettenhunde
05-01-2009, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Think how crazy it would be for you to go up to a guy who flies 109's all the time and you tell him he's wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio,

I don't think he is wrong. He is not as experienced in the aircraft as a service pilot. That is fact.

I don't see anything that he says is wrong. I see what he is saying very differently from you because I do fly high performance complex taildraggers.

Just looking at what he says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The only problem is getting it too slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gotta agree! In fact any airplane that gets too slow is dangerous.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> . If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right! This is what happens when you land to slow!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a really good trait of the Bf-109! Most tail draggers bounce and on the float pilots either break the gear by pulling back, stalling and dropping it or prang the prop overcorrecting the bounce.

Stick back and trickle of power to smooth it out or just quickly and smoothly advance the throttle for the go around.

Watch this guy, you can see the sink and he is doing a wheel landing. If you bounce on a wheel landing, you better turn it into a three pointer or go around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...eJqs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znx8CjueJqs&feature=related)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it is a WWII fighter with a big engine out front and you can't see a thing in front of you. Typical....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, short coupled like the Pitts, F4F Wildcat, Piper Pacer, Piper Clipper, Thorp T-18, RV series, Swift, and any number of other short coupled taildraggers.

If you don't set them straight down the runway or you get a gust of wind, wheel out of balance, landing gear out of alignment, one tire lower than the other, then you better be dancing on the rudder as well as be quick and precise on the throttle or you are going for a ride. Too much or too little rudder, or if you miss the point to give it gas, your done. If you give gas at the wrong time, you are done. You got feel the airplane and work the controls with frantic precision. You still are probably going for ride.

Watch this guy again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...tZj4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAWa9uxtZj4&feature=related)

It is just a complex high performance tail dragger with nothing remarkable about it or anything that makes it more "unsafe" than any other conventional gear design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> About the hours he had in the aircraft...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still don't know his specific experience in the type. You are only guessing.

All the best,

Crumpp