Messerschmitt Query

The 109 also had a huge amount of “Toe Out” set into the mainwheel undercarriage legs.

Awesome stuff alex and Mark V 😉 ,

Yes, I have heard that sort of thing discussed about the 109’s, at different world net forum’s, and in me book’s here and there 🙂 .

So really it’s a combo of the Gear set up, AND the rudder biz, and general plane design :confused: .

DOH Willy Mate :p , BUT still a great plane…….In the Air!!! :rolleyes:

Anyone one care to comment on this further :confused: , so many plane were cr@p on the ground, for the pilot, but were a dream in the air 😀 .

Well,
Can not have the lot right in one go, way back then 😮

RUSH, RUSH, just get these bloody flying thing’s in the air lad’s, and start knocking down some of their bloody flying thing’s will ya boy’s 😮 , that’s a good lad!!!.

WHAT of all the ” Fighter Aircraft of say WW2 ” (even twin’s), would you think had the worse take off and landing fun stuff a happining!!! :confused: .

I’ll go for a Russian job, just off me head,

I think the Early Yak 1’s and Mig 1’s were great bouncer’s, with many doing this till self destruct!!! 😀
Whoop’s sorry about the Rusky dude’s inside, must not be disrespective toward’s the human race,(Yer right, like they all do, and alway’s have! :rolleyes: ), Rest In Piece’s Rusky dude’s 😉 .

The 109 also broke LOT’S of gear on rough strip’s, taxiing with dude’s on the wing’s to trying and miss the BOMB hole/pot hole’s(as you can not see well).

And the same happened to a few other Allied aircraft as well with fragile gear set up’s :rolleyes: .

Early nose wheel set up’s were alway’s colapseing BIG time, on ALL side’s of the big game.

Must be off again 😮 , unwell, please continue…… DISCUSS!!

CYA 😉

rudder authority has always been a serious issue with the 109 family, things got better after the early G6 version, when a longer wooden rudder was introduced, but still the plane could bite really hard on takeoffs. I talked to a Regia Aeronautica pilot that flew from Sciacca in Sicily and shared the airfield with the Pik As. The italians flew mainly with G2s and he remembers seein one of the new G6 scrambling with a belly tank. They remember seeing the pilot not giving enough rudder while the plane was taking off. Everybody held his breath as the pilot pulled up and closed the gears, but the torque had taken him out of the runway line, and the pilot touched one of the aircraft shelter edges with the tip of the prop and with the tank. The plane blew up in the air and the pieces and flames were scattered for 200 metres.. it was a really sad episode that killed the morale of the pilots and crews for a couple of days.

Alex

The narrow track undercarriage that is seen on both the ME109 and the Spitfire make them difficult to control (especially on grass airstrips)

The narrow track u/c did not make things easier but you may be over simplifying things: Black Six was normally only operated off grass in order to assist with directional stability. Spitfires will generally track straight on landing with little tendancy to ground loop. The issue with the 109 and directional control was, I am told, mainly to do with a lack of rudder authority at the start of the take off run when the tail was still on the ground. Neither aircraft are helped by cross wind conditions of course, although that was usually not a significant problem in the days of large grass airfields where you could just point the nose in to wind and go.

Plane’s on the field.

I would like to know the same Moggy mate!!! 😮

To me that percentage must be close Mog, as I alway’s grimish a bit when I see another new build, Me/Bf-109 has yet another landing accident!! 🙁 .

I still would go as far as saying, when not original in layout, but sort of when you think deep about it :rolleyes: , a NEW build 109 with the 155 wing and gear set up! 😎 .

I did for a LONG time think this sort of thing was impossible :rolleyes: , but now we have all sort’s of rebuild’s a happening!! 😎 .

Just about ANYTHING can now really be redone 2005 style!!!

The plus for a rebuild 109 in this layout.

THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH MUCH SAFER!!!! 😮

NOW if you look at a LOT of the different aircraft of World War two and other War’s,
Many, many sort’s of aircraft, were real bitches on the field, some had MAJOR handling problem’s on landing, and take off!!

The Russian’s in some case’s, just built bloody strong gear, that could take the pounding, SORT OF!! :p .

Now I have taken notice of so many rebuild of WW2, and WW1 replica’s, over the last 15 year’s, that really start with a pile of crappy rubbish in a lot of the case’s.

BUT come out year’s later from the workshop, looking even better than when they rolled off the production line’s 60, 70 80, whatever year’s ago 😎 .

I think the rebuilt Boomerang Suzy-Q, is a great example of this sort of thing, a prime aircraft, very well done 😀 .

Matt Denning had a dream a did it, and a few more Booma’s are on the way,.

Must crash now had me fun, back off to OZ to get lost in id

” Gut Nacht ” all

How many restored ME 109’s/Buchons have been involved in landing accidents?… :rolleyes:

My impression is about 90%.

I’ll be interested to learn the correct figure.

Moggy

How many restored ME 109’s/Buchons have been involved in landing accidents?… :rolleyes:

I don’t find any such figures too hard to believe. Take off and Landing were and still are one of the most dangerous times for the 109’s and their pilots. The narrow track undercarriage that is seen on both the ME109 and the Spitfire make them difficult to control (especially on grass airstrips) and especially with flying in all weathers it is hardly supprising that perhaps a third ended up banking to one side and scraping the wingtips on the ground before crashing.

I remember reading in one of the Lancaster at War books that when Lancs were dismantled for deep servicing the tail section was regarded as the identity. If there was significant nose art then there would be an attempt to keep the two parts together but otherwise it was built up from what was ready. This may be untrue although it makes sense in terms of getting the maximum number of useable aeroplanes out in the field.

My Rearwin has one wing from number 6, an airframe that was never finished OH NO! it is a composite . . .

– given the dire situation all airforces faced in maintaing numbers of aircraft in service in WW11 it was seldom the practice to scrap an aircraft without reclaiming all available spares.

John,

Indeed, including one ‘damage repair scheme’ for Spitfires at Civilian Repair Operations entailing cutting the fuselage between approximately frames six and seven, the middle of the fuel area, and splicing the firewall front fuselage of one machine to the cockpit and rear fuselage of another.

As a ‘provenance policeman’ I would be intrigued to know the final RAF identity in such a case.

It is very common for Spitfires to lose their original wings, in fact you could almost say it was normal. At a certain level of repairable damage, it is more efficient to replace a wing from repaired stock and get the machine back on the line than have extended down time while the wing is repaired. The attachment system at the spar is designed for this with options to ream the the seven attachment bolts oversize in .004″ increments up to about .020″, from memory. A special plate stating the oversize is then riveted to the adjacent spar web of both the fuselage and the wing. Both the RAF serial and the fuselage cockpit construction number are also stamped on this repair plate and, where fitted, what a godsend they have proved to be in establishing and confirming the ID of modern recoveries.

Because of the above mentioned ‘in service’ practises, I personally don’t get over concerned when I see a battered front fuselage from the SAAF stock yard, with a rock solid RAF serial ID, has been morphed into a flying Spitfire.

Thin but robust provenance. 🙂

Mark

ps. I did examine a dismantled Spitfire in India a few years ago that was a combination of two machines. It had a very clear and service original IAF ‘HS’ serial on the rear fuselage that fitted with the IAF serial leaching through the paint on the underside of one of the wings. When I gently abraded the fuselage serial the ‘HS’ identity of the other constituent appeared – the Indians had switched the identity… as they were completely at liberty to do. Provenance police beware.

There was a good site detailing this which I posted at the time of a similar discussion…IIRC the figure was around 7%.
John – The AWM aircraft was indeed rebuilt after an accident…it was involved in a ground collision in 1944.

Dave

hi all

Lowtimer Redux

The situation was that when an aircraft was written off in an accident it was categorised as to the degree of damage and based upon that it was either dismantled for spares usage or rebuilt utilising new or used spares from other damaged aircraft – given the dire situation all airforces faced in maintaing numbers of aircraft in service in WW11 it was seldom the practice to scrap an aircraft without reclaiming all available spares.

To give an example when the Australian War Memorial Me109 G was being redied for display in it’s original restored scheme it was discovered that one or both wings were from different aircraft and had different color schemes underneath the final scheme. As the machine had not been “fiddled with” post war it must be the case that it was rebuilt from componets after damage.

Regards
John P

Given the proportion of surviving 109s and Buchons that have been damaged in take-off or landing accidents, without operational requirements to fly in dodgy weather, I don’t find it hard to believe a one in three figure. Of coure, these days they are generally rebuilt but diring wartime with the production lines in full swing it usually makes more sense to write off a significanly damaged aeroplane and “reduce to produce”, as the RAF used to put it.

About 35,000 109s were made. I would say that 1/3 damaged in take off or landing accidents would not be too unbelievable. Maybe not written off though,

a third is a disconcerning number… let’s say 100.000 109s were built, it would mean that more than 33.000 would have been written off in such accidents, not really the numbers of a succesfull and longeve plane isnt it? The 5% percentage would be more acceptable, but still I would never take such researches so seriously.

Cheers

Alex