Don't forget, these FMs are very much v1.0. Thrown out of the door in the same condition as everything else more or less. They'll get better with tuning (I hope).

Regarding the "losses due to landing accidents" in the 109, I have two thoughts.

1. How many of these were with the E3/E4/F and how many were with the G variants with the larger engines and heavier armament. Some pilots said that they had to apply full throttle in later G variants when landing due to the weight of the thing and that made landings quite hairy.

2. How many of these landing accidents were rookie pilots? I know they didn't have dual seat 109 (or Spits or Hurricanes) but the two latter were much easier to land compared to most any other plane and the time.

From what I've read about the differences with the Doras and the Emils, the Emils were definitely more difficult to handle at low speeds, due to the new and much more powerful DB601 that replaced the Dora's Jumo 210 engines.

Ulrich Steinhilper got surprised when he took an Emil out for the first time and tried landing it like he landed the Dora. He did not expect the increased torque when correcting at final approach and he crashed the aircraft, according to his book "Spitfire on my tail". But at that time, I'd say he was a rookie pilot without combat experience. But as we all know the 109's only got heavier as the models expanded so I can only speculate that they got more and more difficult to land as the model letters ticked on.

au contraire mon ami: meet the Bf109 G12 trainer
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2117/...180bb48b66.jpg

and the FW190 trainer
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...90TrainerB.jpg

they arrived later in the war to speed up the training process and improve proficiency, but hats off for the courage!!

yeah, Steinhilper was a rookie and made a typical rookie mistake (and miraculously survived!).

The real problem with the 109 is the landing gear configuration: the wheels are diverging, which means that if you don't touch down with your plane in line with your direction... well it will straighten it for you, but not gently..

the difficulty comes in the fact that at lower speeds the controls' authority is very low (small rudder being the biggest issue), so it definitely is an unforgiving machine, you need to come down well if you want to achieve a good landing.

From RAE report the 109F was more difficult to land than the E (which RAE said was pretty straightforward after a few landings and the correct landing technique used), but it came down to the fact that the F made its approach in a steeper glider angle, and less could be seen from the cocpit.

Tobak OTOH wrote that after having received his 109 course in an Emil in Germany, the G model was much easier to take off and land exactly because its larger weight - it wasn't so 'nervous' on the ground than it's lighter cousin.

Besides, the tyres were larger on the G series, and the main wheel angle was also changed to give better directional stability on the ground and less tendency for looping (hence the wing bulges on later G series).

Very late G/K and with their long tailwheels and even larger tyres improved ground stability further.

Spits and esp. Hurris had much lower landing speeds as well. More time for the pilot to make corrections.

But this all said, the 109 landing accidents stuff is a bit a myth; the plane was intolerant on mistakes, but if its landing technique was strictly followed, perfectly safe. To add to that, several people did research on loss records of 109s for landing accidents, and the number was perfectly in line with other fighter types of the era - 1.5% of losses were related to t-o/landing, and mnay of these were resulting in just superficial damage. HoHun compared non-combat losses of 109 units to 190 units, and there was no difference again.