Quote:
Originally Posted by speculum jockey
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.