Friday Update, April 13, 2012

Originally Posted by zapatista

and there are a few more serious problems like this.........
- for eg the 109 ground handling is totally artificial and very "console game like" instead of simulating a ww2 pilot experience. the plane is nowhere near as difficult or sensitive to land or takeoff as it should be (iirc over 50% of 109's during ww2 were lost during takeoff and landing accidents, rather then in combat). right now a 9 yo with a few pointers can safely do it, is that really simulation ?

It is not that I contest the basic statement of yours about the ground handling of the 109 but could you provide some links to support that over 50% of all 109s were lost during landing and take-off? Personally I would just say that I simply cannot believe that the armament ministry accepted a plane to be produced for so long with such a horrible statistic. Seems to me very unrealistic. 50% means that every second 109 was lost due to accidents during landing or take-offs. Why should any armament ministry accept such a thing? There had been enough parallel designs of fighters to phase out the 109 if it really had been so bad.

To complete the image I also think that the Spit is still far too easy for take off. It is a pain in the you-know-where to make it turn but the torque seems still quite easy and doesn't concur with anecdotal evidence for take-off imho.

[Fenrir]

That 50% statistic has been bandied around a great deal over the years, but I've never seen any hard data. I think it's been over-egged, or too much is placed on the 109s takeoff characteristics.

Bearing in mind accident attrition was quite high on all sides thanks to wartime pressures of training - particularly at times of high casualties, timetables cut and students rushed throught etc -and perhaps some technical failures due to rushed workmanship or maintanence, I think you'd find any accidental loss rate, allied or axis, higher than peacetime.

However, the 109, I believe is easier to takeoff and land in both Il-2 and CloD than it's real life counterpart.

I have a rather neat quote from Mr Charlie Brown; he's a modern day pilot who flies all sorts of warbirds and has many, many hours on 109s, and NOT just buchons. So many in fact that apparently he's quite in demand from collectors who have 109s that need flying, particularly test flights after rebuild or major overhaul.

I bought a book a year ago which goes through the entire test flight program of a Bf109E - yes, I said an E - and it some excellent information that clarifies a great deal. For the moment we'll just look at the T/O characteristics; I leave the rest to Charlie:

Once again the start up was easy, the checks unhurried and I found myself lined up on the runway full of confidence and anticipation. My game plan was as per 'Black 6' [the Bf-109G-2 belonging to the MoD, now - alas - no longer airworthy - Fen]: takeoff 1.0 to 1.2 ATA monitoring the RPM, keep the tail down till 100kph (62mph), raise it slightly (being prepared to catch any tendancy to swing) and then fly her off at 150kph (93mph). What I found was that the tail felt like it should be raised just as the airspeed started to register, that is at 50-60kph (31-37mph). Once the tail was off the runway the familiar extreme change in directional stability became apparent - from almost absolute stability to almost absolute instability. [Fen's italics] The aircraft flew herself off at 110kph (68mph) much sooner than I had anticipated.

Hmmmmmmm...... familiar, eh......?

[SlipBall]

I think I remember reading 10% loss...its been awhile though

Well, it's not that I did not read about the landing difficulties and I do not put this in doubt. I also believe that the losses due to accidents were indeed higher than in peacetime and probably significantly higher. I also read frequently that it is due to the narrow landing gear.

Mh. Now the thing with the narrow landing gear I have a problem: The Spit has a narrow landing gear too, and perhaps even narrower (the landing gear of the 109 is slightly bent outward while the legs of the Spits are just straightforward parallel).

You now may reply: yeah, the torque in the 109 was stronger. This may be true - but only during full power (not gradual power increase) take-off. Never during landing as the power during landing was usually cut down to very little or even idle.

Brown's statement says clearly that he was not familiar with the type and expected a different behaviour. Of course this may indicate that rookie pilots may have had problems to handle this crate. But I really would like to recall that many spit pilots reported on a strong tendency of the spit to break away too during take-off.

I do not contest that the take off of the 109 should not be left as it is (for reminder) but I really think that a 50% loss rate and even "only" 30% appears to me too high and probably a myth as I really cannot believe that the 109 remained the main stay of the German Air Force throughout the war with this kind of flaw.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Brown's statement says clearly that he was not familiar with the type and expected a different behaviour.

Er,I think you have misinterpreted and I suggest you re-read. I can tell you that for all the hours that Bf-109G-2 Black 6 was in the air, Charlie Brown was behind the stick for more than half that time. He's familiar with the 109. This was his first test flight in the E. He said the almost complete lack of longitudinal stability at tail-off was familiar - i.e it was a charactersitic of the 109G and was also inherent in the E. What is different is that the E does things at lower speeds, which one can presume is from the lower weight of the E variant compared to the G.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Of course this may indicate that rookie pilots may have had problems to handle this crate. But I really would like to recall that many spit pilots reported on a strong tendency of the spit to break away too during take-off.

Any WW2 era fighter is of 1000+HP on an airframe under 10 tonnes is gonna be a handful at full power and the low end of the speed range - the sheer physics of forces says so - the difference lies in the aerodynamic power of the control surfaces at these speeds to compensate or correct. Clearly the 109s are lacking. Sure the Spitfire could bite but it remained longitudinally controllable and had effective rudder down to walking speed. The fact the the 109 is 'almost completely unstable longitudinally at tail up' even with propellor driven airflow over the tail surfaces speaks volumes. Even in the air you have to work the rudder hard during maneouvres to keep co-ordinated (source: Me109 - One Summer Two Messerschmitts DVD).

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I do not contest that the take off of the 109 should not be left as it is (for reminder) but I really think that a 50% loss rate and even "only" 30% appears to me too high and probably a myth as I really cannot believe that the 109 remained the main stay of the German Air Force throughout the war with this kind of flaw.

When adequately trained and experienced flyers are allowed near the 109 it's a capable aeroplane - Erich Hartmann alone demonstrates this. However what this shows is that to get it off the ground and back on it again requires attention, a good experience of flying tail-wheel aircraft and of airmanship in general. These are things which a peacetime air force or one that is riding a cresting wave of victories can readily supply in the training syllabus. However, these are not characteristics I would associate with the backbone of the Luftwaffe by 1944. And the reason the 109 wasn't replaced by then is because no one in the 3rd Reich had the foresight to work on a successor back when it counted; they thought the war would be over and won by 1943!

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Er,I think you have misinterpreted and I suggest you re-read. I can tell you that for all the hours that Bf-109G-2 Black 6 was in the air, Charlie Brown was behind the stick for more than half that time. He's familiar with the 109. This was his first test flight in the E. He said the almost complete lack of longitudinal stability at tail-off was familiar - i.e it was a charactersitic of the 109G and was also inherent in the E. What is different is that the E does things at lower speeds, which one can presume is from the lower weight of the E variant compared to the G.

Oups, my mistake, I should have been clearer. I wanted to say that he was unfamiliar with the E type, not with the 109 in general.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Any WW2 era fighter is of 1000+HP on an airframe under 10 tonnes is gonna be a handful at full power and the low end of the speed range - the sheer physics of forces says so - the difference lies in the aerodynamic power of the control surfaces at these speeds to compensate or correct. Clearly the 109s are lacking. Sure the Spitfire could bite but it remained longitudinally controllable and had effective rudder down to walking speed. The fact the the 109 is 'almost completely unstable longitudinally at tail up' even with propellor driven airflow over the tail surfaces speaks volumes. Even in the air you have to work the rudder hard during maneouvres to keep co-ordinated (source: Me109 - One Summer Two Messerschmitts DVD).

When adequately trained and experienced flyers are allowed near the 109 it's a capable aeroplane - Erich Hartmann alone demonstrates this. However what this shows is that to get it off the ground and back on it again requires attention, a good experience of flying tail-wheel aircraft and of airmanship in general. These are things which a peacetime air force or one that is riding a cresting wave of victories can readily supply in the training syllabus. However, these are not characteristics I would associate with the backbone of the Luftwaffe by 1944. And the reason the 109 wasn't replaced by then is because no one in the 3rd Reich had the foresight to work on a successor back when it counted; they thought the war would be over and won by 1943!

As I said I (I am repeating myself): albeit I do believe that the 109 was tricky I do not believe that it was so tricky that 30% of all losses (from 1939-45) pertained to take-off and landing accidents because of the 109 being tricky in this phase.

I concede that the accident rate will have risen towards the end of the war in 44/45 when only badly trained youths were litterally thrown into the air against the bomber flows but we're talking here about the early stages (BoB). It does not say anything about the 109 being intrinsically dangerous, simply tricky. If the 109 would have been so inherently dangerous during take-off and landing it would have been it from the start throughout all stages of the war. If it would have been that dangerous the armament ministry would have done something about it and be it requesting some modifications to the 109 design (for instance increasing the tail surface could have been a countermeasure). Nothing in that direction was ever undertaken indicating clearly that there was no importance attributed to take-off / landing difficulties thus indicating that the problems were not so significant to justify any modifications.

If the accidant rate increased towards the end of the war it can only be attributed to the training level of the average pilot not to the plane itself.

Again (repeating again): It was surely not easy to take off and one may discuss if it is too easy in game but I do think that this bad reputation of the 109 being dangerous to take-off and land is unjustified and a modern myth.

[Fenrir]

Well then crow, it looks like we're singing from the same hymn sheet.

It does not say anything about the 109 being intrinsically dangerous, simply tricky

I particularly like this, and it sums up my feelings on the matter too.

[FS~Lewis]

Big Thanks to the team for working so hard on this patch....I look forward to it....Although I won't be able to experience it for 3 months as I am working away from home....I only can watch CLOD youtube vids and read the forums at the moment....its torture!...Dang!

I still think CLOD is great despite the gliches and I look forward to many years of flying just as IL-2 gave me so much enjoyment over the past years..I owe a lot to the team...and know that this sim is in good hands...

I also think the healthy discussions here are important and a good read to boot.....

So from a big fan of the Sim.....~S~

[VO101_MMaister]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Mh. Now the thing with the narrow landing gear I have a problem: The Spit has a narrow landing gear too, and perhaps even narrower (the landing gear of the 109 is slightly bent outward while the legs of the Spits are just straightforward parallel).

You now may reply: yeah, the torque in the 109 was stronger. This may be true - but only during full power (not gradual power increase) take-off. Never during landing as the power during landing was usually cut down to very little or even idle.

Brown's statement says clearly that he was not familiar with the type and expected a different behaviour. Of course this may indicate that rookie pilots may have had problems to handle this crate. But I really would like to recall that many spit pilots reported on a strong tendency of the spit to break away too during take-off.

I just want to add, that what made the 109`s take off and landing characteristic really bad was not only the fact that it had a narrow landing gear setup, but in the same time the struts and the wheels pointed outwards. Because of this the pilot had a very narrow margin to make fails. The slightest out of horizontal plane during take off and landing resulted a violent break out to the sides.

The spit had similar wheel distance but it had parallel landing struts, and that made it much more forgiving.

On the top of it during take off there was the huge torque from the engine, what tried to roll the aircraft at slow speeds (so exactly what had to be avoided considering the pointing outwards wheels). If you put the two problems together then you know why it required such a great attention to handle the 109 during take off.

Of course it was not magic, but it required full attention and no mistakes.

Cheers
MM

[robtek]

If you read the reports from finnish pilots you'll find that they didn't find the 109 difficult at all.
Maybe because they, against their training by the germans, kept the tail on the ground as long as possible, keeping the longitudal stability this way until the airstream on the rudder made it effective.
Same with the landings, as long as you made 3-pointers there was no problem, they said, and of course lock the tail wheel, but this came with the later 109's.