Messerschmitt Bf109 Take-Off / Landing Accident Statistics

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

We all 'know' that the Messerschmitt Bf109 suffered a lot of take-off and landing accidents and this is usually put down to the narrow track of the undercarriage but while eating my sandwiches at Hendon the other day I noticed that the track of the Bf109 looked wider than that of the Spitfire (the Restaurant at Hendon has large aircraft profiles on the walls).

When I took some rough measurements later I calculated the track of the Spitfire as 1717mm (67.6 inches) and that of the Bf109 as 2067mm (81.4 inches), or about 20% wider. The wingtips of the Bf109 also look like they would be further from the ground on landing or take-off.

So why is the bad reputation of the Bf109 put down to the narrow track of the undercarriage.....or have I got my sums wrong? :confused:

Original post

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 18,353

As I understood it, it was a combination of high engine torque and small fin/rudder area, coupled with that knock-kneed undercarriage, that gave the '109 family their handling characteristics on the ground. The factory did try throughout the later '109 family to try to dampen the effects (larger fin/rudder, for example), but it's still a handful to the inexperienced.

One of the reasons why most '109s pilots these days have a heck of a lot of hours on other, similarly-powered warbirds before getting their hands on a Messerschmitt.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 1,578

Not sure about the statistics, but I’m glad you posted your findings. I had also once heard, that the Bf-109 had a very narrow track and since just accepted the as fact (I think many have). Nice to know, that the Spitfire is narrower. Now I can bore my friends with a new juicy bit of information :p

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 143

undercarriage geometry

There were big fundermental differences with angles of ''toe-in'' and ''negative camber'' in the design ; the upshot being the settings on the 109 were more pronounced and thereby less forgiving.......lift one wing too soon before the other caught up and the whole plane took a sharp turn off piste (with or without full rudder).

NB :Not to be confused with pilot error involving ill-anticipation of ''snatch-roll'' as the leading edge slats engaged one before the other.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Not sure about the statistics, but I’m glad you posted your findings.

‘Findings’ makes it sound very grand! In reality it was ten minutes spent with some digital calipers, a calculator and a twenty-nine year old copy of ‘Aircraft of World War 2’ by Bill Gunston, which I didn’t have the heart to take to the charity shop.....again! Anyway it seems my figures weren’t too far out.

This article is fairly good at explaining a few thoughts and views on the 109

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/


A large amount of very interesting reading there!

Interestingly there are several mentions of ‘narrow undercarriage’ and when it is mentioned by the likes of Gunther Rall and Eric Brown I guess people tend to take notice. I suppose what they meant was that it felt narrow as opposed to it actually being narrow but at least the author confirms my calculations in the "The specific problem with the Bf 109 was the very narrow undercarriage track” paragraph.

Thanks everybody for the replies and links, I should have realised that the landing / take-off problems with the Bf109 couldn’t just be put down to a ‘narrow undercarriage’ and are far more complex but I suppose the myth has grown as a sort of shorthand even though the undercarriage is actually wider that that of the Spitfire!

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 1,578

‘Findings’ makes it sound very grand! In reality it was ten minutes spent with some digital calipers, a calculator and a twenty-nine year old copy of ‘Aircraft of World War 2’ by Bill Gunston, which I didn’t have the heart to take to the charity shop.....again! Anyway it seems my figures weren’t too far out.

Being a non-native English speaker ”findings” was the best word i could think of :D

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,605

Interestingly there are several mentions of ‘narrow undercarriage’ and when it is mentioned by the likes of Gunther Rall and Eric Brown I guess people tend to take notice.

Maybe it was how the pilots felt when the plane took off and landed.Measuring is one thing but nothing is as scientific as being in the pilots seat.Is there any forum readers here who have had the honor of flying the two?

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

You might find this useful too:
http://www.haa-uk.aero/media/pdf/pilots-notes/bf109e-25.pdf

There are some good clues in this link by Steve,to summarize some of them might be... Narrow track,High centre of gravity,centre of gravity quite well aft (which is why a swing will soon get out of control).
istr that one of the Luftwaffe experten called the landing characteristics of the later 109 as 'Malevolent' (Macki Steinhoff ?),not so much of a problem for the experienced pilot,but more so for the inexperienced.

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 479

Maybe it was how the pilots felt when the plane took off and landed.Measuring is one thing but nothing is as scientific as being in the pilots seat.Is there any forum readers here who have had the honor of flying the two?

The pilots bottom is often more accurate than any calculation - especially with regard to movement 'feedback'.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

And I suppose the Bf109 undercarriage was narrow if it wasn't being compared to the Spitfire. :)

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 544

When you look at how the 109 undercarriage is actually attatched to the aircraft it has never particulary inspired confidence in me, it is strong enough, obviously, but it is not over engineered!
I asked Charlie Brown about the handling characterisitcs of the 109 on the ground and I was fully expecting him to tell me that it was comparable to other warbirds of the era and that much of the talk of its handling on the ground was over egged, however he did not back up this view at all and told me that the 109 is particulary tricky on the ground in comparison to other warbirds and requires much more finesse and input from the pilot than other warbirds he has flown. I would love to know how the tall tail and leg compares to the smaller tail but unfortunately he never got to fly Black 2 so couldn't expand on that.