BF109G-4 "Red 7" Destroyed

[C]

Interesting, so we wouldn't have seen Black 6 fly again anyway. I assume that it has just been restored to display condition at the moment?

Correct. I think it was George (later Lord) Robertson at the time who made the final decision.

From the investigation report it seems that this high ranking RAF officer whilst lying trapped in a fuel filled cockpit instructed the rescue crew not to cut him out so as not to further damage the valuable aircraft. He had to wait for a crane to arrive to free him.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/df ... 501760.pdf

It took courage. We must thank him for that at least.

Indeed. He wasn't to know the engine was about play silly buggers...

Are there any DB engined 109s flying anywhere else?

Yes. There is a genuine Bf109e with Ed Russell at Niagara in Canada, which was restored in Suffolk in the 1990s for the museum of flight at Santa Monica. Also there is another Bf109e from the same restorer (Craig Charsleston) awaiting test flying at RAF Wattisham, although this is ultimately destined for Microsoft's Paul Allen's Flying Heritage Collection.

I'm not sure if the Db engined 109G-10 (although restored mainly using a CASA airframe) seen in the UK and Europe in the mid 90s is still around, and I thought MBB (EADS?) still owned one.

[edit]It appears that both the Gs mentioned above now belong to the Messerschmitt foundation, based at EADS' Manching factory. They are G-6 D-FMBB and the previously mentioned G-10 D-FDME (formerly D-FEHD). Both (particularly FDME) have suffered several incidents in the past few years and both appear to be recovering from broken engines...

[Hagar]

Indeed. He wasn't to know the engine was about play silly buggers...

No offence but the report suggests the cooling flaps rotary selector valve could have been in the wrong position.

However, if the 'as found' position of the cooling flaps rotary selector valve handle were its true position throughout the display (ie, aligned more closely with the 'autom' legend than when in the detent), and not been inadvertently knocked into that position during the accident or subsequent escape by the pilot, then the following sequence of events is indicated.

This is apparently a known issue with this particular type of valve & I've always felt the pilot should have been aware of it. The photos seem to have been removed but I saw a copy of the original report showing the position of the selector as it was after the incident.

PS. You know far more about this than me & I could have been wrong all this time. If so, my apologies to the pilot concerned. Engineers tend to be a tad suspicious of pilots at the best of times.

[C]

No offence but the report suggests the cooling flaps rotary selector valve could have been in the wrong position.
This is apparently a known issue with this particular type of valve & I've always felt the pilot should have been aware of it. The photos seem to have been removed but I saw a copy of the original report showing the position of the selector as it was after the incident.

PS. You know far more about this than me & I could have been wrong all this time. If so, my apologies to the pilot concerned. Engineers tend to be a tad suspicious of pilots at the best of times.

Fair point. Maybe he was getting bored dangling in the straps!

[Hagar]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The main thing is that he was unhurt & this was to have been its last flight anyway.

I found this very interesting article by the late lamented Mark Hanna on flying the Bf 109J Buchon. About half-way down the page. http://www.bf109.com/flying.html
Ironically Mark was tragically killed in a landing accident in the same aircraft (Sabadell, near Barcelona, Sept. 26 1999).

The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !

Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll straight as an arrow !

Every article I've read on landing the Me 109 recommends a 3-point touchdown. Unlike the Spitfire & similar fighters, all versions of the Me 109 are tail-heavy & once the tailwheel is on the ground the brakes can be safely applied without fear of nosing over. A 'wheeled' landing on that narrow-track undercarriage makes it very easy to bounce & touch a wing with the inevitable ground-loop. I suspect this is exactly what happened in the case of Red 7.

[Springer6]

Hagar ,

I think you must be right. It is difficult to believe that such an experienced pilot would make a banked landing . A bounce and subsequent wing dig in  seems much more likely

[Hagar]

Hi Springer. It depends what you call an experienced  pilot. The Me 109 has the reputation of being tricky to handle, especially during take-off & landing. A great many Luftwaffe pilots were lost in accidents with the 109 during WWII. If it turned over they were invariably killed or seriously injured. Mark Hanna was one of the most experienced & repected warbird display pilots in the world & it caught him out. I don't remember seeing the accident investigation report but I assume there was no fault with the aircraft.

I've also seen some criticism of the way Red 7 has been flown recently (although this was by a different pilot & not Sigi Knoll who was flying it when it crashed). I don't know how many hours he has on type. He might well be a highly experienced pilot - but not on the 109.

[Springer6]

Unlike the Spitfire & similar fighters, all versions of the Me 109 are tail-heavy & once the tailwheel is on the ground the brakes can be safely applied without fear of nosing over. A 'wheeled' landing on that narrow-track undercarriage makes it very easy to bounce & touch a wing with the inevitable ground-loop. I suspect this is exactly what happened in the case of Red 7.

Intersting that 3 pointers were almost mandatory with the 109, but not in many other types.

I know that pilots of aircraft like the Spitfire and Hurricane were all taught to do 3 pointers during  training in aircraft like the Harvard and Magister, but photographic evidence suggests that these were not always carried out later, especially in wartime operational units.

Some years ago I saw an interview with a senior BBMF pilot of the Lancaster. He described the visit to Conningsby of an old guy who had been a wartime Lanc pilot. The senior pilot thought that he would ask him what were his tips for a perfect 3 pointer in the Lanc since he had been having trouble with them..

The old chap was horrified " 3 pointer !!! "  " Only the real experts attempted them and they got it wrong most of the time ".

[Hagar]

The Me 109 undercarriage is further forward of the CoG compared with similar fighters. This is possible as it's attached to the fuselage instead of the wings as on the Spitfire. This simplified production as the whole fuselage could be moved around on its U/C without the wings being attached. It's also the reason for one of its biggest drawbacks, the narrow tracked stalky undercarriage that caused all those accidents & is apparently still causing them. The Spitfire can be tricky to handle on the ground for the same reason but seems to be more forgiving as the track is a little wider. It's more likely to nose over than touch a wing on the ground.

Pilots of taildraggers seem to have a preference for 3-pointers or wheelies. I suspect this is mainly due to their experiences while training & what they're used to flying. I've noticed many modern display pilots seem to prefer wheelies. Most pilots these days learn to fly on aircraft with a nosewheel & many of them fly modern types more than taildraggers. This also depends on the type & size of aircraft & where it's operated from. Fighters like the Me 109 & Spitfire were designed to operate from grass fields which makes it easier to take off & land directly into wind. It doesn't matter much whether you keep it straight after touching down as you can't see where you're going anyway. The benefit of a 3-pointer is the short landing run. The 109 apparently doesn't like crosswinds at all which isn't surprising.

Larger multi-engined taildraggers like the Lancaster are usually operated from a hard runway. This & the height of the cockpit above the ground makes it impractical to do 3-point landings. A wheelie with the tail up makes it much easier to see where you're going on the approach & also keep it straight once the wheels touch the runway.

[C]

Interestingly reading the history of the two German EADS based 109Gs, most of their recent mishaps appear to have been during pilot conversion. It also shows why the MoD only ever let 4 pilots loose on "Black 6" during its display years, all of whom were very experienced service and warbird pilots.

The Mark Hanna incident may well have been caused by wave turbulence I believe (off an adjacent slope). There was a lot of controversy surrounding the initial Spanish accident report.

[Hagar]

I spend a lot of time watching landings. Been doing it since I worked at the Southern Aero Club in the early 60s. All training was done on taildraggers in those days & the chief flying instructor insisted on 3-point landings. I still remember his remarks on first seeing one of them new-fangled Cessnas with tricycle gear.

You can usually tell how good a pilot is by their landings. I often wonder how taildragger training/conversion is done these days as I see even Tiger Moths doing wheelie landings now. This would have been frowned on in my day. I always thought of a wheelie as an arrival & a 3-pointer an art form. A thing of beauty. I found these shots I took at Flying Legends a few weeks ago. Now look at that. Beautiful.




This is the BBMF Lanc at the same show. Not a very good shot but you can see the tail is almost down after a very short run, even though it's on the hard runway. Very nicely done indeed.


PS. Shame there's none of a Bf 109. My chances of that seem almost non-existent now. I heard a rumour that Red 7 was originally booked for Legends.

[C]

I think the Lancs tail comes down around 60kts on normal occasions off the top of my head. From what I understand 3 pointers are a complete no-no...

[Hagar]

Silly me, I just realised the problem with the 109 undercarriage. I've often wondered why the Spitfire didn't suffer in the same way as the track can't be that much wider, if at all. Just look at the angle of those main legs & wheels. It's all wrong & the slightest bounce on one wheel will throw it sideways. Landing crosswind would have the same effect.



PS. This is the rebuilt Black 6 now on static display at Hendon.

[Springer6]

The narrow tyres of the 109 as compared to most other types also cannot have helped , especially on soft surfaces.

Of course another reason for 3-pointers ( or at least a tail down attitude on touchdown) as opposed to wheelers was of course large diameter props .

Spitfires were famous for "pecking" their props on the ground although many of these were caused by letting the tail come up on take off.

[Hagar]

The narrow tyres of the 109 as compared to most other types also cannot have helped , especially on soft surfaces.

Not only the narrow tyres but the alignment of the wheels themselves. It's so blindingly obvious I can't think why I haven't noticed this before. The main wheels on most aircraft have a positive camber, that is the top of the wheels angled out from the centre as viewed from the front. This illustration is of a car front suspension but the principle is exactly the same.


Any experienced aeromodeller will tell you that positive camber plus a few degrees of toe-in on the main wheels will make a taildragger run true during take-off/landing & easier to steer on the ground. It might have been easier for mass production but the Bf 109 undercarriage seems to defy all the basic principles. Considering the problems it caused, especially on later versions when more powerful engines were fitted, I'm surprised it wasn't redesigned at some point.

[C]

Interestingly the take off techinique for the 109 involved allowing the aircraft to go in the direction it swings during take off, ie, you stop the swing, but make no attempt to correct it. This is why it invariable operated off grass...