Slitherine

Got this for an episode of, "Clash of Wings" on the Military Channel. 10% of all Bef Me 109 losses were from accidents on takeoff or landing.

Wow, that is interesting. I wonder how much the declining quality of pilots after the Battle of Britain had to do with that.

joerock22 wrote:Wow, that is interesting. I wonder how much the declining quality of pilots after the Battle of Britain had to do with that.

It wasn't the pilots as much as the design. The requirements given to the airplane manufacturer (pre-war) for the Me-109 was to put the biggest engine available into the smallest airframe possible. To decrease weight the wheels were attached directly to the fuselage. While this indeed did decrease weight it resulted in a somewhat unstable configuration during takeoff and landing; resulting in 10% of the fighter losses resulted from accidents during takeoff and landing. Once in the air though, we know what the fighter could do.

I suspect this 'fact' is not actually a verified fact at all, but one of many WW2 stories that gets repeated often enough to be taken as fact. No doubt there were serious issues with the 109 landing gear design, especially with weight related upgrades to the plane as the war went on, but it looks like the figures quoted here may have been pulled from a lazy researchers butt . Here is an interesting thread with 100's of posts on this specific topic, though they are researching a previously written 'fact' that 33% of the 109 losses were on take-off or landing !

My logical side questions why Germany would continue manufacturing the design if either of these figures (10% or 33%) was accurate. Were they that incompetent? Perhaps so, but something about this tale does not pass the smell test IMO. Sure they had factories set up to produce the planes, but they had other fighter options, and it seems to me pilot shortages would be a much more vital concern than manufacturing a plane that they knew resulted in so many pilot losses via take off & landings. Now the Me-163, I could absolutely believe that 75% or more of the losses were on take off or landings. Maybe that plane is where this story originates from?

Regardless, it's yet another fascinating thing to debate about this war. Hopefully my skepticism on the accuracy of the quoted number does not stop further discussion.

And another related thread, this one with the following quote from a Bf 109 technical history researcher: "Me 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases"

Then again, the Wiki page says "At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941."

And on yet another forum thread someone claimed that most WW2 era planes had around 10% losses from take offs and landings!

This is well worth further research .

A useful first step would be to clarify whether we are talking about 10% of all planes, or 10% of all losses...

eisenkopf wrote:A useful first step would be to clarify whether we are talking about 10% of all planes, or 10% of all losses...

10% of all losses ...

Considering how many Axis aircraft were pounced on and shot down by the Allies during takeoff and landing in the latter stages of the war, the 10% figure for losses during takeoff/landing may be correct. It wasn't necessarily due to "accidents" in all cases, though.

I recall seeing even higher loss rates for Soviet armor due to driving accidents.

honvedseg wrote:I recall seeing even higher loss rates for Soviet armor due to driving accidents.

Wow ... not that's interesting. > 10% of Soviet tank losses were due to driving accidents! I wonder how many of these were due to DUI's?

rkr1958 wrote:

honvedseg wrote:I recall seeing even higher loss rates for Soviet armor due to driving accidents.

Wow ... not that's interesting. > 10% of Soviet tank losses were due to driving accidents! I wonder how many of these were due to DUI's?

10% of 100 000 is not a big deal

It's no surprise that there was a significant loss to accidents, as flying high performance military aircraft is potentially dangerous, even in peacetime, the post-war Luftwaffe lost 30% (292 aircraft) of its F104 Starfighters through accident, the Canadians lost 50% of theirs, in peacetime. Landings with tailwheel aircraft are more difficult and the Bf 109 was no exception.

I believe the F 104 Starfighter actually earned the nickname 'Widow Maker' because of its lethality to the pilots.

gsmart04 wrote:I believe the F 104 Starfighter actually earned the nickname 'Widow Maker' because of its lethality to the pilots.

The impression given in most comments is that the pilots where mostly the problem, flying too low, with many instances of flying into terrain, but it is an example that the operation of military aircraft carries many risks and a significant accident rate is to be expected.

I think another problem was the F104's stubby wings making it hard for pilots to control. Thats anecdotal though; I have no numbers.

gsmart04 wrote:I think another problem was the F104's stubby wings making it hard for pilots to control. Thats anecdotal though; I have no numbers.

A check on the web indicated that Luftwaffe pilots liked to take their aircraft very low on practice missions (one incident was when a flight of 4 F104s flew into the ground in formation) and the pilot losses were partially due to the original ejector seat , after the Martin Baker seat was fitted things improved.

Rasputitsa wrote:

gsmart04 wrote:I think another problem was the F104's stubby wings making it hard for pilots to control. Thats anecdotal though; I have no numbers.

A check on the web indicated that Luftwaffe pilots liked to take their aircraft very low on practice missions (one incident was when a flight of 4 F104s flew into the ground in formation) and the pilot losses were partially due to the original ejector seat , after the Martin Baker seat was fitted things improved.

I didn't realize WW-2 fighters, or at least this one, had an ejector seat. I thought to bail, the pilot would open the canopies, climb out and jump.

In Ken Burns' miniseries, "The War" there was an interview with a US fighter pilot whose cockpit caught on fire. He tried to open his canopies to bail; but it was jammed and he couldn't. The pilots had discussed what they would do if they caught on fire and couldn't get out. This pilot and others had decided that instead of burning alive that they would dive straight down and ended it as quickly as possible. So, on fire and not able to get out this pilot put his fighter into a steep dive. Fortunately for this pilot, the airflow from the dive extinguished the fire, he was able to pulled out at around 1000 feet and made it back to base.

rkr1958 wrote:

Rasputitsa wrote:

gsmart04 wrote:I think another problem was the F104's stubby wings making it hard for pilots to control. Thats anecdotal though; I have no numbers.

A check on the web indicated that Luftwaffe pilots liked to take their aircraft very low on practice missions (one incident was when a flight of 4 F104s flew into the ground in formation) and the pilot losses were partially due to the original ejector seat , after the Martin Baker seat was fitted things improved.

I didn't realize WW-2 fighters, or at least this one, had an ejector seat. I thought to bail, the pilot would open the canopies, climb out and jump.

In Ken Burns' miniseries, "The War" there was an interview with a US fighter pilot whose cockpit caught on fire. He tried to open his canopies to bail; but it was jammed and he couldn't. The pilots had discussed what they would do if they caught on fire and couldn't get out. This pilot and others had decided that instead of burning alive that they would dive straight down and ended it as quickly as possible. So, on fire and not able to get out this pilot put his fighter into a steep dive. Fortunately for this pilot, the airflow from the dive extinguished the fire, he was able to pulled out at around 1000 feet and made it back to base.

Just using the post-war Luftwaffe F104 Starfighter losses to illustrate the high accident rate in military operations in peacetime, therefore, the wartime Bf109 accident losses should be no surprise.