Widowmakers
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
104 Widowmaker
I had a mate who worked for Fairey Aviation,( I think ), in Belgium back in the '60s who was involved in work on Luftwaffe 104s.I'm not sure as to the truth of this story but it did give those of us who were on the receiving end of the Luftwaffe during the War a bit of a laff.
It seemed that a 104 was due for a test flight and duly took off shortly before lunch one day.When my mate returned from his break the aircraft had not returned.On inquiring as to its whereabouts and that of the German pilot he was informed that it had crashed into the sea.Mate then asked what had happenned to the pilot.The Belgian foreman stated ......... "he is now a U Boat Commander".
It would seem that some Belgians in those days had long memories.
It seemed that a 104 was due for a test flight and duly took off shortly before lunch one day.When my mate returned from his break the aircraft had not returned.On inquiring as to its whereabouts and that of the German pilot he was informed that it had crashed into the sea.Mate then asked what had happenned to the pilot.The Belgian foreman stated ......... "he is now a U Boat Commander".
It would seem that some Belgians in those days had long memories.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rockford, ILL.
Age: 75
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right about that!
Not sure how you got to that conclusion, flying the hump too? But there are many planes from back then that were very dangerous to fly and the R-3350 was certainly less than stellar in it's reliability and durability, which are not the same thing. Both the Spit and Me-109 had appalling accident rates, that if not fatal, certainly rote off almost as many planes as combat.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the Spit and Me-109 had appalling accident rates, that if not fatal, certainly rote off almost as many planes as combat.
Paxing All Over The World
As this topic has resurfaced, from it's start in 2006, does anyone know if Nickdc was able to:
?
I am in the process of producing a documentary about a class of fighter or bomber aircraft often referred to as 'Widowmakers' ...
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rockford, ILL.
Age: 75
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What percentage of pilots killed in accidents qualifies?
As opposed to killed in action, that is? A ground loop at 90 MPH in a fully laden with av-gas filled plane killed more pilots than any of their contemporaries in either of those two planes. What percentage counts?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A ground loop at 90 MPH
... has to be an intentional maneuver (or a locked brake, or...). Most ground loops occur at less than half that speed, where the rudder loses effectiveness.
(Are you sure you mean a ground loop, as opposed to a nose-over?)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rockford, ILL.
Age: 75
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I mean Ground Loop.
When you think Ground Loop, most of us think Cessna 150 and the resultant dynamics. But the track of the Cessna is 50% wider than the Me-109 or Spitfire. The Cessna is about 1/3rd of the weight and not loaded with several hundred pounds of high volatility av-gas, OR have a take off and landing speed of over 80-100 MPH! At this point I can not remember whether it was 5000 write offs and 3000 dead from accidents, or some lesser number. But regardless, both aircraft lost more planes and pilots to accidents than to enemy action.
But it is absolutely certain that it was not intentional! When a plane with fragile gear, that close together hits a bump on one wheel... When the leg breaks off because of high side load caused by a cross wind landing and the narrow track... Etc... Etc...
But it is absolutely certain that it was not intentional! When a plane with fragile gear, that close together hits a bump on one wheel... When the leg breaks off because of high side load caused by a cross wind landing and the narrow track... Etc... Etc...
Last edited by 45-Shooter; 8th Mar 2012 at 23:09. Reason: Forgot to address the intentional question.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explain to us exactly how one could accomplish a ground loop in a C150, assuming that be your objective. The world wants to know! 
PS: I have been known to demonstrate the dynamics of a ground loop using a grocery cart. I can make it GL any time I choose, and likewise NO GL any time I choose!
PS: I have been known to demonstrate the dynamics of a ground loop using a grocery cart. I can make it GL any time I choose, and likewise NO GL any time I choose!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rockford, ILL.
Age: 75
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really want to know this?
Ask the Insurance Cos. But from my personal second hand experience, ( I watched two and walked by two more at various air bases with in minutes of them happening.)
Cross winds are probably the number one cause. Prairie Dog hole caused one of the two that I saw. Blown tires the other three...
If you look in the various sale papers, there is usually one or two write offs for sale cheap from various crashes. I never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Cross winds are probably the number one cause. Prairie Dog hole caused one of the two that I saw. Blown tires the other three...
If you look in the various sale papers, there is usually one or two write offs for sale cheap from various crashes. I never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rockford, ILL.
Age: 75
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and no.
Gliders since 14 and home built singles, plus on and off while in the Army with access to the flying club cheap. A few hours in Loaches. (OH-6s.)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can not remember whether it was 5000 write offs and 3000 dead from accidents, or some lesser number. But regardless, both aircraft lost more planes and pilots to accidents than to enemy action.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well -
Most of my time is in taildraggers, and I've never had even an incipient groundloop, but I understand the dynamics pretty well (as described in the Wikipedia page on the subject).
And I haven't flown a C-150 in a decade or two, but I can think of only one way to set up the necessary dynamic instability to make it ground loop: Namely, "wheelbarrowing" i.e. touch down much faster that normal - 60-70 kt maybe. This means the nosewheel touches first, and if there's any drift at all, the CG goes one direction while the nosewheel goes the other. THAT is the necessary condition for a groundloop. And I've known a pilot or two who has been banned from my home field for such poor technique.
Give me a good full-stall landing any day!
Most of my time is in taildraggers, and I've never had even an incipient groundloop, but I understand the dynamics pretty well (as described in the Wikipedia page on the subject).
And I haven't flown a C-150 in a decade or two, but I can think of only one way to set up the necessary dynamic instability to make it ground loop: Namely, "wheelbarrowing" i.e. touch down much faster that normal - 60-70 kt maybe. This means the nosewheel touches first, and if there's any drift at all, the CG goes one direction while the nosewheel goes the other. THAT is the necessary condition for a groundloop. And I've known a pilot or two who has been banned from my home field for such poor technique.
Give me a good full-stall landing any day!
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,637
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
I did see a straight-tailed 172 ground loop once (a tyre squealing 360 at about 30kts I'd say), bit of a cross wind, but all but one of the many tail draggers that landed at the same event coped with it perfectly safely.
(The other one the didn't, a Jodel, described an interesting path across the airfield, first threatening a row of antiques; an urgent application of rudder led to crossing the runway towards the hedge and trees, staggering back into the air over the trees and disappearing behind them - he landed safely off the next attempt. Corn stalks wrapped around the u/c legs suggested an inadvertant landing in the field behind the trees! Well, it kept all us rubberneckers entertained!)
I've certainly heard that quite a high proportion of Luftwaffe 109s were written off in landing accidents but I would have thought that most were perfectly survivable. I can think of three or four that have had landing accidents in the last twenty or thirty years, resulting in a bent airframe but an OK pilot.
(The other one the didn't, a Jodel, described an interesting path across the airfield, first threatening a row of antiques; an urgent application of rudder led to crossing the runway towards the hedge and trees, staggering back into the air over the trees and disappearing behind them - he landed safely off the next attempt. Corn stalks wrapped around the u/c legs suggested an inadvertant landing in the field behind the trees! Well, it kept all us rubberneckers entertained!)
I've certainly heard that quite a high proportion of Luftwaffe 109s were written off in landing accidents but I would have thought that most were perfectly survivable. I can think of three or four that have had landing accidents in the last twenty or thirty years, resulting in a bent airframe but an OK pilot.
Grandpa Aerotart
This fella seemed to have a fair handle on the F104
http://www.aerodrome-gruyere.ch/video/touch-roll-touch/
http://www.aerodrome-gruyere.ch/video/touch-roll-touch/
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rockford, ILL.
Age: 75
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What %age of Spits were lost to landing and take off?
Me-109 Design features
As with the earlier Bf 108, the new design was based on Messerschmitt's "lightweight construction" principle, which aimed to reduce the number of separate parts in the aircraft to a minimum. Examples of this could be found in the use of two large, complex brackets which were fitted to the firewall. These brackets incorporated the lower engine mounts and landing gear pivot point into one unit. A large forging attached to the firewall housed the main spar pick-up points, and carried most of the wing loads. Contemporary design practice was usually to have these main load-bearing structures mounted on different parts of the airframe, with the loads being distributed through the structure via a series of strong-points. By concentrating the loads in the firewall, the structure of the Bf 109 could be made relatively light and uncomplicated.[18]
An advantage of this design was that the main landing gear, which retracted through an 85-degree angle, was attached to the fuselage, making it possible to completely remove the wings for servicing without the need for additional equipment to support the fuselage. It also allowed simplification of the wing structure, since it did not have to bear the loads imposed during takeoff or landing. The one major drawback of this landing gear arrangement was its narrow wheel track, making the aircraft unstable while on the ground. To increase stability the legs were splayed outward somewhat, creating another problem in that the loads imposed during takeoff and landing were transferred up through the legs at an angle.[19]
The small rudder of the Bf 109 was relatively ineffective at controlling the strong swing created by the powerful slipstream of the propeller during the early portion of the takeoff roll, and this sideways drift created disproportionate loads on the wheel opposite to the swing. If the forces imposed were large enough, the pivot point broke and the landing gear leg would collapse outward into its bay.[19] Experienced pilots reported that the swing was easy to control, but some of the less-experienced pilots lost fighters on takeoff.[20]
Because of the large ground angle caused by the long legs, forward visibility while on the ground was very poor, a problem exacerbated by the sideways-opening canopy. This meant that pilots had to taxi in a sinuous fashion which also imposed stresses on the splayed undercarriage legs. Ground accidents were a problem with rookie pilots, especially during the later stages of the war when pilots received less training before being sent to operational units.[20] At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941.[21] The installation of a fixed "tall" tailwheel on some of the late G-10s and 14s and the K-series helped alleviate the problem to a large extent.[22]
I do not have the time and inclination to find the realivant RAF info tonight! But the numbers were almost, but not quite as bad! Maybe you could find the realivant RAF data?
As with the earlier Bf 108, the new design was based on Messerschmitt's "lightweight construction" principle, which aimed to reduce the number of separate parts in the aircraft to a minimum. Examples of this could be found in the use of two large, complex brackets which were fitted to the firewall. These brackets incorporated the lower engine mounts and landing gear pivot point into one unit. A large forging attached to the firewall housed the main spar pick-up points, and carried most of the wing loads. Contemporary design practice was usually to have these main load-bearing structures mounted on different parts of the airframe, with the loads being distributed through the structure via a series of strong-points. By concentrating the loads in the firewall, the structure of the Bf 109 could be made relatively light and uncomplicated.[18]
An advantage of this design was that the main landing gear, which retracted through an 85-degree angle, was attached to the fuselage, making it possible to completely remove the wings for servicing without the need for additional equipment to support the fuselage. It also allowed simplification of the wing structure, since it did not have to bear the loads imposed during takeoff or landing. The one major drawback of this landing gear arrangement was its narrow wheel track, making the aircraft unstable while on the ground. To increase stability the legs were splayed outward somewhat, creating another problem in that the loads imposed during takeoff and landing were transferred up through the legs at an angle.[19]
The small rudder of the Bf 109 was relatively ineffective at controlling the strong swing created by the powerful slipstream of the propeller during the early portion of the takeoff roll, and this sideways drift created disproportionate loads on the wheel opposite to the swing. If the forces imposed were large enough, the pivot point broke and the landing gear leg would collapse outward into its bay.[19] Experienced pilots reported that the swing was easy to control, but some of the less-experienced pilots lost fighters on takeoff.[20]
Because of the large ground angle caused by the long legs, forward visibility while on the ground was very poor, a problem exacerbated by the sideways-opening canopy. This meant that pilots had to taxi in a sinuous fashion which also imposed stresses on the splayed undercarriage legs. Ground accidents were a problem with rookie pilots, especially during the later stages of the war when pilots received less training before being sent to operational units.[20] At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941.[21] The installation of a fixed "tall" tailwheel on some of the late G-10s and 14s and the K-series helped alleviate the problem to a large extent.[22]
I do not have the time and inclination to find the realivant RAF info tonight! But the numbers were almost, but not quite as bad! Maybe you could find the realivant RAF data?