The 109G 'Black Six' accident had nothing to do with any 'Duxford Bump', or servicing or quality of this excellently maintained aircraft - not a converted Buchon but a genuine 109. For those who'd like to base their analysis is on
accurate data
properly interpreted, the report (PDF) is here:
www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsaf ... 501760.pdf
The conclusion as to the
cause of the accident can be drawn by the reader.
I find A2C's analysis of the data and the conclusions relating to the 109/Buchon operations in general rather odd. As said earlier:
John Dupre wrote:
As for the 109s and Buchons a number of people have taken a run at them over the years only to bend them to one degree or another. It seems that the E models are better behaved than the Gs or Buchons but I have to wonder if there aren't a number of potential owners who have said thanks but no thanks regarding those types. Basically who wants to own a WW2 fighter that you have to operate like a WW1 fighter, i.e. little or no cross wind capability and likes turf surfaces rather than pavement? Rather limits your ability to see and be seen.
A pretty fair summary of many owner reactions - some have been killed by their mount, most of the aircraft have been crashed one or more times, and numerous owners, as John's stated have clearly said 'thanks but no thanks'.
The accident rate per thousand flying hours of Buchons will be among the highest for W.W.II single-seat fighter types in civil operation, and more so when you count up aircraft that are nominally or were airworthy that were just parked. Saying the accidents could've happened to other aircraft is meaningless. Any way you cut it, the 109G-onward family is (sadly) not good news.
Some relevant factors:
The 109E is a lower power, lighter aircraft than the G or the Buchon, both having significantly worse visibility due to the later engines and modified nose shapes.
The canopy cannot be opened in flight, just a small clear view panel. Current aircraft have heavily framed canopies as well.
As John's pointed out, they were designed to operate into wind off grass (as was normal in the 1930s and even early 1940s, but often overlooked now. Rather like trying to drive a race-car on grass rather than tarmac - not a good operational change). Other operations are not a good compromise.
They are German design or Spanish-German modification with a British engine, some bastardised further - compared to relatively familiar and common standards in US or British designs, there are unusual factors decreasing any pilot's familiarity with the MO.
They have, for the era, a relatively high wing loading, combined with significant torque and P Factors. The wing also, unusually, has aerodynamically operated slats.
Several highly experienced, highly regarded and competent pilots have been caught out by the type. Mark Hanna was a
very skilled warbird pilot, and even now, I'm not clear as to the cause of his accident in Spain. If Ray Hanna disputed the accident investigation conclusion, he'd have good reason. In response to A2C's earlier remark, I'm not aware of any significant incident in Mark's flying the Spitfire, Mustang, Sea Fury, Corsair and P-40 among many other warbirds and fast jets.
Of course 109s and Buchons
can be operated - but whatever speculation any pundit might make, the record is not good.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
