Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:59 pm
Perhaps John Lane can jump in here and gives us his thoughts from a restorers view. John is doing a new Corsair spar for a plane he has in his shop.
Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:20 pm
John wrote:
I don't know if that's a fair analysis,
I think the CAF had one and wrecked it.
Most of the others I know of-like the Buchon flown in California; 3-4 flying in Germany and another in Canada are doing fine.
Only the one in Germany had a problem, it didn't lock down properly and folded on the roll out. Not landing error.
The planes of fame one had a problem, but I don't know what it was.
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.
I don't know if that's a fair analysis,
I think the CAF had one and wrecked it.
Most of the others I know of-like the Buchon flown in California; 3-4 flying in Germany and another in Canada are doing fine.
Only the one in Germany had a problem, it didn't lock down properly and folded on the roll out. Not landing error.
The planes of fame one had a problem, but I don't know what it was.
Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:07 pm
Not what I've been seeing, from way back in the Warbirds Worldwide office. There's few flyers up today the late Paul Coggan would be surprised by. A Vulcan would be No.1.
And I'm sorry to say it's poor data and analysis, A2C, starting with the Buchon accident rate.
IIRC, and Mike might confirm, there's only one Buchon or ex-Buchon 'technically airworthy' that's not been involved in a major accident. Mark Hanna, one of the most highly regarded warbird pilots globally was killed in Spain in G-BOML. The German DB engined machines aircraft have, IIRC again, all been involved in accidents. Many other Buchons have been retired by 'encautioned' owners.
The P-40 was much more important to the Commonwealth than almost any other American fighter, or fighter bomber, being the type available and effective in numbers in N Africa and the Pacific war. The AVG don't play so big outside the USA anyway, and the shark's teeth on the Commonwealth P-40s tend to be from the pre-AVG N African fighters - see the recent VWoC and Allan Arthur's. The P-39 was just a failure in Commonwealth service.
But -the Bormann P-63 was a big deal, and you'll see some P-39s coming out of Aus soon. Likewise the P-38 has a high price ticket and complexity, yet for the low numbers, a lot of work (and cash) has been taken to maintain and boost those numbers.
The broad trends are the fruition of long-term planning by various people and organisations, and aren't a 'new' thing at all. Types like the T-6, P-51, B-25 and Spitfire are still available off the shelf if you want one. The others require a bigger time and money investment. Recoveries on the late eighties and 90s in the USSR are coming through with airworthy machines now - those early P-40s 109Es and other, rarer (Fw189) types. In the 80s, there were people laying down work to enable the P-40 renaissance we see now.
Without Russia, there'd be no active 109Es. Rather than being 'ignored' a lot of hard work has gone into getting any 109s flying in any form; and, as usaf ssgt said, lack of airframes is an initial issue - for all Axis types - which leads to there's no surprise lots of useful Allied types available postwar remain the bigger numbers today (P-51, T-6 and B-25.) And on - The reason for the different numbers of Douglas A-26 Invaders and Martin B-26 Marauders is primarily to postwar use of the A-26, into civil use, and the USAAF's quick retirement of the B-26, and hardly any civil users.
In other words, as a powerful combat type, only the P-51 is (still) flying in numbers over 100. Spitfires continue to vary between 40 - 60 (updates /period cuts welcome) then the rest are in numbers you could almost call statistically insignificant; mostly under 10s. In most type cases you can point to individual shops as to why there's been a boost in numbers - the P-47 and P-40 and Hurricane family all being down to one or two key shops re-engineering key parts, and entering what might be called handbuilt production. There is, thankfully a drive towards more unusual types, but that's never going to reverse the bias towards the two fighter types.
I don't think '... the restorers serving the news media or the it's the "in thing to do" crowd?' has anything to do with it past the Spitfire/Mustang element. Most recent flyers have their roots in projects started between 5 to 20 years ago. Anyone playing for that timescale's serious, and not a dilettante.
Lost of the types get sold because of the fun-flying element and 'bang for your buck'. The Sea Fury being a key example, and the F7F and others having high/easy availability (ex-cache, ex-firebomber) relatively low cost and lots of whizz. In these cases, for many owners history is utterly irrelevant.
That's all off the cuff, no data checks, so no guarantees offered (not paid work). However it is a view from an observer of the business and numbers and diversity taken from the eighties to today.
Got the old thinking juices going, though!
Regards,
And I'm sorry to say it's poor data and analysis, A2C, starting with the Buchon accident rate.
IIRC, and Mike might confirm, there's only one Buchon or ex-Buchon 'technically airworthy' that's not been involved in a major accident. Mark Hanna, one of the most highly regarded warbird pilots globally was killed in Spain in G-BOML. The German DB engined machines aircraft have, IIRC again, all been involved in accidents. Many other Buchons have been retired by 'encautioned' owners.
The P-40 was much more important to the Commonwealth than almost any other American fighter, or fighter bomber, being the type available and effective in numbers in N Africa and the Pacific war. The AVG don't play so big outside the USA anyway, and the shark's teeth on the Commonwealth P-40s tend to be from the pre-AVG N African fighters - see the recent VWoC and Allan Arthur's. The P-39 was just a failure in Commonwealth service.
But -the Bormann P-63 was a big deal, and you'll see some P-39s coming out of Aus soon. Likewise the P-38 has a high price ticket and complexity, yet for the low numbers, a lot of work (and cash) has been taken to maintain and boost those numbers.
The broad trends are the fruition of long-term planning by various people and organisations, and aren't a 'new' thing at all. Types like the T-6, P-51, B-25 and Spitfire are still available off the shelf if you want one. The others require a bigger time and money investment. Recoveries on the late eighties and 90s in the USSR are coming through with airworthy machines now - those early P-40s 109Es and other, rarer (Fw189) types. In the 80s, there were people laying down work to enable the P-40 renaissance we see now.
Without Russia, there'd be no active 109Es. Rather than being 'ignored' a lot of hard work has gone into getting any 109s flying in any form; and, as usaf ssgt said, lack of airframes is an initial issue - for all Axis types - which leads to there's no surprise lots of useful Allied types available postwar remain the bigger numbers today (P-51, T-6 and B-25.) And on - The reason for the different numbers of Douglas A-26 Invaders and Martin B-26 Marauders is primarily to postwar use of the A-26, into civil use, and the USAAF's quick retirement of the B-26, and hardly any civil users.
In other words, as a powerful combat type, only the P-51 is (still) flying in numbers over 100. Spitfires continue to vary between 40 - 60 (updates /period cuts welcome) then the rest are in numbers you could almost call statistically insignificant; mostly under 10s. In most type cases you can point to individual shops as to why there's been a boost in numbers - the P-47 and P-40 and Hurricane family all being down to one or two key shops re-engineering key parts, and entering what might be called handbuilt production. There is, thankfully a drive towards more unusual types, but that's never going to reverse the bias towards the two fighter types.
I don't think '... the restorers serving the news media or the it's the "in thing to do" crowd?' has anything to do with it past the Spitfire/Mustang element. Most recent flyers have their roots in projects started between 5 to 20 years ago. Anyone playing for that timescale's serious, and not a dilettante.
Lost of the types get sold because of the fun-flying element and 'bang for your buck'. The Sea Fury being a key example, and the F7F and others having high/easy availability (ex-cache, ex-firebomber) relatively low cost and lots of whizz. In these cases, for many owners history is utterly irrelevant.
That's all off the cuff, no data checks, so no guarantees offered (not paid work). However it is a view from an observer of the business and numbers and diversity taken from the eighties to today.
Got the old thinking juices going, though!
Regards,
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:43 am
this would be a good series imo, James...
Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:45 pm
After WWii most all the pilots [no matter what they actually flew in the war] wanted the newest hot rod, the Mustang. Heck all the ex-fighters were cheap, so get the fastest. Maybe it's still that simple, these guys now just want the best hot rod for the money. If you can only own one warbird "get a stang".....It's probably not that simple, but i thought i'd chime in.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:51 pm
Ground looped at Reno and wiped the gear out in 1980. Then crashed again during the filming of "Pearl Harbor." I've not heard the reason for that incident but it resulted in a gear collapse.A2C wrote:The planes of fame one had a problem, but I don't know what it was.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:04 pm
JDK wrote:And I'm sorry to say it's poor data and analysis, A2C, starting with the Buchon accident rate.
IIRC, and Mike might confirm, there's only one Buchon or ex-Buchon 'technically airworthy' that's not been involved in a major accident.
Very few Buchons (DB-engined or otherwise) are flown at all. The California one hasn't been seen out and about that I know of for over three years, so there is only the ARCo-operated (Tom Blair) one at Duxford, plus the three DB-engined ones with the EADS Messerschmitt Foundation in Germany. They seem to have difficulty in keeping even one of the three airworthy at a time, due to a combination of engine woes and gear issues. Cavanaugh's Buchon and the Vormezeele one in Belgium are both nominally airworthy, but their owners choose not to fly them. As James rightly says, most of the survivors flown since the 1970s have been involved in one or more accidents at some time or another, two of which (CAF and OFMC) sadly proved fatal to the pilot..
Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:37 pm
Mike wrote:
These 2 weren't landing gear or engine related.
most of the survivors flown since the 1970s have been involved in one or more accidents at some time or another, two of which (CAF and OFMC) sadly proved fatal to the pilot..
These 2 weren't landing gear or engine related.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:48 pm
A2C wrote:Mike wrote:most of the survivors flown since the 1970s have been involved in one or more accidents at some time or another, two of which (CAF and OFMC) sadly proved fatal to the pilot..
These 2 weren't landing gear or engine related.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 2697&key=1
.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:37 pm
Durn! Beat me to it Mike! 
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:13 pm
A2C wrote:
Mike wrote:
Quote:
most of the survivors flown since the 1970s have been involved in one or more accidents at some time or another, two of which (CAF and OFMC) sadly proved fatal to the pilot..
These 2 weren't landing gear or engine related.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 2697&key=1
Merlin engine, not unique to the 109. If we use logic the problems unique to this plane would be the DB-601 engine or the landing gear. So that's what I meant, "not engine related". The fatal crash in Spain was related to a stall in the pattern, also not unique to a 109.
How about the flip over of the 109F in England?
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:45 pm
How about the flip over of the 109F in England?[/quote]
If you mean "BLACK 6" I believe he was a victim of the notorious "Duxford Bump". If you have been to an airshow at Duxford you know what I mean. At the approach end of the grass runway toward the M-11 is something that can virtually launch the aircraft back into the air if the plane hits it just right. I don't know if they have ever gone out try and smooth it out.
JMC
If you mean "BLACK 6" I believe he was a victim of the notorious "Duxford Bump". If you have been to an airshow at Duxford you know what I mean. At the approach end of the grass runway toward the M-11 is something that can virtually launch the aircraft back into the air if the plane hits it just right. I don't know if they have ever gone out try and smooth it out.
JMC
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanks Eagle:
So the troubles w/ accidents all haven't been due to the 109's uniquness, could've happened to a Spitfire. stalls, bumps in the runway, problems w/ a merlin engine, etc.
So the troubles w/ accidents all haven't been due to the 109's uniquness, could've happened to a Spitfire. stalls, bumps in the runway, problems w/ a merlin engine, etc.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:05 pm
I've been told that the 109's landing gear issues wasn't as big a deal as was perceived.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:00 am
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:
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,
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,