Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:55 am
JDK:
Your analysis is weak and doesn't address the theme of what we've been discussing. What deficiency in the 109 G and Buchon are the causes of the accidents unique to the Me-109 design. You didn't make any conclusion.
Your analysis is weak and doesn't address the theme of what we've been discussing. What deficiency in the 109 G and Buchon are the causes of the accidents unique to the Me-109 design. You didn't make any conclusion.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:55 am
Dear Chris,
Don't claim it, show it. Your information was incorrect, as I've shown by providing accurate data, followed by analysis. I've drawn some conclusions, left everyone to draw their own as they wish.
I thought I was. Both the original post and the inaccurate data on 109 civil flying. Sorry.
The bits I put in the previous post, starting with 'some relevant factors' I'd say.
That would be the last sentence in the previous post. You, and anyone, may draw your own.
A word on my methodology. It's fine to propose a hypothesis, but it needs to be tested by data, not 'supported by' what data you can make fit. Other sources of data and challenged by others enables that hypothesis to be developed, changed, abandoned or replaced as appropriate. It's reasonable for two people to develop different hypotheses on the same concept, even off the same facts - however if one set of data isn't sound, then there's no credit for that hypothesis.
So the issue is if you can show what I've presented - facts, analysis and conclusion is erroneous (as I'd suggest I've shown yours are). Feel free, but initially you might like to get your operational numbers/accidents of Buchons correct, and the right model for the 109 'Black 6' if you want to be credible.
It's a debate, and I'm certainly ready to be corrected and change my understanding, when the data and method is sound. That's how I got to the views above.
Regards,
A2C wrote:Your analysis is weak...
Don't claim it, show it. Your information was incorrect, as I've shown by providing accurate data, followed by analysis. I've drawn some conclusions, left everyone to draw their own as they wish.
and doesn't address the theme of what we've been discussing.
I thought I was. Both the original post and the inaccurate data on 109 civil flying. Sorry.
What deficiency in the 109 G and Buchon are the causes of the accidents unique to the Me-109 design.
The bits I put in the previous post, starting with 'some relevant factors' I'd say.
You didn't make any conclusion.
That would be the last sentence in the previous post. You, and anyone, may draw your own.
A word on my methodology. It's fine to propose a hypothesis, but it needs to be tested by data, not 'supported by' what data you can make fit. Other sources of data and challenged by others enables that hypothesis to be developed, changed, abandoned or replaced as appropriate. It's reasonable for two people to develop different hypotheses on the same concept, even off the same facts - however if one set of data isn't sound, then there's no credit for that hypothesis.
So the issue is if you can show what I've presented - facts, analysis and conclusion is erroneous (as I'd suggest I've shown yours are). Feel free, but initially you might like to get your operational numbers/accidents of Buchons correct, and the right model for the 109 'Black 6' if you want to be credible.
It's a debate, and I'm certainly ready to be corrected and change my understanding, when the data and method is sound. That's how I got to the views above.
Regards,
Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:42 am
bdk wrote:A2C wrote: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.
Not really a "crash" - IIRC there was a brake failure on landing, resulting in the aircraft sliding off the runway and ending up on its belly. Pilot unhurt, but the aircraft has yet to be repaired (I think).
Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:27 am
JDK, of course you are right. That is what I get for relying on my failing memory, rather than looking. My apologies to all.
JMC
JMC
Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:32 am
eagle21 wrote:JDK, of course you are right. That is what I get for relying on my failing memory, rather than looking. My apologies to all.
To be fair, I remembered different, but checked. Thanks to the AAIB, we can get the report online - a boon, IMHO. We all get caught by memory at times!
Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:28 am
DarenC1 wrote:bdk wrote: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.
Not really a "crash" - IIRC there was a brake failure on landing, resulting in the aircraft sliding off the runway and ending up on its belly. Pilot unhurt, but the aircraft has yet to be repaired (I think).
Semantics I guess. It crashed just as bad at Reno back in the day, regardless of what the cause might have been. I consider an "incident" where the wheels end up all on one side of the aircraft (i.e. folded under) a crash. The airplane was immediately out of commission due to the damage and still is 8 years later. If I groundlooped my T-6 and one of the gear collapsed, I would admit to crashing.
The aircraft in question has been slowly under repair for the past couple of years by volunteers. It is back on the gear and the wings are being repaired.
Was there ever an accident report in the UK?
Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:05 pm
What deficiency in the 109 G and Buchon are the causes of the accidents unique to the Me-109 design.
Later generation 109s had more power and heavier engines, making their handing characteristics even more tricky.
Post-war modifications such as the Avia-199 were not well-received by pilots as the even heavier Jumo 211 engine with the He-111 props made handing worse.
Adding more power and more weight to what essentially remained a small and lightweight airframe with twitchy landing gear may have created deficiencies.
Last edited by DoraNineFan on Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:33 pm
bdk wrote:DarenC1 wrote:bdk wrote: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.
Not really a "crash" - IIRC there was a brake failure on landing, resulting in the aircraft sliding off the runway and ending up on its belly. Pilot unhurt, but the aircraft has yet to be repaired (I think).
Semantics I guess. It crashed just as bad at Reno back in the day, regardless of what the cause might have been. I consider an "incident" where the wheels end up all on one side of the aircraft (i.e. folded under) a crash. The airplane was immediately out of commission due to the damage and still is 8 years later. If I groundlooped my T-6 and one of the gear collapsed, I would admit to crashing.
The aircraft in question has been slowly under repair for the past couple of years by volunteers. It is back on the gear and the wings are being repaired.
Was there ever an accident report in the UK?
Fair enough.
I'm glad the Buchon is under repair now, though. I really liked that colour scheme - guess she won't be wearing it following the repairs!
Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:28 pm
DoraNineFan, that kind of ties in with what I was saying earlier. Two thoughts arise though; I don't think anyone's operated a S or CS-199 in civilian hands as yet (nor likely, I'd guess) and I'd assume the bigger more paddle blade props from the 109F onwards would provide more challenges than the more conventional toothpick props of the 109 up to the E.
I don't believe so. I think as it was a US aircraft operated and flown by a US organisation and pilot, the CAA / AAIB weren't interested - I may be wrong.
Thanks for the updatate! Good luck to them.
bdk wrote:The aircraft in question has been slowly under repair for the past couple of years by volunteers. It is back on the gear and the wings are being repaired.
Was there ever an accident report in the UK?
I don't believe so. I think as it was a US aircraft operated and flown by a US organisation and pilot, the CAA / AAIB weren't interested - I may be wrong.
Thanks for the updatate! Good luck to them.