Warbird Information Exchange

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.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

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,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

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).

_________________
Cheers

Daz

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

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!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

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?

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.

_________________
"They done it, they done it, damned if they ain't flew." December 17, 1903

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!

_________________
Cheers

Daz

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.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com