downed Romanian Bf 109 in Czech Republic, downed Romanian Bf 109 in Czech Republic

Goloiu told me about Scordila.
He was from Oltenia,but after the war he couldn't find any job.
He went to Galati where he worked in a bred factory.
He died about 25 years ago.

Wow! Ball bearing control arms? While that may decrease felt control drag, they are difficult to manufacture and risky to maintain.

Very German.

The Czechs built a completely dry engine, though, which was sealed ball bearings throughout. The engine was approximately the cost of a complete airplane of the time.

At what speed a Me-109 was able to take off, assuming the air was still? (i.e. no wind to help the taking off).
I remember that the pressure on the wing of Me-109 was calculated for 142 kg / square meter - quite high for those days before the jet engine era.
The American pilot who wanted to test fly the Me-109 arriving with Bazu Cantacuzino in Italy destroyed the plane during the take off attempt, because the pilot was not accustomed with a Me-109.

What horizontal speed was necessary for a Me-109 to smoothly land and don't break its landing gear?
(BTW: A third of all operational Me-109, from all countries, were damaged and lost at landing or during taking off, and not due to the actual combat.)

Take-off / landing speed was around 150-170km/h, depending on the flap position.

Stall speed was around 170 km/h. In landing configuration (flaps full out) the stall speed was 145 km/h. It seems that using full power one may "hang from the propeller" at 60° nose-up attitude and 130-140 km/h air speed.

Wing loading for 109G6 was 199 kg/m².

I believe that the vertical speed is the one that brakes the landing gear, not the horizontal one. Unless you are pulling out the gear at 650km/h

Check this: Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

This post has been edited by electric on December 29, 2006 08:01 am

The American pilot crashed Bâzu's '109 at take off, not because of the airplane's speed, but rather because of the immense torque the propeller revolution generated, which should have been compensated with proper rudder movement.

BTW, the same side-spinning effect was a general shortcoming not only of the '109, but of any other high-powered single engine aircraft.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 29, 2006 09:50 am

Thank you for answers. They were useful to me, in regard to the problems related to the design of a small size plane.

There were 2 fighter planes in WWII with counter-rotating co-axial propellers, to cancel the side-spinning effect: the better known Dornier Do-335, and a much less known Dutch plane, a Fokker not able to reach 300 miles per hour in spite of its 2 motors. Maybe Sweden also developed a plane with this feature during WWII, but this has to be checked.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 03, 2007 07:17 pm

To C-2:

From the explanation of Mr. Ion Dobran resulting, that when he was flying this day, Adj. Av. Scordilla just belly landing. The eye-witness said that it was happened at the afternoon or at early evening. Does exist Mr. Dobran´sFlugbuch with times of his flights/flight at 7th may 1945?

I just talked with Dobran.
His log book was confiscated by the comunists...
As far as he remembers the flights those days were at about 10-11 am.
He's sure that it is Scordila's plane,since it was the only one lost .

Can you thell me what is that clock looking instrument?

Hi C-2,
That instrument is a dual pressure gauge. It indicates fuel preasure (yellow side) and oil (red side).

German aircraft used colours to identify piping and gauges:
Yellow = fuel
Red Brown = pressurised oil and lubricants. Very often red was used on dials instead.
Green = coolant
Blue = oxygen (with two white stripes = breathing oxygen, with two red stripes = for cocking weapons)
Black = waste gas
Red = safety equipment (fire extingushing, etc) - never used on dials, only piping.
White = deicing - never used on dials, only piping.

There are charts with all colour labels and designations on pages 424 and 425 of "Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings 1935-1945, Volume 2" by K. A. Merrick.

HTH,
Radu

The American pilot crashed Bâzu's '109 at take off, not because of the airplane's speed, but rather because of the immense torque the propeller revolution generated, which should have been compensated with proper rudder movement.

BTW, the same side-spinning effect was a general shortcoming not only of the '109, but of any other high-powered single engine aircraft.

Gen. Dénes

The 109's take off and landing woes weren't confined to it's immense prop torque, (aka gyroscopic precession). It's funky landing gear was to blame, also. Very narrow, and the wheels didn't contact the ground at a 90 degree angle.

Crosswind landings had to be very, very dicey. I'm assuming the pilot in question "ground-looped" the aircraft?

As some reference was made to the problems related to the take-off of a tailwheels airplane, and some of them were not complete and the last one is erroneous, I'd like to say that there are in fact mainly 3 (three) effects at work that can distrurb the aircraft take-off if an improper flying technique is employed.

1. The prop torque effect
2. The P factor effect
3. The gyroscopic effect.

As opposed to a jet aircraft the airflow on a prop airpalne is far from symetrical. Therefore the flight controls have to be employed appropriately, some times even in a crossed mode and also in different mode depending of the aircraft position in reference to its contact with the ground.

Since this is not a forum of flying techniques I am not going to enter into details and possibly upset the moderators with something that may seem to them I'd highjack the thread.

I'll refer shortly though to the 109's apparent problems at take off.

While with all whells on the ground, the a/c is steered with differential braking since at low speeds the control surfaces are not effective. For a tailwheel a/c, once the plane accelerates and the tail starts to "fly", which means is becoming active, the tail is lifted from the ground. While this movement takes place the gyro effect takes place. Meahwhile the power is still increasing or already at MAX and the prop torque is as well at work. The P factor effect is caused by the inherent asymetrical load of the prop. To counter all these, the pilot has to apply control inputs as required. Whta I mentioned until now is specific to any tailwheel a/c in "calssic" onfiguration (no couter rotating props).

What was critical with the 109 was the gradient of power application. If power was applied to sudden a situation could be created when there was not enough authority on the controls to counter the combinded actions of the three effects at work. The a/c didn't have enough speed to have the tail flying and braking and braking momentum due to the narrow gear may have been insufficient. Or maybe with the tail already in the air, the speed was still low (for the amount of power currently developed) and the rudder would not have enough authority. The plane would start curving its trajectory and once started there was no way the situation would be exited without at least a wrinkeld structure.

HTH

Sorin

Well...
First of all when take-off speed was attained, the reason why the tail lifted from the ground was because the main flying surfaces moved from a "tilted back" position to a horizontal position under the influence of the airflow. It was not because the "tail was flying". In fact, until the moment when the main wings right themselves into the airflow, the tailplanes are ineffective because the main wings deflect the airflow right over them.
Secondly, the notorious "tail swing" of the Bf.109 came into play the very second when the wheels were no longer in contact with the ground, not before. The reason is simply because while the wheels were on the ground, the plane could be steered by brakes and stabilised by the suspensions. After the brakes could no longer steer the plane, it was the flight controls that had to be used to correct it. Now, here is where the problems begin... The air pushed back by the propeller does not move in a straight line, but rather it moves in a "spiral fashion" and this tries to spin the whole airframe on its longitudinal axis as well as swing it (a combination of roll and yaw). Because the plane wants to move the tail to the left and the nose to the right the pilot must compensate for that with opposite movement of both rudder (to keep the plane flying straight) as well as aileron (to prevent the plane from corkscrewing). All single-engine planes suffered from this, and airframes were built in such a way as to countract it. The tail of the Bf.109 was offset to the right in order to compensate for this. Italian Macchis had a longer staboard wing.
To experience this tailswing for yourself, take your Il-2 flight simulator, remove all "computer-assisted aids" to simulate all the "real thing" dynamics and try to take off. You will soon see that apart from the tail swing, you will also have to fight the wing dip. You will crash many times.
The Geman flight schools used single egine trainers such as Ar.96 to teach the pilots how to deal with it. Romanians used I.A.R.27 or other single-wing training planes. (Biplanes suffered less from this). All of this is manageable and with some practice, counteracting the tail swing becomes second nature and pilots performed it without even thinking the way you naturally and seamlessly change gears while driving.
HOWEVER, in the case of Romanian pilots there was one other factor to consider. Many pilots leaned to fly solo in the I.A.R.80 in aviation schools. The I.A.R. had a similar tendency to swing its tail and pilots learned how to deal with it until it became second nature. BUT, the engine of the I.A.R. rotated the other way, mening that the effect was opposite to that of the Bf.109, so what was good "second nature" in a I.A.R. was pure "fuel on fire" in a Bf.109. To compound problems, the throtle box on a I.A.R. worked in the exact opposite manner to that of a Bf.109, so whereas "full throttle" meant pulling the lever in an I.A.R., the same meant pushing the lever in a Bf.109. This was changed late in the war and most I.A.R.80 had their throttle boxes modified to match the action of the 109 in order to prepare the pilots - this was started by aviation schools converting pilots to the 109.
This could be a problem for a seasoned I.A.R. pilot who, in a moment of fatigue (such as it happens a lot in war) forgot for a fraction of a secod what plane he was in and unwittingly allowed his I.A.R. "second nature" to act when he was in a Bf.109.
Radu

In Lt. Dobran's War Diary, on 07.05.1945, we can read:

The second Easter day seems to bring peace in Europe. The news, even though not yet reliable, show that admiral Dönitz has unconditionally capitulated on all the Allies. After six years of unprecedented fights, Germany collapses under the crushing superiority of its enemies.
At 0600 hours we take off in a Henschel protection mission, from here at Piestany to Olumut and Prosteev, upstream the Morava river. Could this be the last war scene? Could it be the last AAA barrage we are passing through? Could they be the last Sodoma fires we see down there? In the last mission, Scordila has been shot down. The last bits of his words that could be heard were: "My engine is failing me... I'm gonna belly land it..." then nothing. He was in the enemy area, at Prosteev, at a height of 2000 m, but it could have been possible that he could had had made it into our area. It would be a shame that he gets killed in the last day of the war. I'm confused, as if one of my soul's pillars broke. I think I might be one of the few that spend the end of the war with a mixed feeling of joy and sorrow, not knowing which one weighs more. I feel like being on a ship with no helm, floating at the mercy of the waves! What are we gonna do? What's our heading?

On 08.05.1945, Dobran writes:

[...] Scordila made it back! Hit by the AAA, he had to crash land his plane, but he made it into our area... the plane is ruined completely, but he made it in one piece...[...]

This post has been edited by Beta on February 26, 2012 04:14 pm

Well...
First of all when take-off speed was attained, the reason why the tail lifted from the ground was because the main flying surfaces moved from a "tilted back" position to a horizontal position under the influence of the airflow.


This would be true only if the pilot would fall in sleep while accelerating.

I don't know what you call "the main flying surfaces ". All surfaces are flying... ; "the main flying surfaces" is not a term in use in English nor in Ro. One may talk about "main lifting surface" or "control surfaces". I don't think you meant the former, b/c for an a/c that's the wing ( and the wing does not "tilt" - at least for a classic "fixed wing" a/c). You may have wanted to refer to "control surfaces" and more specific to the elevator. The only reason that the elevator was "tilted back" was b/c the pilot would "tilt it". While it is true that there is dynamic pressure building up on the nose-up deflected elevator, when the same elevator moves to a less deflected position, it is not due to the airflow, it's b/c the pilot eases the back pressure on the stick. And the new position is not neccessarly "horizontal", this depends on a sum of other factors.

Therefore, if we accept that only the pilot keeps the elevator "tilted back" then the elevator goes to " a horizontal position under the influence of the airflow" only if suddenly the mentioned pilot falls in sleep or is somehow in another way incapacitated.



It was not because the "tail was flying".

I disagree. The tail needs to fly to change the a/c attitude. If the pilot would apply full power without putting a lot of back pressure on the stick, the consequence could be damaging. Why? B/c the tail will do exactly the opposite of what your saying. The tail will fly, will go up. I don't know how whatever Flight Sim program works in that respect, I'm telling you what every pilot flying a real a/c knows, you have to keep the stick to your belly, or the tail will fly even before max power.

In fact, until the moment when the main wings right themselves into the airflow, the tailplanes are ineffective because the main wings deflect the airflow right over them.


Wrong, again. The wings don't "right themselves into the airflow".

A taildragger sits on the ground at a high AOA (angle of attack). For a correct (and safe) take off the pilot has to decrease that high AOA. A lower AOA allows the a/c to accelerate faster, but what is more important, the lift off is at a higher speed. Lifting off at a higher speed is safer and potentially avoids the problems associated with a lift off at limit speed. (I also did not understand why "main wing", is there a secondary too?)

I'm not going to argue against the "the tailplanes are ineffective" since above I just explained why this is not true.

Continuing with your message, for most of the ideas, this could go on and on...

I'm really sorry Radu, I'm not going to continue. You got it all wrong; I can recognize in your message some folklore as well. I'll stop here b/c otherwise my message will become too long and again, I don't think a discussion like this is the specific of this forum.

My initial post meant to say only, there are 3 moments at work (previous messages on this thread did not mention all of them) and during the take off, while the controls are effective, in some situations that were caused by bad piloting technique, there was not enough control authority.


HTH

Sorin

This post has been edited by lancer_two_one on March 18, 2012 05:45 am

Salut Sorin,
It seems that this discussion is shifting from "what is right" to "who is right". Bitter experience (on this and other Romanian forums) taught me that such threads will quickly spiral out of control and result in insults and derision (derision seems to have aready started). I have no interest in that.

I could spend a long time explaining to you what I know about the Bf.109 and why, but it will sould like bragging. Maybe others on this forum who know me will bother to tell you. Maybe not. It does not matter, this is small fry.

I will not deconstruct all of your inaccuracies, but I will just take one at random. You said that in order to "raise the tail", the pilot had to "pull the stick towards the belly". Well, if you knew anything about flying, you would know that pulling the stick actually "lifts the nose" and "pushes down the tail". In fact, in order to "raise the tail" the opposite applies. To raise the tail, the pilot had to push the stick forward. But on the Bf.109, during take off, the pilots preferred to gently "tap" the brakes. I could tell you who told me that, but it would sound again like bragging.

If you want to discuss the Bf.109 and what I know about it, you can write to me in private. I have no interest in public duels over semantics or posturing.

Radu