BF 109 Crash lands in Denmark

DieselPowered

Shame to see an aircraft like this go down at an airshow.

Click here for more details

Quaderno

DieselPowered wrote: »

Shame to see an aircraft like this go down at an airshow.

Click here for more details

This very plane is owned by EADS Heritage Flight and crashlanded several times before, namely in 1968, 1986 and lastly in July 2005. The german pilot was not (seriously) hurt at that time, but I would have considered the frame a writeoff. Still, she flew again. But will they go though all that hassle another time? This is btw not a genuine example of a Me 109, it's a replica converted from a 1950 spanish built Hispano HA1112, more information in German can be found here: http://www.heinzaero.com/index.php?id=35.

Some pictures from the 2005 crash (more here: http://www.me-air-company.de/bildergalerie.html)

http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_gross/031.jpg
http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_max/005.jpg
http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_max/006.jpg

shedweller

He did well to put her down safely given the short time he had. Sad to see planes like these damaged but at least this one sustained minor damage.
I do have mixed feelings about flying these old birds though.

Wibbs

Looks minor enough, so hopefully back in the air soon enough. Some good flying involved by the pilot. Those yokes are a near flight safety hazard in metal. The number of luftwaffe pilots killed in take off and landing in them was extremely high. I seem to recall on one day in the Battle of Britain take off and landing crashes put more men and machines out of action than the RAF did. I was lucky enough to sit in one many years ago(another Spanish built Buchon, still with it's merlin(?)) and even though the canopy was open and I was in my early teens so smaller, the overwhelming feeling was oppressive claustrophobia. IMH the guys who flew them in war deserved an iron cross for just taking off.

As for flying warbirds, I reckon it's a very good thing and the more the merrier, particularly with the models that were produced in the higher numbers like this type(IIRC there are near 20 airworthy ones and near that again under restoration). There are enough of them on static display in museums and collections, so complete airframe losses are less of an issue(so long as pilots are safe). I'd have much more of a concern with rarer, even one type remaining airframes, like the flying DH Mosquito as an example. I love that there's one still up there chasing clouds, but if it was lost for any reason the loss would be much more keenly felt. Lancasters would be another I'd worry about. Not too many of those old girls left.




I'm just waiting for my euromillions numbers to come up, so I can hotfoot it to the museum in the states whose name escapes and get that JU87 B they have and get her back up and running. (a rumour is about that they want 6 mill for her. Cheap at half the price) Man I'd love to see a Bertha up in the air again. I do have a tailwheel and a few instruments from one so... Slowly slowly catchee monkey.

Immelman

Did very well considering height, saw it fly last year beautiful aircraft. Hopefully they will have her back in the air shortly.
http://youtu.be/sTs7G9teJ-M

keroseneboy

Cause of crash seems to be engine failure

DieselPowered

Some coverage of the recovery.

shedweller

DieselPowered wrote: »

Some coverage of the recovery.

Looking at that mangled prop made me wince. Its great the pilot is ok but looking at that fine old bird there all messed up is just a little upsetting.

funt cucker

I never realised that the props we made of wood, would of thought they were steel:eek:

shedweller

funt cucker wrote: »

I never realised that the props we made of wood, would of thought they were steel:eek:

Many planes of the era had alloy props afaik. Perhaps the shortages the Germans experienced made them resort to wooden props?

funt cucker

shedweller wrote: »

Many planes of the era had alloy props afaik. Perhaps the shortages the Germans experienced made them resort to wooden props?

I would have thought wooden props would rip apart with acceleration, pressure etc..

Wibbs

Quite the number of aircraft back then had wooden props. From memory the Focke Wolfe 190 also had wooden props and that was a very high performance aircraft of the time. The Ju 87/88 and a couple of others had wooden props too. Early Spitfires and Hurricanes the same. Laminated wood is very strong. Think of it like nature's own carbon fibre. Hell most of the airframe of the Mosquito fighter bomber is laminated wood and it was a very high performance aircraft. Plus wood was easier to work, easier to source and cheaper and was well able for most internal combustion engined aircraft of that time.

Stovepipe

Wooden prop blades were used to save strategic supplies of aluminium and steel and were perfectly fine. they also had the added advantage that the destruction of the prop blades on a forced landing did not twist or other wise damage the propeller shaft and reduction gearbox at the front of the engine. In wartime, it was common for the shaft to be checked by the mechanics and if no error was found, then a new prop was fitted and the engine run. If the engine passed the test, the aircraft was returned to service once the belly damage was repaired. Aircraft manufacturers used to supply kits of extra panels and props to the front line to ensure a speedy return to service. In this case, there's no urgency but the result will be the same. The propeller hub will have new blades fitted and will be stored for later use.

regards
Stovepipe