Take Off in the Bf 109K-4

[Lizzard]

Should I click "simulation" or "game" on the Gameplay drop down.

Thanks again Mate

 

"Simulation" of course...:)

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

It helps to set the prop pitch in manual mode, but at the same time it can be dangerous because as soon as you get airborne you should promptly revert to auto mode, and when busy, pilots tend to Forget about that - engine seizure is the result, most of the time...

 

So, I have adapted to use the prop pitch in Auto for all phases of flight, and I am doing acceptably that way :)

 

For takeoff try to:

 

0) Decide if you're using flaps. You can always deflect them a bit, and also set your pitch trim full nose heavy ( Reading 2 );

 

1) align with the rw, rol for a while and then lock the tailwheel to make sure it is straight;

 

2) Make sure the MW-50 power switch is set to OFF. It defaults to ON. OFF is to the right, if I'm not wrong...

 

3) Deflect your rudder fully right, and pull your stick back a bit ( not fully back! ) and full right;

 

4) Smoothly, but promptly, advance the throttle to full power, and as you start gaining speed ease the stick and set it to neutral ( in pitch ) and then a bit forward to help the tailwheel raise. Keep it to the right as much as required. During the takeoff roll don't think about therory that much, but instead, input stick and rudder to keeps as straight as possible, and with your wings level...

 

5) You will notice a tendency of the nose to want to pitch up "agressively" as soon as you get airborne. Be prepared to push your stick further, to help keeping that nose not to high...

 

6) When stable and climbing, retract the gear, then, as teh horn starts, retract the flaps...

 

Landing will be the new challenge as soon as you get airborne :-)

 

I keep thinking about those ww2 newbie pilots entering a Me109 for the first solo flight.... Poor fellows :-/

[Pratt]

Thank you guys for your advises, I have done 3 T/O and landings, not something you would be impressed with but as you said , practice and observing will make it happen. I flown helicopters all my life and I used my arse as a bank indicator; the problem with simulators is that you cannot feel the aircraft. So I shall look at my instruments from now on.

Thank you very much and all the best Lizzard and Foreigner. Give me sometime and I shall meet you in the air.

Best Regards

Pratt

[Pratt]

jicomm, thank you to you too Mate.

[Yo-Yo]

Thank you guys for your advises, I have done 3 T/O and landings, not something you would be impressed with but as you said , practice and observing will make it happen. I flown helicopters all my life and I used my arse as a bank indicator; the problem with simulators is that you cannot feel the aircraft. So I shall look at my instruments from now on.

Thank you very much and all the best Lizzard and Foreigner. Give me sometime and I shall meet you in the air.

Best Regards

Pratt

 

You are absolutely right about your acceleration feeling, but the best way is not to use instruments in visual flight but learn to use visual info - use clouds for the first step then you can use ground from left and right.

[Derbysieger]

2) Make sure the MW-50 power switch is set to OFF. It defaults to ON. OFF is to the right, if I'm not wrong...

 

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Just watch the MW-50 pressure gauge. With the MW-50 switch to the left it won't show any pressure with full throttle, switch it to the right and you will see the needle jump (at full throttle). If you do a ramp start it will be off.

[Pman]

My technique is slightly different.

 

1) Line up with the runway

 

2) let the aircraft roll forwards before stopping

 

3) lock tail wheel

 

4) set RPM to 12o'clock position manually

 

5) cowling flaps fully open

 

6) full nose heavy trim

 

7) slowly power up to 1.2 ata

 

8) adjust heading using toe brakes to maintain straight travel down the runway

 

9) as the tail raises apply right rudder to counter yaw at increasing speed

 

10) be ready to apply some forward stick pressure when you get in the air to counter the aircraft tendency to climb.

[Pratt]

jcomm, I have done what you said and my T/O has improved. I have no trouble with my landings, as long I commit to a heading and 10 degrees nose up at 150 speed the touch down is smooth after a flare and I believe I have done a 3 points landing, I shall watch the track to make sure, it felt that way. I had trouble to slow the aircraft on the second landing so I decided to do a loop at the end of which I found myself too low and landed short of rw. This is back to flying school for me.

Cheers Mate

[Pratt]

Thank you Yo-Yo, Derbysieger and Pman, I noted every words from you and shall apply these technics tomorrow. This is overwhelming, all that help. Thank you to all of you. Good way to make friends for sure.

Good Night

Pratt

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Pretty much what I came across when I started using DCS 's P51d (actually my entry aircraft into this remarkable sim! )

 

Great to know your progressing in the good way Pratt!!! You'll soon master it ;-)

[Pratt]

Does anyone know how many souls have been lost trying to take her off the ground from an historical point of view? I mean real life?

Pman your technique works for me, I still have to compensate heavily against that L/H bank, as I left few aircraft bits behind.

Cheers

Pratt

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

well, there are claims that more 109 pilots lost their lifes during take offs and landings than during air combat...whether this is true or not i dont know.

[shagrat]

Documents indicate about 10% , most in the later years of the war, due to lack of proper training...

[shagrat]

Does anyone know how many percentage were shot down?

[MiloMorai]

well, there are claims that more 109 pilots lost their lifes during take offs and landings than during air combat...whether this is true or not i dont know.

 

Old wives tail that won't die. There was about 1500 fatal crashes some of which could be because the pilot or a/c had been hurt/damaged in combat.

 

These are just the Continental US fatal accidents:

P-39 - 369

P-40 - 324

P-47 - 404

P-51 - 131

[shagrat]

First, we talk about the Bf-109 only. Second, the 1500 occured between 1939 and 1941, yet there were another couple of years in that war.

Allegedly the later years saw lots of poorly trained pilots with no experience on anything but a glider tossed into a fighter cockpit. So, the at least 10% loss on take off and landings, seem more than reasonable, considering the handling characteristics during take off and landing.

 

I would like to get a figure on the Bf-109 losses in combat, though, as I doubt they actually lost more planes in T/O and landing accidents than actual combat over the course of the war.

Maybe in the later years of the war compared to the accidents, as much better allied planes were introduced that could compare to the 109 and especially the US and UK air forces had more experienced pilots, then.

[Yob]

Will post a video on Youtube in the next few days about takeoff.

[Pratt]

This is mind blowing!!! Poor buggers. Does anyone has a recorded history in a DCS section so we could look back and feel the aircraft on a different level, since we are not allowed yet to feel her physically?

She is a bitch to lift off the ground but once free of obstacles, she tends to grow on you, and you always get back to it after so many crashes(talking for myself here). There is something about this aircraft that you cannot ignore....character!!

Developers have done a magnificent job there. I shall have a beer to you guys.

[arthuro12]

Documents indicate about 10% , most in the later years of the war, due to lack of proper training...

 

 

Reading a book about Bodenplatte by John Manrho, almost every group lost atleast one or two pilots on landing or take off.

 

Pictures of some pilots really show how young some of them where.

[Kurfürst]

I would like to get a figure on the Bf-109 losses in combat, though, as I doubt they actually lost more planes in T/O and landing accidents than actual combat over the course of the war.

Maybe in the later years of the war compared to the accidents, as much better allied planes were introduced that could compare to the 109 and especially the US and UK air forces had more experienced pilots, then.

 

Out of the top of my head, I recall I have compliled about 7000 Bf 109 enemy related losses and about 7000 non-enemy related losses for 109s at fighter units between April 1942 - Dec 1944. Fw 190 numbers were similar ratio btw. This of course involves all causes both categories - shot down by fighters or bombed on the airfield, as well as the ones lost in take off or landing, or in taxying, random engine trouble in flight, birdstrike etc. etc.

 

There is nothing extraordinary about that, most airforce statistics I have seen have non-combat loss causes being responsible for anywhere between 25-50% of all losses. I would say the main cause is found not as much in the aircraft but the operating conditions - for example eventless patrol flights from well established airfield will strain the planes and pilots much less then months of heavy fighting from an rudimentary airfield.

 

And of course for the last years of the war there is always the "so you did nice in a glider, lets try combat flying in a 2000 HP taildragger - here is the manual, read it before the morning sortie"-factor.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Kurfürst

[snuffles]

talking about AIM-120 in t-minus...

[Yob]

talking about AIM-120 in t-minus...

 

What???????????

 

Sorry but i dont understand either your spamming or i dont get what u mean.

[shagrat]

Thanks for the input. I thought as much.

It is obvious the 109 is more difficult on the ground and on T/O and landings, but the "more pilots lost to T/O and landing" as to combat seems exxagerated.

Given the circumstances of a war (untrained) pilots we may have "more" losses to these accidents compared to other planes, but even then not much more...

Yet she needs lots of attention on the ground, for sure.

Once airborne and above 250kph she shines!

A bit careful with hasty throttle inputs, especially in a dive, and she's flying awesome!

 

...now, if I wouldn't totally suck at dogfighting, I could one day be a "deadly" scourge of the skies :D

[snuffles]

no, just the thread seems departed from the topic of takeoff, in the '109.

[shagrat]

How? One of the "myths" about TAKE OFF is the "more pilots died on..." argument. Bottom line: if you do it right and train a bit, 109 is not much more difficult than the Fw-190 for example.