# Me 110 today?



## Amsel (May 20, 2009)

Are there any Me 110's out there today? If so are any flyable?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 20, 2009)

Flying - I don't think so. I believe there are only 2 or 3 on static display. One in England, one in Germany or Austria. If there is a 3rd, I'm not sure where.


----------



## Amsel (May 20, 2009)

It's great that there are a couple saved for posterity, but I wish I could find a modern video of a engine start or better yet flying.


----------



## Maximowitz (May 20, 2009)

Bf110 G-2 At RAF Hendon


----------



## comiso90 (May 20, 2009)

Amsel said:


> It's great that there are a couple saved for posterity, but I wish I could find a modern video of a engine start or better yet flying.



For my dime.. Engine start yes... flying no!

I believe that it's selfish and irresponsible to fly aircraft when there are less than 5 in existence. The historical significance of these beasts are far more important than displays on the airshow circuit!

"But they were meant to fly... they are living history." yeah great... go see a P-51, B-25, B-17 or other warbird fly that has healthy numbers. The rare ones should be grounded. 

They are historical artifacts that should be preserved. They did their duty. let the rare ones retire so our descendants can appreciate them (P-26, Helldiver).

Being grounded is no guarantee for survival... air museums are subject to fire and natural disasters.... like San Diego 1978


.


----------



## imalko (May 20, 2009)

I too would like to see airworthy Bf 110, but I don't know if it will happen... Maybe someday someone will manufacture airworthy replika of Bf 110, like this new Me 262's and Fw 190A/N.

Anyway here's some more pictures of one preserved Bf 110 night fighter at Hendon:


----------



## Thorlifter (May 20, 2009)

Bump what Comiso said.


----------



## Amsel (May 20, 2009)

Great pictures.


----------



## Amsel (May 20, 2009)

Just found this walkaround.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtXpqYeHHc_


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2009)

I totally agree with Cosimo. There was a vid posted a little while ago of a B-17 landing that made me cringe. I don't want to get into that debate about what happened but the rarity of it and to see what was done sends my blood pressure up. And of course there is Michael Crichton and Chaos Theory.

The 110 is nice but if someone was to re-manufacture a twin like the 262s they're doing, I would rather see a 410.


----------



## Amsel (May 20, 2009)

Njaco said:


> I totally agree with Cosimo. There was a vid posted a little while ago of a B-17 landing that made me cringe. I don't want to get into that debate about what happened but the rarity of it and to see what was done sends my blood pressure up. And of course there is Michael Crichton and Chaos Theory.
> 
> The 110 is nice but if someone was to re-manufacture a twin like the 262s they're doing, I would rather see a 410.


I like the 410 as well, but the 110 was more prevalent. No comment on the flying of rare aircraft.


----------



## imalko (May 20, 2009)

I agree with you guys. The rare warbirds should be preserved at any cost. I would rather see static Bf 110 or some other rare twin then non at all.

Take Bf 109G "Black 6" in UK for example. When it crasched my blood presure sure went up (despite my young age ) since it was only airworthy Bf 109 back in the 90s. I'm happy they were able to restore it so people can still see this beautifull bird...

By the way what happened with airworthy Bf 109G-10 "Black 2" and Bf 109G-2 "Red 7". I know that some time ago "Black 2" had minor landing acident. Is she flying again? And "Red 7" had also crashed but I haven't heard if she's going to be restored?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2009)

Check out this web page. It has everything you need to know about surviving aircraft.

Preserved Axis Aircraft

As for the Bf 110, here is a list of all surviving Bf 110's. Only are only 2 complete aircraft however that are on display. One in England and one in Germany. The one in England I can get some pictures of in a few weeks. There is also one more in Germany that is being restored and one in Italy that is in storage and will be restored soon.

*England*
Bf 110C Werk Nr. 3115 (only wreckage)
Bf 110G-4/R-6 (Restored for display)
Photo: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Bf110G4RAFM.jpg
Photo 2: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/BF 110G RAFM cockpit.jpg

*Germany*
Bf 110D-0 Werk Nr. 3154 (only wreckage) 
Photo: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Bf110Speyer.jpg
Bf 110C-4 Werk Nr. 3235 (Wreckage to be restored to display)
Bf 110E-2 Werk Nr. 4502 (Wreckage Only)
Photo: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Bf110E2M8ZE.jpg
Bf 110F-2 Werk Nr. 5052 (Restored for Display)
Photo: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Bf110F2LNER.jpg
Photo 2: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Me110_5052.jpg

*Italy*
Bf 110C-4 Werk Nr. 3577 (Wreckage only but is to be restored) 

*Russia*
Bf 110F-2/Trop Werk Nr. 5020 (only tail section)
Photo: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/BF 110 Moscow_1.jpg
Photo 2: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Bf 110 Moscow_2.jpg

*Finland*
Bf 110F-2 Werk Nr. 5048 (Wreckage Only)

*Norway*
Bf 110F-2 Werk Nr. ?? (Wreckage Only)
Photo: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Bf 110 Sola.jpg
Photo 2: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/Bf 110 Sola_2.JPG


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2009)

I'm surprised there aren't more 'G' models.


----------



## Amsel (May 20, 2009)

Thanks Adler! Very useful information. I am looking for a group or aircraft to devote time and money into to keep running and it seems that the Me110 is not a likely candidate. I also have some friends that are studying the Me110 and this should be great help.


----------



## Maximowitz (May 20, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I am looking for a group or aircraft to devote time and money into to keep running and it seems that the Me110 is not a likely candidate.



How about Me410 A-1
F6+WK 2(F)/122
NASM, Paul Garber Collection?

Looks like it could do with some dollars and love spent on it!


----------



## Negative Creep (May 20, 2009)

I was at the RAF museum the other week but at the moment the hall that the 110 is in is closed. Shame!


----------



## Amsel (May 20, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> How about Me410 A-1
> F6+WK 2(F)/122
> NASM, Paul Garber Collection?
> 
> Looks like it could do with some dollars and love spent on it!


Thank you sir, I will look into it. There are a bunch of great American crates to support but an obvious shortage in German aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2009)

Negative Creep said:


> I was at the RAF museum the other week but at the moment the hall that the 110 is in is closed. Shame!



Did they say how long it will be closed? I will be there in a few weeks.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 20, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Did they say how long it will be closed? I will be there in a few weeks.



Not that I noticed. All the other halls are open though so there's still plenty to see and it's free entry (posted my pictures in the Displays section)


----------



## Gnomey (May 21, 2009)

Got some pictures of the one in Hendon back in 2006. They aren't great as they were taken on my old camera (point and shoot) and the hall is dark. You'll have to sift through the rest of the photos from Hendon, IWM and HMS Belfast but they are there somewhere (too lazy to link them).

London: RAF Museum, Hendon, IWM and HMS Belfast (2006) - a set on Flickr

Would be nice to a fully restored and capable flying one from the series (110/210/410) but as along as there as some still around that could be ground run at the least then it is fitting. The risk of flying them is sometimes just got be accepted as too great.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2009)

Seriously, if you any of you guys actually owned an ME-110 that flew, you would not fly it?

I'd be flying the hell out of it!!!!!


----------



## Messy1 (May 21, 2009)

I can see both sides of the argument. Growing up around old cars, you hear the same debate. When is a car too rare to drive? It seems sad for a old warbird to sit, but it would also be a huge loss for a ware bird to crash and be destroyed. I do agree that the extremely rare ones serve a much greater purpose by sitting on display, and educating the next generations as to what happened and to pass that knowledge on. Passing on that knowledge, and never forgetting is the most important thing IMO.


----------



## comiso90 (May 21, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I'd be flying the hell out of it!!!!!



Then you give your needs priority over every other human being alive today or that will ever live that would like to see an intact BF-110.

wow... not much to say...


----------



## Airframes (May 21, 2009)

Chris, re the RAF Museum. Far as I know, the hall is being restructured, and I believe is due to re-open in time for the main summer season. A quick check on their web-site, nearer the date of your visit to London, might give more info. In the meantime, if I find out anything else, I'll let you know.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Then you give your needs priority over every other human being alive today or that will ever live that would like to see an intact BF-110.
> 
> wow... not much to say...




I suspect more people would see it if it was flying around to different places then would see it sitting in a single museum. Why have any old warplane fly then.


----------



## imalko (May 21, 2009)

I'm all for restoring warbirds to flying condition and display them on air shows in order to as much people possible could see them, but the point is if you fly it - you risk loosing it. Accidents do happen. If there's only one or two preserved examples of aircraft in question, then isn't the safer course of action to keep it on static display.

If there was only one preserved example of Spitfire in entire world, would you fly it or keep it safe on the groud?


----------



## Negative Creep (May 21, 2009)

It's a tough one. No matter what you do with a warbird it will be at risk; put it on display and the roof could collapse, the building could burn down, it could be vandalised etc etc. I think it is a bit different from old cars in that pottering around in a classic car at 20mph is unlikely to cause any major damage whereas if the engine in a plane cuts out mid flight then that's pretty much it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2009)

Airframes said:


> Chris, re the RAF Museum. Far as I know, the hall is being restructured, and I believe is due to re-open in time for the main summer season. A quick check on their web-site, nearer the date of your visit to London, might give more info. In the meantime, if I find out anything else, I'll let you know.



Yes I just saw that. It will not be open while I am there! Damn!!!!


----------



## Airframes (May 24, 2009)

Aw! What a darn shame! Well, you can still see the rest, and there's always the Imperial War Museum, Lambeth, London, and the Science Museum, Kensington. Not that much in the way of aviation exhibits at the latter, compared to dedicated air museums, but they do have a Hurricane Mk 1 and Spitfire Mk1, both veterans of the Bob and, AFAIK, still in their original paint finish.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2009)

Oh it will still be worth going to. It will just be a bit annoying!


----------



## GrauGeist (May 24, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I suspect more people would see it if it was flying around to different places then would see it sitting in a single museum. Why have any old warplane fly then.


Just a comment here, but the world's last surviving complete Zero was on static display in Southern California and plenty of people have gotten to see it and in more ways than one. It has provided people the ability to not only see what a 100% original looks like, but restoration experts have used it as a "template" to restore rebuild other aircraft like it.

I can see the need to show the people what these machines were like, and the only good way to do that is by going on tour and show the people what it can do. On the other hand, only seeing it in a museum is a heck of alot better than only being able to remember what it looked like before it crashed.

Just imagine if they had restored the world's only Ho229 at the NASM years ago, with all of it's original parts, only to have it crash it during an airshow. We wouldn't be able to do any modern research on it today and as it fades from living memory, all we'd have is notes and photos of what it _was_...

Once thier numbers (and thier parts) fall below a critical level, they should be retired from thier long service and preserved.


----------



## Njaco (May 24, 2009)

Just watched a docu on PBS called "Red Tail Reborn" about the P-51C that was restored by the CAF only to crash 3 years after first flight. As much as I want to see a rare bird fly, I also don't want something like that to happen as the pilot, Don Hinz was killed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Just a comment here, but the world's last surviving complete Zero was on static display in Southern California and plenty of people have gotten to see it and in more ways than one.



That is not true. There are quite a few surviving Zeros that are complete with original parts. The Planes of Fame Zero is or was the only fully complete one that was still flying however.


----------



## Micdrow (May 25, 2009)

Check this link out

Featured Museum Aircraft - Planes of Fame Air Museum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2009)

Exactly, the only complete flyable Zero. Great link as well.


----------



## Micdrow (May 25, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly, the only complete flyable Zero. Great link as well.



Actually if I remeber right a couple of years ago there where two complete zeros flying. The other one was a A6M3 but has since been grounded due to corrision in the main wing spar. So it was sold and is now on display at the Pearl Harbor musuem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2009)

That I was not aware of. I would love to see a flying Zero though. I have only seen static displays.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 25, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Seriously, if you any of you guys actually owned an ME-110 that flew, you would not fly it?
> 
> I'd be flying the hell out of it!!!!!



If you had the money to own a REAL '110 (guess that it wouldn't the only bird in the collection), I guess that you'd have the money to build a new 100% replica to fly instead....I would!


----------



## Amsel (May 25, 2009)

If I ever become a multi-millionaire, you can bet I would buy a reproduction 190 or 110.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 25, 2009)

Would start off with a Dora-9 I think, with the correct engine!


----------



## Micdrow (May 25, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That I was not aware of. I would love to see a flying Zero though. I have only seen static displays.



I beleive the A6M3 had a pratt whitney engine due to rariety of parts for its normal engine but the rest of the aircraft I beleive is orginal but could be wrong. Going by memory.


----------



## MRC_Hans (Mar 18, 2017)

There is also a BF110 in Denmark. It is in a private collection, but they show it to groups. Night-fighter version, complete, but not airworthy.

I agree with the sentiment that very rare planes should not be flown. The risk of loosing them is too great, and indeed several rare vintage birds have been lost to accidents over time. It is a little different with automobiles, since, if driven with care, accidents are rarely catastrophic.

MRC_Hans

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2017)

MRC_Hans said:


> There is also a BF110 in Denmark. It is in a private collection, but they show it to groups. Night-fighter version, complete, but not airworthy.
> 
> I agree with the sentiment that very rare planes should not be flown. The risk of loosing them is too great, and indeed several rare vintage birds have been lost to accidents over time. It is a little different with automobiles, since, if driven with care, accidents are rarely catastrophic.
> 
> ...



Are you sure that is not a reproduction?

As far as I know there are only two intact complete Bf 110's on display. One in London, one in Berlin.


----------



## MRC_Hans (Mar 18, 2017)

Yes, I'm sure. I have touched it. Actually stood on the wing and taken pictures into the cockpit. Their website is here: GillelejeGruppen.dk
It is, unfortunately, in Danish.

Apparently, it has been pieced together from several planes.

Hans


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 18, 2017)

Translated from the site:

Messerschmitt Bf 110 was a two-engine fighter fly, which was designed by Willy Messerschmitt and constructed as a heavy fighter-bomber in 1937. It was used by Air waffe during WW2 and was involved in the "Battle of Britain".
Bf 110'ern had a longer range than the single-engine Messerschmitt Bf 109, and therefore had to escort bompeflyene. During the battle, it turned out, however, that Bf 110'ern was easy to outmaneuver in air combat - it could not defend against the British fighters as Spitfire and Hurricane, because it was too clumsy and heavy. It therefore had even escorted by Bf 109th
Bf 110 was first produced as a daytime flights. There was no engine instruments in the cockpit, but was instead mounted directly on motornacellerne, and could be read by the pilot through the small windows.
In 1942 came Bf 110'ern of production. In 1944, however in Germany badly needed night fighters, and we tried several different types of aircraft. It got so the idea to try Bf 110 equipped with airborne radar. It turned out that the plane was very suitable for this role, why it started production again. The plane was now one three-man crew consisting of a pilot, radar and radio operator and tail gunner.
It produced aircraft until the end of the war. There were a total of 6,150 manufactured articles of the type Bf 110 - most versions included.
We have even labeled the Bf 110'ern in Denmark during the occupation. Nine of its kind destroyed the newest Fokker D.xxi in Værløse camp d. 09th April 1940. The attack by Bf 110'erne was done very disciplined. We unfortunately lost two Danish pilots whose plane was shot down during startup, but otherwise was neither personnel or hangars damaged.
There are only three Messerschmitt Bf 110 G4 night fighter over the world - one is our complete aircraft - the other two are in Germany and England.
The reconstruction of the plane was the start of our Knowledge 40-45, and the plane is today that our great pride and assembly gem. We have managed to get hold of many original parts for aircraft including a wing with bullet holes from the war.
It has been a long process to rebuild the aircraft from a cockpit of a full flight. The reconstruction has taken more than 10 years, but it has been all worth the effort! Besides the aircraft now stands completely full as our pride, so has worked with the plane also brought much joy with them - that have been fostered some good and life-long friendships crisscross of age.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2017)

Intersting. I had not heard of this one.

I myself would consider it real, but from what I get (reading about it on the internet now) it is still considered a replica since it was made from so many different aircraft parts, and extensive new built structures. For instance only one wing is original from what I get. That is why they say there are only two original 110's left, and consider this a replica.

Still very very nice.


----------



## Old Wizard (Mar 18, 2017)




----------



## Milosh (Mar 18, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Intersting. I had not heard of this one.
> 
> I myself would consider it real, but from what I get (reading about it on the internet now) it is still considered a replica since it was made from so many different aircraft parts, and extensive new built structures. For instance only one wing is original from what I get. That is why they say there are only two original 110's left, and consider this a replica.
> 
> Still very very nice.



But many WW2 airplanes were rebuilt from other airplanes during the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2017)

Milosh said:


> But many WW2 airplanes were rebuilt from other airplanes during the war.



I'm not disagreeing with you. Just trying to think of a reason why they don't count it among the original restored 110's. It is not listed under any registry.

I wonder if there is a general rule or something that states a certain percentage has to be original or something.


----------



## GregP (Mar 19, 2017)

You all know where I stand on flying warbirds.

If I own it, I will fly it whether or not anyone else likes it, assuming it is airworthy. 

If you own it, you can do what you want with it, inclluding grinding it up for scrap, preserving it for posterity, or gold-plating it and displaying it in your living room. The owner gets to decide. Most guys like me would fly it, and pass it on to the next generation to fly. And I stipulate taht the plane would only be sold to people who would fly it and maintain it as flyable going forward. Failed to do so woudl see ownership revert to a flying museum.

So, if the preservationists get the planes, OK. If they don't, then future generations get to see them fly. Enturely up to the owners.


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 19, 2017)

DerAdler,

The P-61 that's getting rebuilt and quite a few others I have seen are what appears to be almost a complete "reproduction" yet they are considered the "real McCoy". The Bf-110 might have been built to look like the real thing, but internally it's just a shell, where as the planes that fly are correct structurally as well as in appearance. I do not know either way, just thinking out loud.

I have a 66 Mustang GT, and one of the forums I go on has had some huge discussions about what is considered authentic or numbers matching versus what isn't. Re-bodied cars, owners stamping the VIN into the block vice the factory, date codes, etc.? It seems to be two different standards with aviation being the far larger "tolerance" of the two.

As far as flying a rare plane, I'm in the owner gets to decide camp. They bought it and as such get to decide in my opine. Yes, it might be the last of it's kind, 1 of 2 made, flown by all the top aces back in the day, was used to shoot down Eric Hartmann twice and Marseille once, however the decision to fly or not to fly still resides with the owner. If I were the owner, I would make sure it was in absolutely great flying condition, that I was trained / prepared to fly it, and the weather or field conditions were all way into the safe zone prior to powering up for take off, and what I asked the plane to do would be well with in it's limits.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MRC_Hans (Mar 19, 2017)

It might have more to do with Gillelejegruppen not being an official museum. AFAIK, their '110 is reasonably complete. And more importantly, all parts are genuine WW2 parts.

As for "owner gets to decide", well of course. That is not the discussion. The discussion is wether ir is _reasonable_. Another point is that to make such an old plane flyable, you will need to replace a lot of parts. In effect, it often ends up with only some 20% being from the original aircraft.

Anyway, the cost of restoring a 70* year old warbird, especially a rare one where little or no spares are available, to flyable condition is quickly getting so high that the problem is getting marginal.

Hans

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2017)

It is tragic that in the dog days of the war no one saw fit to ensure some things were preserved. The imperial War Museum was started in 1917 when WW1 was still ongoing, but nothing similar was done in WW2. Maybe there were just so many aircraft no one ever thought that a situation would come where there were no examples of really iconic aircraft left to preserve. Even the Enola Gay, which was slated to be preserved ended up stored outside and stripped by trophy hunters and so is a sort of re built replica itself. What a person does with his own property is obviously his own affair, however none were originally anyones property, iconic aircraft flown by aces or on major missions should have been preserved for static display, but werent. The aircraft that remain flying are in the main replicas, much was made of a Spitfire recovered from Dunkirk being restored and put back in the air, does anyone really believe it is not a new plane with the old frame number.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> DerAdler,
> 
> The P-61 that's getting rebuilt and quite a few others I have seen are what appears to be almost a complete "reproduction" yet they are considered the "real McCoy". The Bf-110 might have been built to look like the real thing, but internally it's just a shell, where as the planes that fly are correct structurally as well as in appearance. I do not know either way, just thinking out loud.
> 
> ...



Thats kind of what I am getting at. From what I am reading on the internet is that it a "shell". A replica made by new building parts, and including original parts as well. For instance, one wing is an original. The other is new built. The aircraft is made to look complete, but is not a restoration of an original aircraft.

There are only two restored original 110's. One in England, one in Germany.

Either way this Danish one is nicely done, and beautiful to look at.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2017)

MRC_Hans said:


> It might have more to do with Gillelejegruppen not being an official museum. AFAIK, their '110 is reasonably complete. And more importantly, all parts are genuine WW2 parts.
> 
> As for "owner gets to decide", well of course. That is not the discussion. The discussion is wether ir is _reasonable_. Another point is that to make such an old plane flyable, you will need to replace a lot of parts. In effect, it often ends up with only some 20% being from the original aircraft.
> 
> ...



I think it's more that it is a replica. A very well done one. Just like the replica 190 in Sinsheim. You can't tell it is a replica, and has original parts in it, but it is not restoration of an actual 190 with a Werk Nummer. 

Therefore it is not included in the registry of original aircraft.

An acft does not have to be in an official museum to be counted as original. There are dozens of original warbirds all over the US and Europe in private collections.

Here is a list of known original Bf 110's around the world, including the two restored complete ones in England and Germany.

Preserved Axis Aircraft


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2017)

pbehn said:


> It is tragic that in the dog days of the war no one saw fit to ensure some things were preserved. The imperial War Museum was started in 1917 when WW1 was still ongoing, but nothing similar was done in WW2. Maybe there were just so many aircraft no one ever thought that a situation would come where there were no examples of really iconic aircraft left to preserve. Even the Enola Gay, which was slated to be preserved ended up stored outside and stripped by trophy hunters and so is a sort of re built replica itself. What a person does with his own property is obviously his own affair, however none were originally anyones property, iconic aircraft flown by aces or on major missions should have been preserved for static display, but werent. The aircraft that remain flying are in the main replicas, much was made of a Spitfire recovered from Dunkirk being restored and put back in the air, does anyone really believe it is not a new plane with the old frame number.



You are absolutely correct. You have to remember even an "original" probably has a large percentage of new skins, etc.

I guess if it has an original data tag, it is real...


----------



## MRC_Hans (Mar 19, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it's more that it is a replica. A very well done one. Just like the replica 190 in Sinsheim. You can't tell it is a replica, and has original parts in it, but it is not restoration of an actual 190 with a Werk Nummer.
> 
> Therefore it is not included in the registry of original aircraft.
> 
> ...



Perhaps. Although the list you link to contains aircraft that are very incomplete. But how does a plane get on the lists? Presumably someone has to report it, then someone has to go and check out if it's the real thing. In some ways, Gillelejegruppen are a bit secretive (even though they take in tours). Maybe they simply haven't done the paperwork.

Hans


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I guess if it has an original data tag, it is real...


In the case of that Spitfire which spent 40+ years in the sea I suspect the data tag has the same numbers/letters as the original but is also brand new, the planes identity, history and pilot were always known.

This is how it looked in 1980





Spitfire takes to the skies 71 years after leaving Hornchurch RAF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2017)

MRC_Hans said:


> Perhaps. Although the list you link to contains aircraft that are very incomplete. But how does a plane get on the lists? Presumably someone has to report it, then someone has to go and check out if it's the real thing. In some ways, Gillelejegruppen are a bit secretive (even though they take in tours). Maybe they simply haven't done the paperwork.
> 
> Hans



I highly doubt that...

Bf 110's are extremely rare and valuable.

I'm pretty sure it's obvious what is considered original restored, and what is considered a repro.

I think putting some original parts in something pretty much new does not make it restored.

Again not trying to knock the Danish 110. It is a fantastic reproduction.

I wish more would be restored. It is a shame there are only two at the moment. More reproductions as well would be amazing.


----------



## GregP (Mar 19, 2017)

About the "reasonability" of flying WWII birds, I can add this.

I have been working the anual airshow at the Planes of Fame for 10 years now. We usually fly some 80 - 100 sorties per day for 3 days of our airshow. That 's 240 - 300 sorties par day for 100 yeas, or 2400 - 300 sorties. For ewach of numbers, let's call it 2,500 sorties, of which perhaps 2,300 were warbirds. The planes that attend include our won and various private and other "group-ownerd" WWII birds. "Group-owned" includes things like Collings Foundation, CAF, and other museums.

In that 10 years I have seen two or three non-starts due to flat tires, one non-start due failure of a hydraulic valve and a Corsair couldn't get one wing to come down once he had the engine started and running. Turned out to be a hydraulic valve. It was fixed and flew twice more that same day, later. I saw one aborted takeoff due to a rough engine (safety abort), and one DC-3 lost an engine on crosswind after the arishow, during show departure (it was not during the show). He flew around and landed without incident on one engine. We had one Grumman F3F backfire when throttled back on final and blew out a gasket (R-1820) and dropped a lot of oil while taxiing in. It took a week to fix, but the sum total of the trashed parts was a gasket. We had one P-40 get stuck in mid-prop-pitch and it turned out the brushes on the Curtiss-Electric prop were worn out. We supplied new brushes and mechanics.

Basically, that amounts to about 8 events, 2 or which were tires, and one was a hydraulic. The rest, while still incidents, were handled just fine on emergency procedures. When the prop failed, it failed in place and remained flyable in mid-pitch. When the gasket blew, the pilot simply continued the landing and monitored oil pressure. He shut down when it dropped and had no real damage other than a well-oiled belly and a gasket to replace. The rest were not flyability-related.

Every single airshow has featured warbird aerobatics including loops, rolls, aerobatic military and warbirds fromation shows, and high-performance warbird demonstrations, as swll as the occasional Renor acer demo , complete with high-speed passes. 

That compares pretty well with other private flying. It doesn't look so good compared with commercial airlines, but they get commercial maintenance and commercial parts replacement. Net result was no danger to anyone and no planes even scratched. I didn't count dead batteries becasue we have battery carts at the airshow and just wheel them over and start someone up when required. We also had to shut down one airshow for 20 -30 minutes when some idiot in a private plane violated the airspace in AND the aerobatic box the middle of a warbird aerobatic demo to land. He was arrested and the aerobatic act finished after the interruption. As far as bad things, we had one bird strike to a B-17 wing that put a hole in the leading edge between the cockpit and inboard engine. It finished the airshow flight, was cleaned up (defeathered), repaired, and flew out a couple of days later, missing a few flights in the show, but not ever in any danger. It was a big bird!

Nothing in that series of events was due to aircraft age or was significantly dangerous. There were NO safty violations by warbirds. The Friday practice show is to ensure the warbird acts that will do aerobatics meet the show safety standard that include no rolls on down-lines unless preceeded by an up-line first, no low-altitude horizontal rolls at all, and no other low-altitude rolls unless started on an up-line of at least 25°. The dedicated acerobatic palnes, like Sean Tucker or Kirby Chambliss, etc. can do whatever low-altitude things they normally do and their performances, but not the warbirds. You can fly them low, but not while rolling them.

My entire point is that WWII warbirds, when properly maintained and flown, are reliable and present no age-related issues. That's why they do inspections. When and if cracks are found, the plane is repaired or grounded until airworthy, assuming it EVER is. I recall when The "Back Six" Messerschmitt Bf 109 in the UK had an engine failure and was statically repaired and grounded. I'm glad we don't subscribe to that avenue of thought. If it happened here, we'd likely restore it and fly it again, but only when safe to do so. 

Not safe? Don't fly it! Not current? Go GET current, or as current as you can, and THEN fly it. When I say, "as current as you can," what I mean is this. There is no trainer for a Bf 109. So, if you're going to fly one, go get time in a high-horsepower, conventional gear plane with a reputation for being difficult to handle, and talk with current Bf 109 pilots as a refresher.

Want to fly a P-51? 200 hours in T-6 is great preparpation. Then get signed off by people who do P-51 signoffs. 

So, I'm NOT advocating go buy one and fly it. But flying one that is certified as airworthy, when you are current and trained to fly it, is not a dangerous or unreasonable thing to do ... from the standpoint of reasonable risk. If it's inherently THAT dangerous, how can you justify having an Air Force? Or medevac helicopters? Or any flying? Also, airshow aerobatics are not dangerous unless flown by people not trained and practiced in doing aerobatics, and in a defined performance, that has been practiced many time and also in front of the air boss, the day before the show. No "last-second," spur-of-the-moment warbird arobatic additions! If you DO that and even if you get away with it, you'll not fly our show again, and other people will find out about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2017)

GregP said:


> That compares pretty well with other private flying. It doesn't look so good compared with commercial airlines, but they get commercial maintenance and commercial parts replacement. .



In my working life I flew mainly in Europe but also long haul to Japan Mexico Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Thailand. I had 3 flights cancelled completely due to "technical difficulties" another for a "burst tyre on landing" no tyres for Fokker Friendships in Paris CdG, a four hour delay because "we cannot communicate with the control tower". I am not implying that commercial airlines are dangerous but they have huge resources to throw at problems so that no one has the impression that there is any safety issue at all. Of course I never knew when a plane was replaced, however whenever a plane crashes and its history is examined there are almost always small technical issues and reports of malfunctions, I am sure there are such reports on almost every aircraft flying, they are not an indicator of how dangerous civil aircraft are they are part of how civil airliners are kept safe.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I highly doubt that...
> 
> Bf 110's are extremely rare and valuable.
> 
> ...



I suppose much of this part of the discussion depends on what people expect from a museum exhibit or preserved machine.To illustrate my point I will move off aviation to railways. In my region there are two steam locomotives named "Locomotion number 1"
The "original" is now in a museum in Darlington, it was the first steam locomotive to pull a passenger train and because of that it forms part of railway history, much of the worlds railway gauge is 4 ft 8 1/2 inch because locomotion number 1 was. However it is not completely original, it was dismantled some time in its history and "bodged" to be an exhibit, the levers and rods as it was when I used to see it on Darlington Station were the wrong length for it to actually run. Even if it was in perfect as built condition no one would run it. There were two "locomotion" locomotives numbered one and two, number two exploded because in 1825 safety valves had not been invented.

The museum piece is a part of world industrial history, when built it certainly cost more than the most expensive super car in equivalent terms today, good steel (if anyone knew what it was) and cast iron cost a lot at the time.

Then there is the replica built to look and work as the original with modern (1975) boiler standards watching it move gives a completely different impression to a static display. Here is a video watch it with sound, I took a short trip on it at Beamish museum. To people used to seeing horses struggle pulling wagons it must have seemed like a miracle especially since it hardly made a sound.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwCcYUOXE6A_



I have the same view on aeroplanes, some like Enola Gay and many others have real historical significance for world history but also some like everyones favourite plane here can just be enjoyed for their beauty which you cant see in a museum hangar.


----------



## GregP (Mar 20, 2017)

I'd LOVE to see a replica Bf 110 fly, myself, especially if powered by DB engines with VDM props, even if replicas.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2017)

I as well...


----------



## MRC_Hans (Mar 20, 2017)

(On why it is not on the lists)
Well, I'll simply ask them at the next opportunity.

ETA: Which is now; I just sent them an e-mail.

Hans

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Mar 20, 2017)

More photos here...

Me 110 HG-4 werk.nr. 60728 replica/restorationon display in Denmark


----------



## Graeme (Mar 20, 2017)

Talking about replica aircraft - anyone know what happened to 2007 project to build a flying Heinkel He-51?
There were a couple of forums that monitored the progress - up until 2016 - and then nothing more was heard.

Did it get built?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 21, 2017)

We had a guy in the US build a replica Bugatti 100 racer. I hope this He 51 lasts longer! 

Most of the replicas and reproductions I have seen come out of Europe are very good-looking aircraft. Then again, I love planes! Maybe this Bf 110 will fly sometime soon. We're starting to see a few Mosquitoes flying.

Would be wonderful to see a Mosquito - Bf 110 formation, complete with Spitfire - Hurricane (or Tempest) and Bf 109 - Fw 190!

If there are those in Europe (or elsewhere) wanting a good WWII replica project, may I suggest a DB-powered Fw 187! Now THAT would be a great airshow bird! Of course, so would a Ju 88.

Which are easier to find, DB 600 series or BMW 801s?


----------



## BLine22 (Mar 21, 2017)

Yes, if somebody owns an aircraft they have every right to fly it, but that doesn't mean that they should. I am sure Planes Of Fame has a rigid qualification process but there are a lot of warbird operators that have more money than talent. They take the ego that made them good business men or doctors aloft in an aircraft and there is potential for disaster. My personal unicorn is a intact TBD Devastator. I wouldn't want the only one of those flying. I would want to visit in Pensacola.


----------



## GregP (Mar 21, 2017)

If it was airworthy and if I were qualified, I'd fly it.

The Devastator was a gentle-flying, pussycat aircraft with no bad habits. It would be like flying a PT-19 with more power. Why NOT fly it?

At the Planes of Fame we have:

The last Northrop N9M-B flying wing. We fly it.
We have the last Seversky AT-12. We fly it.
We have the last airworthy Pilatus P-2 in the U.S.A., as far as I know. We fly it.
We have the last Douglas Dauntless. We fly it (the rest are Army A-24's made to look like Dauntlesses).
We have the second to the last Curtiss P-47G. We fly it. There is one more ...
We have the last Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero flying, and doing it on the original Sakai 31 engine, and we fly it, rather obviously.
We have the last airworthy Boeing P-26 Peashooter and we fly it.
We have one of two North American P-51As. We fly it and finished Reno last year at 365 mph! A brand new stock P-51A was no faster.
We have one of the last Tora, Tora, Tora "Vals" that was really a Vultee BT-15 and we fly it.

We have others that aren't the last and fly them, too. There are about 8 flyable P-38s. We fly our P-38J regularly. Even warbird formation and individual aerobatics.

We fly an F-86F in a three-F-86 team called "The Horsemen." Google them. They fly a very good performance. Look up "the horsemen in three bearcats," or "the Horsemen in three Corsairs."

Wanna' see our P-38? Google "The Horsemen in two P-51s and a P-38." You'll find our 2012 airshow routine there. Nothing dangerous there. The P-38 had a new right engine (left-turning), but it ran just fine all weekend. It's still flying in the plane, with only a main bearing change since then. Running just fine.

Can't agree with you about not flying the planes at all, but that's what makes the world interesting, isn't it. When you own them, you get to choose. Ain't it great? Want to preserve them without flying them? Purchase them and do it. Or be entertained by people who fly as well as watch flying. Almost nobody buys a flyable plane without the intent to fly it. They buy shells that wouldn't fly anyway, most likely. But hey, go for it if you want to.

If I had a flyable warbird and lost my medical (and didn't have a flying museum), I'd sell it only to someone who would fly it on a regular basis and guarantee that, ownership reversion to go with that, but not money reversion. But that's just me and my opinion.

Your own feelings are obviously in another camp, and I respect that. No problem. If it is yours, YOU decide, right up until it isn't yours. Replicas would suffice just fine for people who aren't into flying. A flyable plane is NOT a thing to ground ... until it isn't airworthy. Then, it's OK to ground it if it isn't going to be repaired. In fact, it's the law. Not airworthy? Can't fly it. Might as well display it as it ain't gonna' be flying.


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 21, 2017)

GrepP I think you answered your own question, "the last of" and "we fly it". It is to me rather selfish to deprive future generations of the ability to experience the thrill of seeing one of these aircraft intact. Statistically speaking you will loose one or more of these fine aircraft to accidents the longer they fly. That would be my argument against flying them especially if they are truly the last of a type. 

List of air show accidents and incidents - Wikipedia


----------



## GregP (Mar 21, 2017)

Actually I don't have a question and it isn't selfish at all, just because you feel it is. That's just the way YOU feel, and that's your right. These are flyable aircraft with reliable engines. Our Zero has been flying regularly since 1978. All the damage that has been done to it has been while on the ground in hangars and while at airshows by the touching public. We had a cracked bulkhead in one of our P-51Ds, grounded it, drilled the rivets out of the tail, repaired the damage by fabricating and installing a new bulkhead, riveted the tail back on, and it is flying again as well as ever.

We do NOT fly them if they are not airworthy ... we return them to airworthy condition, and THEN fly them.

There is nothing selfish about flying an airplane. It is just property and a machine. If it's the last one, so what? People who aren't seriously into aircraft are just as happy to see a replica as they are to see the real thing, especially since it looks just like the real thing. People who ARE interested want to see them flying, at least the vast majority of them, anyway.

Again, if that's the way you feel, more power to you. Save each and every one of the planes you own in good health, with no ill feelings from me at all. I have no axe to grind at all, and have always enjoyed your posts. I expect to in the future as well. I'll just keep on working to restore the plane I'm on now and hope to see it fly someday, even if it IS somewhat homely. It's an old North American O-47.






Not very sexy, is it?

By the way, in the 1950s, our museum was asked to supply a fill-in to finish the movie "Flight of the Phoenix" when Paul Mantz was killed in the crash of the half-aluminum, half-wood thing that was built for the film.

Our replacement was another old North American O-47. Here it is, in the movie guise:






It flew for many years until a 20,000-hour airline pilot landed it gear up at a small airshow. It was, in fact, too small of an airshow to have a fire engine, so it burned to the ground. The one I'm working on now is intended as it's replacement, many years after the fact. The pic above is the last scene where it is approaching the oasis and final rescue! There were small wheels in the skids and it landed on pavement to fly again and was returned to stock condition soon afterwards.

For those familiar with the movie, the O-47 does NOT feature a shotgun cartridge starter, but one was fitted for the movie scenes, per Hollywood request, so the startup could be made more dramatic. Poetic license, I suppose ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2017)

I get where Rob is coming from. On one hand I agree with Greg, acft are meant to be flown. On the other hand though, I would rather the last one of a type be viewable for all time.

Imagine if we flew the original Wright Flyer and balled it up? Gone forever...

Think about it.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 21, 2017)

I find it strange that almost no prototype aircraft or last of production were preserved by the manufacturer or the state. If the state and the manufacturers couldn't be bothered, it isnt fair to hang it on people who actually paid for these machines. Lease lend machines like Corsairs were simply shoved over board, almost unbelievable that they scrapped ALL of some types.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 22, 2017)

I believe the original Wright Flyer was piece-mealed out into other planes and nothing remains today. We DO have a replica of it at the musuem. I understand, and cannot agree, but that's OK. I don't have to, and the idea isn't all wrong.

I understand that. I just bridle at other people trying to tell me what to do with my property, and will not put up with it, ever. If I bought a property that gives some rights away knowingly, then it is what it is. Usually, I just won't consider it. Just me, and of no import otherwise.

I have no objection to preserving an unairworthy airframe and, in fact, welcome it and hope for it. But I wouldn't ever ground a flyable aircraft just for the sake of preservation ... again, IF it were mine and IF I was qualified in it. Otherwise, I have little to say about it and it will likely go how the owner wants it to go.

If some government makes a LAW that decides for us, owners of fliers will just move the planes to a place that doesn't mandate grounding flyable aircraft and continue. In the end, it isn't all that important and whatever happens ... will still happen. So I'm not going to be upset over it in the least.

I worked on one plane (a Morane-Saulnier MS.760) that had been donated to a museum ... to NEVER fly again. Then, some years later, it was ferried to the avionics shop I was working for, and we removed the old GPS and installed a Garmin GTN 650 / 750 combo, and updated some other avionics including a new encoder. It was sold to a new owner, who took possession and cheerfully flew away!

As far as I know, there are only a small handful of airworthy MS.760s flying in the USA today. Neat aircraft and you'd be sorely tempted to pull more than the rated 4.4g it is rated for! The POH is quite interesting. To me, seeing it rescued from display was wonderful. I wanted a ride, but the cost of a ride was a bit steep! The fuel burn is not trivial ... unless you already fly jets. Then it probably IS trivial. 

Here is an oddball early executive jet that was going to be developed from a DH Vampire!






Now that is interesting! Wonder if it was still to be made of wood?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2017)

GregP said:


> I believe the original Wright Flyer was piece-mealed out into other planes and nothing remains today. We DO have a replica of it at the musuem. I understand, and cannot agree, but that's OK. I don't have to, and the idea isn't all wrong.
> 
> I understand that. I just bridle at other people trying to tell me what to do with my property, and will not put up with it, ever. If I bought a property that gives some rights away knowingly, then it is what it is. Usually, I just won't consider it. Just me, and of no import otherwise.
> 
> ...



Negative. The Flyer at the Smithsonian is the original wood frame and metal parts. Only the fabric skin is new, having aged since the last restoration in 1927.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 22, 2017)

I hear you, Adler ... but which YEAR Wright flyer is it? 1903?

I am under the very disinct impression the original flier (17 Dec 1903) was modified into other fliers, and the original has been lost to history, with some original wood still in the airframe, but far from all. Perhaps I am mistaken, but have heard same from multiple sources who should know, having spent years looking into it.

But ... I am open to that not being the case, if the entire airframe can be traced back to the original 17 Dec 1903 flier. That means fuselage, wings, canards, engine, and props. 

Fabric and lines? Don't care and it probably could NOT have survived and be in display condition. But the hardwood and metal should be OK, or nearly so.

I have a circa-1850 hammer with a wood handle that is known to be original (by my grandfather, before he passed). This handle has no oil on it, is strong, and I still occasionally USE it as a hammer. It "feels" like a good unit, even today. I don't "baby it" and have resurfaced the face several times ona sanding wheel, as I did with the old brass hammer from grandad, too. I DID fit a new handle on that one since it was cracked from long ago, before I got it. No modern handle would fit, so I sanded one down to fit. Works fine. Hammer is from 1914.

We have an aircraft with a similar situation. It is a very nice Bristol replica, but the interwing struts were sanded to fit custom attach fittings that were a bit wrong, and are too thin to be airworthy, so it is static at this time. All it would take is new attach fittings and new wood struts, and you could then fly it. But, and here's the important point, there is NO interest in doing so, by anyone at this time, either in or out of the museum.

It was the same for the Nakajima Ki-84 'Frank" we used to have. At the time, there was NO INTEREST in it for airshow or Hollywood work, so it got sold as an uninteresting aircraft (to a Japanese museum, who subsequently cut the sings off with a chainsaw!). Today we'd LOVE to see it flying! It was later repaired and is now on display in Japan (away from any airport). If you wanted to FLY it, you'd need a new wing spar along with a major overhaul! The spar would be expensive! Don't know about the rest as I haven't seen the aircraft or, more importantly, inside the aircraft inspection covers. Go figure. It IS restorable as far as I know. including engine ... but it would need a prop. One blade was slightly bent when it was sold. That prevented any "performance" tests when we had it, as max rpm was not possible due to increasing vibration from the very slightly bent prop. That was a long time ago ... decades. Probably would be declared unairworthy today and be red-tagged. Things were a bit "looser" some 40+ years ago, when we were young and foolish.

We're still foolish, perhaps, but no longer young. 

Time heals all wounds ... or wounds all heels, one or the other.

Maybe both.


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 22, 2017)

GregP I totally agree with you or anyone else being able to do whatever you want with your property. Kind of the whole foundation of personal freedom. It is more of a case of while I support your right to do so, I feel that it is perhaps not the best thing to do with a one of kind historical artifact. I do agree most folks, myself included, would probably be quite happy viewing a replica and if not told it was not the real deal would probably not even know the difference.

It is just that every time I see a video or photo of an authentic war bird in flames or wrecked at an airshow or while on tour I shudder and think, well another one gone. The selfish remark was not meant personally but rather as a statement to the effect in some sense these aircraft belong to history more than an individual. Or at least they do in my way of thinking. Yes I love to hear and see them fly, but I also cringe.

Almost every aircraft that has ever crashed and burned was airworthy right before the crash part, so airworthy did not enter into my thoughts, I assume no sane pilot would deliberately fly an aircraft they knew not to be 100% airworthy. Yet recently we had that fatal crash in the Hudson river that was a perfectly airworthy aircraft that had a mechanical breakdown. It happens with brand new aircraft and obviously with aged ones.

Please do not take my remarks as aimed at you personally, I do support your right to do as you wish, I just personally feel when we get down to last of territory it might be the better part of valor to retire the aircraft to static display and instead fly a replica.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 22, 2017)

Question on the wright flyer, how any times did it fly? I doubt if the wrights would take it for a spin even 5 years after its first flight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Question on the wright flyer, how any times did it fly? I doubt if the wrights would take it for a spin even 5 years after its first flight.



Of course they would not. The point however was, imagine how it would feel to see it balled up?


----------



## pbehn (Mar 22, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Of course they would not. The point however was, imagine how it would feel to see it balled up?


The point I was making was that the Wright flyer proved two things, firstly that heavier than air flight was possible and second their initial design was marginal at best as far as safe steering.


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2017)

I have known more than one guy who flew a historic aircraft until it was is serious need of overhaul, and then donated it for the tax writeoff. I don't particularly have an issuie with that, even if the plane COULD be returned to flight status. If nobody is willing to PAY for it, then it is, by definition, unairworthy anyway.

If I had a very rare warbird (or ANY bird) I might even do the same, but would NOT while it was still flyable and I was still qualified and ready to fly. The issue for me is wondering who really cares if the airframe they are looking at is original or a replica. I have not run across many museum visitors who cared one way or the other, and infer that the majority of the public would feel similarly. Perhaps not.

It seems to be the diehard aircraft fans who wanted things grounded, and that is difficult for me to udnerstand. I love the "preserved" planes as much as anyone. I'm just not into adding to them with my own plane.

One of the many distinctly European things I DO really like is the requirement to put mufflers on piston planes of newer manufacture. It would be a no go for a WWII warbird, but civil planes, at least, should be required to be quieter and should reduce RPM when sufficient runway is available to permit a slightly-reduced rpm takeoff for noise purposes, if the plane tends to go into tip shockwaves (such as a T-6). If the runway isn't long enough, that's another story for prop rpm, but mufflers are a great idea, We have them on cars. Why not high-efficiency, lightweight mufflers on small aircraft? Makes for better neighbors and fewer complaint and airport closures.

A better solution might be to make sure that anyone moving in around an airport within a, say ..., 5-mile radius (or whatever radius) knows that the airport is there and will continue to BE there, making airplane sounds, with a written and signed document of acceptance. That way they can't complain later that they didn't know when they bought the property. Anyone inheriting the property would also be bound by it since the property was sold contingent upon it. Just an idea.


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 23, 2017)

GregP said:


> A better solution might be to make sure that anyone moving in around an airport within a, say ..., 5-mile radius (or whatever radius) knows that the airport is there and will continue to BE there, making airplane sounds, with a written and signed document of acceptance. That way they can't complain later that they didn't know when they bought the property. Anyone inheriting the property would also be bound by it since the property was sold contingent upon it. Just an idea.



That actually happens here in the east coast. In CT, NC, and Florida where I have bought homes there was always an airport notice attached to the closing documents. However it seems that these documents are not terribly binding and people can and do sue for "relief". In one case the airport eventually closed. In others they adopted rather nasty noise abatement measures that I think make it dangerous for the pilots crew and passengers.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 23, 2017)

GregP said:


> One of the many distinctly European things I DO really like is the requirement to put mufflers on piston planes of newer manufacture..


Probably because people live much closer together. A bigger problem is helicopters in S.E England, The very very rich are all agreed that the whine and clatter of their toy is wonderful however their neighbours seem to disagree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2017)

Well, they DO make some very quiet rotor blades, and the NOTAR has no tail rotor at all. That particular helicopter is VERY quiet.

As fas as noise abatement procedures, here in the U.S.A., they can and DO make noise abatement procedures, too, but they cannot make them unsafe. In the end, it is the respoisibility of the pilot to fly safely, regardless of any requirements. There are no noise abatement procedures that can be required here which are unsafe, but pilot DO have to fly by the book instead of the "seat of their pants." By that I mean they will usually be required to climb at Vy for some period, nose over, and throttle back to some lower power for a cruise -climb. Nothing dangerous, but many private pilots get out of the habit of flying by the numbers. I never did, but I have ridden with some who weren't anywhere NEAR the book numbers.

I usually never flew with them again after seeing that.

The airlines can EASILY climb out at Vy. The autopilot can usually hold Vy ±2 knots! Better than most pilots, that's for sure! It was never difficult to hold Vy in a Cessna 172 or 182, but a B-575 might be a bit different! Ya' think? I have noticed that the old Cessna 180 can make a LOT of racket from prop tip noise. Coming back about 200 - 250 rpm eliminates it and, if you have a 3,500+ foot runway ahead, why not DO it for less noise? I always did, but most didn't. It would not be an issue on an off-airport strip, but flying from a paved municipal runway should be done as quietly as possible, just for countresy if nothing else. However, it might help reduce airport noise complaints significantly.

Just my opinion, and well off-topic. So, that's all for noise unless in an airport noise thread. Probably too long anyway ...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 23, 2017)

i am surprised that with all the 110s that there were that there aren't hardly any survivors. time to go to Norway and start digging I guess....

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2017)

We seriously NEED a Bf 110 or more flying around. At least one in Europe. Maybe one in the UK (I KNOW they're in Europe, but they're across the channel and I suspect that if they HAD one, it would make the airshows a LOT more often than if it has to fly from the continent), and one in the U.S.A.. More would be better.

To me, this is a great-flying, robust warplane that was WAY underappreciated by most. It did MANY thigns well, but was probably not the BEST at anything ... maybe as a night fighter? Gentle stall, good handling, robust gear, good short field, no vices, decently fast.

What MORE could you want for a warbird? Would make for a great replica kitplane!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MRC_Hans (Mar 29, 2017)

GregP said:


> We seriously NEED a Bf 110 or more flying around. At least one in Europe. Maybe one in the UK (I KNOW they're in Europe, but they're across the channel and I suspect that if they HAD one, it would make the airshows a LOT more often than if it has to fly from the continent), and one in the U.S.A.. More would be better.
> 
> To me, this is a great-flying, robust warplane that was WAY underappreciated by most. It did MANY thigns well, but was probably not the BEST at anything ... maybe as a night fighter? Gentle stall, good handling, robust gear, good short field, no vices, decently fast.
> 
> What MORE could you want for a warbird? Would make for a great replica kitplane!



What more could you want? That it wasn't outdated for its purpose when the war started. However, the virtues you mention did ensure it a service life in other roles (such as night fighter). I'm sure that if they hadn't had the Stuka, the '110 would also have served well in the grund attack role; it could pack enough fire-power to be a true "mud mover".

The Mosquito and the P38 lightning proved that there was room for fast, long range twin engine machines, but the BF 110 was just designed too early.

Hans


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 29, 2017)

I'd like to see a Bf 110 and an He 219 as well.

But then again my wish list of things I'd like to see still around is quite extensive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 29, 2017)

MRC_Hans said:


> The Mosquito and the P38 lightning proved that there was room for fast, long range twin engine machines, but the BF 110 was just designed too early.



And the, 110 while starting out with somewhat comparable engines, never got engines that matched the later Mosquitoes and P-38s.
Runway length may have been a problem, too. Easy to get large bomb loads off the Ground with long concrete runways (for the P-38) 
Mosquito will take off to 50ft at 23,000lbs in a 600ft or shorter distance than a P-38 at 21,400lbs. 

Bf 110 may have been easier to take-off and land than a Me 210 and may have been able to get the same basic load out of a shorter field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> And the, 110 while starting out with somewhat comparable engines, never got engines that matched the later Mosquitoes and P-38s.
> ...



The Bf 110, with best engines installed, was as fast as the Mosquito or P-38 with the initial (= lowest power installed) engines, so the engines are not the sole culprit. As seen by Me 210/410, too.
Vs. P-38 - it was a considerably bigger aircraft, the wing profile was bigger both in absolute and relative terms. Vs. Mosquito - the engine installation, coolers mostly, was not as refined. Though we don't know (or we do?) how much the wing profile choosen was the advantage of Mosquito, or how much the way of construction was a benefit to the Mossie's speed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 1, 2017)

I dont know why the Bf110 gets such criticism, it was in production from 1936 to the end of the war. It suffered when up against single engined fighters but twin engined fighters usually did.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 2, 2017)

The perennial argument of whether or not to fly rare warbirds will go on forever. Personally I sit on the fence having worked in aviation museums, but also enjoy seeing warbirds at airshows flying about and there are merits to both arguments that make healthy sense. The best alternative is quality reproductions, such as those being built here in New Zealand, of Great War stuff by The Vintage Aviator (who would'a thought, not just one F.E.2b, but two flying reproductions with original RAF.1a engines?), or the Mosquito reproductions being built here. These demonstrate that it's never impossible, and the only restriction is the size of the financial contribution and of course, the regulatory bodies of the countries involved. Less obvious aircraft choices have appeared as subject to reproductions, such as the Junkers F13s, which admittedly are a less challenging prospect than a Bf 110, but Mosquito reproductions prove that a big high performance vintage machine can be built from scratch. I always thought the Bf 108 should go back into production; a great performer, easy manufacture using modern techniques and there are engines available that could be used in it. Not to mention a sweet looking machine with appeal. 

The original 1903 Wright Flyer was sent to the UK in 1912 and lived there until 1948. It was reassembled by de Havilland apprentices, who made the very first drawings produced of it - the Wrights never did this, and it was placed on display in the Science Museum in London. Obviously it was a bit of a heap when it was shipped to the UK, then rebuilt, but there is a quite a bit of original structure in the machine that survives at the NASM. Thankfully, the drawings produced meant that accurate reproductions of it can be made. The first accurate reproduction of the Wright Flyer was built based on the drawings produced and can be seen in the Science Museum to this day.

Greg, Black Six was grounded owing to a loan agreement, not solely because of the fact that it was damaged after its accident. After being flipped on its back on landing at Duxford, it was rebuilt to as accurate a standard as possible, removing as much of the modern requirements needed to enable it to fly and this was done at the behest of the owner, the RAF Museum. It was only on loan by the MoD Air Historic Branch (AHB aircraft now come under the guise of the RAF Museum) to its operators, who were given 5 year loan agreements under the proviso that the aeroplane be kept airworthy using private funding. Its loan period was extended when it was apparent it was a very popular thing at airshows and was not renewed by the operator after it had its accident.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 2, 2017)

MRC_Hans said:


> but the BF 110 was just designed too early.



I think the problem was the requirement it was built to was flawed; the Zerstorer concept was just not effective in practise. The aeroplane itself was sound and proved to be one of the Luftwaffe's most versatile and tractable aircraft. It does deserve greater prominence for the multifarious roles it played, along with the Ju 88, but like many other types, its first outing, in this case as a fighter escort, is how many judge it in hindsight, unfairly, of course.

Regarding the Mossie's wing profile, can't comment on its effectiveness, but the method of construction did have an impact on its speed; it was very slippery, with little in the way of external protrusions on the fuselage, hardly any panel lines.

warbirds

warbirds

warbirds

From here: warbirds

TV959 is a composite restoration, it's wing is original, but mated to a new build fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2017)

Well, It's nice to hear Back Six is in flyable condition. Everything I read did NOT say it landed, Rather, the writings I read all said the aircraft had an engine failure atfer takeoff and more or less crashed and flipped. The implication in perhaps a half-dozen trades magazines was that the plane was not considered rebuildable. One trade mag inplied the pilot was more or less at fault, but I didn't read that anywhere else and dismissed it as journalistic speculation. One thing is certain; there are NO WWII fighter warbirds that are good gliders when they lose power on takeoff. Most of the time, the end results of same are dire.

VERY nice to hear that it wasn't the case that the rebuild was less than "to flight spec."

Fighter Rebuilders has restored things that were also not considered rebuildable, and they are now flying again. So "rebuildable" is relative to how badly you want to fly it again.

I have spoken with a number of people who tell me that knowing your emergency procedure backwards and forwards is the key to being safe in a well-maintained warbird. I heard a story from one rather well-known pilot who said he knew an acquaintance who was flying a Tigercat and declared an emergency when one engine begain to run rough. He landed but the energency was not even an emergency.

The Tigercat flies fine on one engine and the "rough" engine didn't reall HAVE an issue; it was being operated incorrectly and was giving the pilot signs of same. When well-known pilot talked to Tigercat pilot, he wasn't monitoring the engines very closely and had never practiced some of the emergency procedures! Basically, he wasn't "current" in the plane. Soon after, he stopped flying warbirds.

The long-time warbird fliers out there ALL know their procedures, their POH, and know their engines and airframes. They plan a flight, fly the plan, stay on top of things, and are never "behind the airplane." And engine gauges are part of the normal scan. Engien gauges include cylinder head temps! Too hot may be bad, but so is too cold.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 2, 2017)

GregP said:


> Well, It's nice to hear Back Six is in flyable condition. Everything I read did NOT say it landed, Rather, the writings I read all said the aircraft had an engine failure atfer takeoff and more or less crashed and flipped. The implication in perhaps a half-dozen trades magazines was that the plane was not considered rebuildable. One trade mag inplied the pilot was more or less at fault, but I didn't read that anywhere else and dismissed it as journalistic speculation. One thing is certain; there are NO WWII fighter warbirds that are good gliders when they lose power on takeoff. Most of the time, the end results of same are dire.



I think you might have misunderstood me Greg, it's not in flyable condition, but it has been restored to as original condition as possible. It was flipped after landing and damaged severely, to the extent that major surgery was required, but, hypothetically it _could_ have flown again if they had the inclination or funding to do it again, but the loan agreement expiry and the museum not wanting its precious machine being broken again put paid to that.

Take a look at the Blenheim restoration that has crashed twice and been rebuilt twice as an example of what can be done - again with the right amount of funding.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2017)

Well, then it WAS restored as a static display. It is what I have heard for some years now. Too bad. We HAVE a Bf 109 G-6 on display, but we only have one DB engine, so we won't fly it. The museum doesn't fly anything they don't have a spare engine for. Well, not quite the case. We don't fly it away from Chino airport if there is no spare engine. WE DO fly our Pilatus P-2 and we don;t have a spare Argus AS-10, but it also doesn't fly away from Chino airport. It is used usually only during our airshow.

If we restored the Bf 109 G-6, we'd want it to be an airshow / movie bird. That means a spare DB engine, and those aren't cheap! Parts are scarce, and "expertise" in the DB 605 has long-since departed. Not that it couldn't be well-operated. I mean expertise in "the care and feeding of a DB 605 engine."

There IS an alternative. The Ha.1112 Buchon we are current almost finished with is having the lower cowling modified to be MUCH more "Bf 109-like." We rather obviously can't change the location of the spinner, but the front end will look fairly much like a Bf 109 with a DB engine. We wanted to make faux low-slung exhausts, but ran out of time when it was being prepped for a movie that didn't remain a viable option. Nevertheless, it will be a good airshow Bf 109 when completed. The team working on thaht one has done and is doing a good job. Hopefully it'll fly yet this year.

Perhaps the Bf 109 G-6 will be restored, after all, in the future. It would be GREAT to see it commit aviation sometime.

Cheers!


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 2, 2017)

No worries Greg, the Buchon is perhaps the best way of seeing a Bf 109 derivative in flight and is better than nothing at all. Buchon nasal conversions never look right unless a DB engine is fitted, to be honest. Best to just leave it the way it is and paint it in Luftwaffe markings. You could be real different and paint it in Ejercito Del Aire markings, as it should authentically be. I read somewhere that there are some 35 Hispano built survivors, of which 25 saw use in the Battle of Britain movie, but of those 35, only four are depicted in authentic Spanish markings.


----------



## GregP (Apr 3, 2017)

The one we're doing looks pretty good, if I DO say so myself.

When it gets done, I'll post a pic or more. What they're deliberately trying to do is to soften the bottom lines and make it look like a Messerschmitt LOWER cowling. We have a real one to work with and that helped a LOT. The rest is more or less stock, with a bit of sculpting.

One of the good guys fabricated a carbon-fiber carb intake that fits quite nicely and allows a good cowling line. All that remained was to fit a more-authentic lower scoop. The oil cooler is also custom and made to fit, not a standard unit adapted to fit. We are making an aluminum slanted scoop that directs the hot oil-cooler air away from the carb intake tunnel. Bert Bruckman is doing that one, and a good job he is doing! Keeps the hot air separated from the carb air. That can't be bad.

All in all, pretty good!

Several people wanted a stock Buchon in Spanish markings, but the Messerschmitt aspect of it is just too good to pass up, both for airshows and for films, and the owner ultimately made the choice (as is proper). Also, nobody much wants to fly it regularly unless it pays. We don't have grass runways available, so it's a handful when not airborne. Other than that, the Merlin (a 224) runs great.

Here it is before paint and cowling work:






It has Bf 109 G-6 wingtips at this time, and recently-covered ailerons, elevators, and rudder, and a a freshly done cockpit enclosure. The green paint in front of the windscreen flat cowl is the oil tank. It was painted shortly later.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 3, 2017)

Nice to see, although I can already see that the exhausts are too high; how is the new cowl going to incorporate those? I would have thought that having a genuine Bf 109G would have made the decision to paint the Buchon in Spanish colours easier. I see a Mohawk in the background, is that the museum's?


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2017)

The Mohawk belongs to the musuem. It is a bit historic as the serial number is 2 (started life with a single tail).

The museum's Bf 109 G-6 belongs to the musuem. The decision was the museum's. Their decision was that the Hispano would be an airshow / movie airplane and the main difference that is apparent to the viewing public is the lower cowling. So, it will look a LOT more like a Bf 109 cowling than a cowling from a Buchon. Some things were relocated and redesigned to help eliminate the characteristic Buchon cowl-belly. They DID have a plan to turn it into a low-exhausrt unit, but the time ran out for the movie and it is very nearly finished now, so going back and doing the low exhaust at this late date will probably be a non-starter as an event.

The issue with the Bf 109 is a spare engine. Anybody had a spare DB 605? We don't! We have a lot of other spares, but not that one.

All decisions by the museum board of directors, and all are experienced at aviation things. I'm just a volunteer. I have some time on the Ha.1112 restoration, but not a lot in the kitty compared with the guys who did most of the work. The main team has been Bert Bruckmann and George Orff. I help out when they ask, and that happens once in awhile, usually when I wander over and ask if they need anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 4, 2017)

GregP said:


> It was never difficult to hold Vy in a Cessna 172 or 182, but a B-575 might be a bit different! Ya' think?


Back in the mid 90s, rode in a stuffed-to-the-gills NW 75 BOS to SMF (Sacramento). Upon reaching top of second segment climb, when the deck angle usually relents a little and takeoff power comes back to climb power, we stayed at full roar and VYSE pitch attitude all the way to our cruising level in the high 30s. (Do you realize how STEEP that is in a 75?) Full cabin, full baggage, and fueled for non-stop, bucking the jet stream, with SEA as alternate, and no step climb. Now that's a hot rod! We were deplaning when the Delta 75 that took off ahead of us in BOS taxiied past on the way to the gate.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2017)

All I know for sure is there is a very large weight difference between a C-172 and a B-757! It might be EASY to hold Vy since it has a very good power to weight ratio. but I don't know for sure as I'm not an airline pilot and have only fown a professional MD-80 simulator once (I DID manage to roll it without crashing, the simulated passengers didn't seem to care ...).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 4, 2017)

GregP said:


> I DID manage to roll it without crashing, the simulated passengers didn't seem to care ...).


(Apparently neither did the simulated management or the simulated FAA POI! Did you file a simulated NASA Air Safety Incident Report to cover your simulated posterior? Tsk, Tsk! [simulated])
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Apr 4, 2017)

As long as I don't spill me drink, you can roll all you want just keep it to a nice steady 1 G.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 4, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> As long as I don't spill me drink, you can roll all you want just keep it to a nice steady 1 G.


Right on, Mr. Hoover, right on! Shrikes rule!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MRC_Hans (Apr 12, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it's more that it is a replica. A very well done one. Just like the replica 190 in Sinsheim. You can't tell it is a replica, and has original parts in it, but it is not restoration of an actual 190 with a Werk Nummer.
> 
> Therefore it is not included in the registry of original aircraft.
> 
> ...



I have investigated some and it seems you're right. The reason the Danish 110 is not registered is that it has been put together by parts from different planes.

Hans

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2017)

MRC_Hans said:


> I have investigated some and it seems you're right. The reason the Danish 110 is not registered is that it has been put together by parts from different planes.
> 
> Hans



That does not make it any less cool my friend. I wish there were more like it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------

