Me 110 today?

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.

Click to expand...

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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..

Click to expand...

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.

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 ...

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....

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!

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!

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Shortround6 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

MRC_Hans said:

but the BF 110 was just designed too early.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.

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.