Radub Posted September 28, 2022 Share Posted September 28, 2022 Here are some photos of the "flange" at the root of the tail plane. This is "Black 6" in Cosford. The tail plane is movable, so the flange is set at a certain distance from the fin/fuselage in order to provide unimpeded movement. The distance between the flange and the airframe varies between 7 mm and 10 mm in places. Hopefully these photos will be useful. Radu chukw, Uncarina, Gazzas and 14 others 12 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Matt Posted September 28, 2022 Share Posted September 28, 2022 I didn't realise but this feature is adjusted by the large wheel on the pilots left. There are two wheels, both mounted concentrically but one operates flaps and the other the tailplane trim for longitudinal stability. Matty LSP_K2, Uncarina and MikeC 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted September 28, 2022 Author Share Posted September 28, 2022 2 hours ago, LSP_Matt said: I didn't realise but this feature is adjusted by the large wheel on the pilots left. There are two wheels, both mounted concentrically but one operates flaps and the other the tailplane trim for longitudinal stability. Matty That is correct. The aircraft needed to be trimmed as the ammunition and fuel was expended and the centre of gravity shifted slightly. The fact that the flange was at a distance from the fuselage was missed on many models in the past. Some models actually represent the edge of that flange as an engraved line on the fuselage. In reality the flange was at some distance from the fuselage. HTH Radu MikeC, Landrotten Highlander, LSP_Matt and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockie Yarwood Posted September 28, 2022 Share Posted September 28, 2022 Thanks Radu. I have hundreds of 109 walk around pictures, and never noticed that gap. IPMS judges are going to have fits when they see that on a model Jack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted September 28, 2022 Author Share Posted September 28, 2022 15 minutes ago, Rockie Yarwood said: Thanks Radu. I have hundreds of 109 walk around pictures, and never noticed that gap. IPMS judges are going to have fits when they see that on a model It is hard to replicate the gap on a model. The only thing that can work is to make the flange stand out from the fuselage. Radu MikeC, Troy Molitor, Gazzas and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncarina Posted September 28, 2022 Share Posted September 28, 2022 (edited) Radu, Thank you for pointing this out. That changes the perspective on the ZM kit! Also note the seam between the upper and lower tailplanes. Cheers, Tom Edited September 28, 2022 by Uncarina Landrotten Highlander and LSP_K2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted September 28, 2022 Author Share Posted September 28, 2022 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Uncarina said: Also note the seam between the upper and lower tailplanes. There is a "split" in the leading edge because the top and bottom halves of the tail plane were held together by what can be best described as a "piano hinge". I guess that the idea was that by simply pulling the long rod that held the two halves of the hinge together it was easy to separate the top and bottom of the tail planes for servicing or repair. The tail fin leading edge has a similar "hinge", but in this case the leading edge is sealed with doped fabric. Radu Edited September 28, 2022 by Radub D.B. Andrus, Landrotten Highlander and Uncarina 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 Replicating this feature would require working with metals. It's a complex shape and would take a lot of skill to do in 1/1. In 1/32... wing and a prayer. I suppose if you had a buck in the correct shapes and some thin aluminum or brass, you might make it work. LSP_Matt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted September 29, 2022 Author Share Posted September 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Gazzas said: Replicating this feature would require working with metals. It's a complex shape and would take a lot of skill to do in 1/1. In 1/32... wing and a prayer. I suppose if you had a buck in the correct shapes and some thin aluminum or brass, you might make it work. The only possible way to replicate the position of the flange in relation to the fuselage is to represent it as a raised item, standing "proud" from the surface. Such a flange standing proud from the fuselage on a model is not a fault, it is intentional. Another deep misunderstanding about the tail of the Bf 109 is about the "asymetry". The fin is asymetrical but the rudder is asymetrical too. The asymetry of the rudder was completely ignored in many models and scale drawings. Such an asymetrical rudder on a model is not a fault, it is intentional. Have a look at this photo. The rudder is in the "neutral" position, before I took this photo I engaged the lock that secures the rudder pedals and the control stick. Look also at the position of the counterweight at the top of the rudder in relation to the fin and you can see that the rudder is in the "neutral" position. However, despite the "neutral" position the rudder is noticeably canted to the right. That is because the asymetrical aspect of the tail encompasses both the fin and the rudder. I must repeat that any model or scale drawing containing these features is not "faulty". HTH Radu Landrotten Highlander, Fanes, CShanne and 13 others 11 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaninaustria Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 Hello everybody, Radu is extremely accurate in his observations and technical descriptions. The vertical stabilizer on the Me-109 was actually an airfoil, purposefully designed and incorporated in the aircraft design to offset engine torque during flight. The vertical stab and the hinged rudder are asymetrical as Radu already stated. In propellor powered aircraft there are sometimes small differences in design that are purposefully included to offset engine torque. Another classic example is the Macchi series of aircraft where one wing was longer - to also offset the engine torque in flight. Not everything is symetrical or balanced as one would assume. Cheers Alan Antonio Argudo, LSP_Matt, Jack and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmayhew Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 @Radub thank you for your insight, pictures and explanation - much appreciated i still think the Z-m kit will look 'a bit funny' but that's because we've been brought up on models which are, well, basically wrong but have assumed they are correct I believe the separation *could* have been modelled better / more accurately, even with retaining the one piece tailplane (which I really like btw!), but it would have taken Tamiya-like greatness in terms of ingenuity and more importantly fit but overall, I'm a relieved man - so thank you! @Antonio Argudo in case you haven't see this LSP_Matt, IainM and Antonio Argudo 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveculp Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 All these years I thought the F-86 was the first airplane to have an "all-moving" tail plane. Willy was way ahead of his time! Panzerwomble, daHeld, Jack and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 1 hour ago, daveculp said: All these years I thought the F-86 was the first airplane to have an "all-moving" tail plane. Willy was way ahead of his time! Not quite. The 109 still had separate elevators that worked as such and controlled the aircraft in pitch. The tailplane incidence was only movable within a short range, more of a trim device. Iirc the RE8 had the same facility in WW1. LSP_Matt and Jack 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveculp Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 5 hours ago, MikeC said: Not quite. The 109 still had separate elevators that worked as such and controlled the aircraft in pitch. The tailplane incidence was only movable within a short range, more of a trim device. Iirc the RE8 had the same facility in WW1. Yes, like the F-86. I believe "all-moving" refers to the setup you described. At least that's been my interpretation of the term "all-moving". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastterry Posted September 30, 2022 Share Posted September 30, 2022 A number of WW2 fighters had the whole fin and rudder offset a few degrees to counteract torque, the Hurricane for one springs to mind. Revell's ancient Hurri has this in the plastic. TRF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts