Bf 109 Tail plane root

[MikeC]

8 hours ago, daveculp said:

 

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".

Sorry, no.  The term "all-moving tailplane" (or stabilator) refers to the set-up where generally there are no separate elevators, the whole tailplane acts as an elevator.  The F-86 started out with a conventional set-up on the A, then later moved to the all-moving tailplane.  You can tell which it is as the fairing at the base of the Sabre's fin is very small on the early models, and grew larger to contain the mechanisms, hydraulics, etc for the all-moving version.  Given time, and if you insist, I can look it up in Duncan Curtis' excellent book and give you chapter and verse, but I'm downstairs and that's upstairs in the "man-cave" .

 

But the point is, a set-up where the tailplane moves to provide trim, but not control, is not "all-moving".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by MikeC

[CRAZY IVAN5]

On 9/29/2022 at 12:35 AM, Radub said:

 

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 

Now to convince the judges at the contests that everything is how it's supposed to be. I guess I will have to supply pics with the entry, oh well! 

[daveculp]

22 hours ago, MikeC said:

Sorry, no.  The term "all-moving tailplane" (or stabilator) refers to the set-up where generally there are no separate elevators, the whole tailplane acts as an elevator.  The F-86 started out with a conventional set-up on the A, then later moved to the all-moving tailplane.  You can tell which it is as the fairing at the base of the Sabre's fin is very small on the early models, and grew larger to contain the mechanisms, hydraulics, etc for the all-moving version.  Given time, and if you insist, I can look it up in Duncan Curtis' excellent book and give you chapter and verse, but I'm downstairs and that's upstairs in the "man-cave" .

 

But the point is, a set-up where the tailplane moves to provide trim, but not control, is not "all-moving".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator

 

 

I stand corrected.  So, I believe the Bf-109 setup is called (by some at least) a variable incidence tailplane (VIP).

[MikeC]

1 hour ago, daveculp said:

 

I stand corrected.  So, I believe the Bf-109 setup is called (by some at least) a variable incidence tailplane (VIP).

That is so.

 

And my apologies, I get carried away being a clever Richard sometimes, but I think it is important to know the correct terminology, it can save a lot of confusion sometimes. 

[Radub]

I see that on another forum there is a discussion about the photos I posted above. The usual arguments were thrown in, such as "bad restoration" and "a groundgcrew will never allow..." in order to dismiss the photos of "Black 6" as invalid arguments. That discussion contains many photos of wartime aircraft that shows that the flanges were "snug" and that there is no way there is any "gap" between the flange and the fuselage. But... The fact is that the gap between the flange and the fuselge IS NOT a huge chasm. As I mentioned above, it varies between 7 mm and 10 mm. That IS NOT a huge gap. Take a metric ruler. Look at what 7 mm and 10 mm looks like. From a distance, that is almost unnoticeable. Those wartime photos only serve to prove that the space between flange and fin/fuselage will not show in photos taken from a distance. Here are two photos of the same subject taken from up-close and from a distance.

 

 

 

And for comparison purposes here is a photo from the front. Compare to the photo from the first post. 

 

 

 

As you can see, you do not need to step that far back for that gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage to almost disappear. But the gap is there. It has to be there otherwise the flange would rub against the fin/fuselage causing some kind of marks on the fuselage. Why do such rub marks and scratches never show up in wartime photos? Because the parts did not touch. 

In scale 1/32, a flange standing our by about 0.25 to 0.35 mm from the surface should be enough to simulate this.

HTH 

Radu 

 

 

[Juggernut]

Oh yeah, in 1/32, a 7-10mm gap is only 0.009 inches - 0.012 inches (for those of us using English units); three to four sheets of writing paper thickness (@ 0.003 inches per sheet). I've seen panel lines on kits that were just as big (and some bigger!).  I'll also add that this is information I never knew so thanks Radu, most appreciated.

Edited October 1, 2022 by Juggernut

[chrish]

4 hours ago, Radub said:

I see that on another forum there is a discussion about the photos I posted above. The usual arguments were thrown in, such as "bad restoration" and "a groundgcrew will never allow..." in order to dismiss the photos of "Black 6" as invalid arguments. That discussion contains many photos of wartime aircraft that shows that the flanges were "snug" and that there is no way there is any "gap" between the flange and the fuselage. But... The fact is that the gap between the flange and the fuselge IS NOT a huge chasm. As I mentioned above, it varies between 7 mm and 10 mm. That IS NOT a huge gap. Take a metric ruler. Look at what 7 mm and 10 mm looks like. From a distance, that is almost unnoticeable. Those wartime photos only serve to prove that the space between flange and fin/fuselage will not show in photos taken from a distance. Here are two photos of the same subject taken from up-close and from a distance.

 

 

 

And for comparison purposes here is a photo from the front. Compare to the photo from the first post. 

 

 

 

As you can see, you do not need to step that far back for that gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage to almost disappear. But the gap is there. It has to be there otherwise the flange would rub against the fin/fuselage causing some kind of marks on the fuselage. Why do such rub marks and scratches never show up in wartime photos? Because the parts did not touch. 

In scale 1/32, a flange standing our by about 0.25 to 0.35 mm from the surface should be enough to simulate this.

HTH 

Radu 

 

 

Some folks just like to create controversy

never try to change a flat earthers mind, it’s just not worth your time 

[quang]

1 hour ago, chrish said:

Some folks just like to create controversy

If there’s a gap and a plausible explanation for it like Radu gave us in his post, then wouldn’t it be of interest to show it on the model one way or another,  no matter how small the gap is? It’s just another detail among a zillion others.

That a builder chooses to add such or such detail on his model is entirely up to the modeller’s choice. I don’t see any controversy in that.

 

 

[CRAZY IVAN5]

9 hours ago, quang said:

If there’s a gap and a plausible explanation for it like Radu gave us in his post, then wouldn’t it be of interest to show it on the model one way or another,  no matter how small the gap is? It’s just another detail among a zillion others.

That a builder chooses to add such or such detail on his model is entirely up to the modeller’s choice. I don’t see any controversy in that.

 

 

Agreed, I haven't checked my kit yet . TBH I'm not going to sweat it , just fix it . I appreciate both Radu's AND Vincent's take on the 109s , Do they have one of these things in their back yard or something? Lucky , lucky guys! I'm learning a lot from them and others on here too

[Martinnfb]

Are we still talking about ZM unfortunate tail section design here?

 

Hi Radu, first of all thank you for hard work on the new 109, much appreciate that.  There are not many among us so dedicated and focused on  true research with an exceptional attention to detail as you are. So again, Thank you and the rest of the team as well.

I was trying to stay out of this, but can not. This airframe (black 6) was restored into static condition after its famous accident in 1997. The structural damage, especially on the tail is still markable (sheet metal is distorted, most notably in the spine/tail connecting point). 

 

Here is the Avia from Kbely, yes it is an Avia, but the tail is still 109 specs. (German tolerances) 

Yes S-199 was pieced up from different parts, therefore the original condition may differ, however CS-199 wasn't,  in matter of fact it is an untouched example, abused as a learning tool during her service. Despite the harsh treatment, there are no major gaps and most of all the flange is following the contour of the fuselage/tail transition.

 

Why is it like that, because it was designed as a press fit. The flange is sliding on the surface under its own tension.  If Black 5 would take off again, soon we would be able to observe staining created by lubricants seeping through the gaps from the adjustment bolt/shaft assembly. 

Is there a gap?, sure there is. Yet not a wavy ridge as it is in example of the Black 6. To use a compromised airframe as the manufactures standard might not be a wise approach.

 

Cheers

Martin

 

Related discussion on Large Scale Modeller can be seen here. 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Martinnfb

[MikeMaben]

...and observations from Vincent K ...

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/on-me-109-g6-stab-fairings-and-their-depiction-in--t533499.html

[thierry laurent]

I'm amazed... To me solving that looks like a 20 minutes job... So many discussions and complaints about that. This is a scale model made of plastic and in spite of the technology evolution, all kits are still full of scale compromises, some being simply more acceptable than others. Please do not forget that and hope your model will be a perfect copy of a full scale object. It will not be even if it may look like.

[quang]

There’s nothing that a sharp #22 blade, a round file and some abrasive paper can’t do to solve the problem. 
If you find the gap is still too prominent, you can back it up with plasticard.
Like TL said, 20 minutes! 

Edited October 2, 2022 by quang

[Christa]

Grandma said, 'All men are good looking, but with some it is best to stand further back.' Viewing range is significant in all scales. We are comfortable with that. 1/32 may permit the 109 tailplane gap to be seen on close inspection. How close?

 

Great conversation, terrific detail observation and sharing.

[Radub]

Here is a photo of a flyable Bouchon. 

 

https://www.alamy.com/hispano-ha-1112-buchon-spanish-built-messerschmitt-bf109-me109-german-luftwaffe-fighter-plane-tail-tailplane-and-rudder-space-for-copy-image222388623.html

 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-british-airways-city-flyer-aircraft-departing-london-city-airport-125873799.html

 

I am not trying to defend some kind of "huge flange" on any model because I do not know of any model with such huge flanges. 

ALL I am saying is that on a model the flange MUST be represented as an item standing out from the vertical surface of the fin/fuselage. A flange standing out at 0.25 to 0.3 mm in scale 1/32 is sufficient. That is NOT enormous. Take a metric ruler, look at a millimetre, now picture a fraction of it. 

LET us not 'throw the baby with the bathwater." There are people who have an unhealthy obsession with destroying models. I am trying to create here, not destroy. 

Radu

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Radub