Bf 109 Tail plane root

[Martinnfb]

Hi Christa, I believe Radu was being sarcastic, the flange bolts on and sits on.  Minimal room for adjustment if any. Just fasteners and washers. Here is the real deal.

 

Radu, the problem is not whether Black 6 represents signs of structural damage, which it does, as is visible on the pictures above. Neither the gap or position the flanges on horizontal stabilizers. Fw-190 or Stuka have the same design and it is fine.

Issue is with the tail of ZM 109 kit. Gaz brought it up in his build and you counter react with this topic. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Martinnfb

[Radub]

1 hour ago, Martinnfb said:

 

 

Radu, the problem is not whether Black 6 represents signs of structural damage, which it does, as is visible on the pictures above.

 

Please look at the photos I showed in my previous post. You can clearly see that there is ABSOLUTELY no change to the tail plane of “Black 6” between the time when it was flying and when it was placed in a museum. There are other museum or flying Bf 109 and Bouchons that show similar features, which I showed earlier in this thread.
I showed  plenty of evidence in this thread, including other aircraft. 
You want more? 
Here is the Air Venture flyable Bouchon. Look at that gap when viewed from the back:

 

Now look at the same tail from the side. The gap is barely visible. THAT is why you cannot see the gap in the photos from the side.

 

Here is the Biuchon of the Aircraft Restoration Company. Look at the gap between the flange and fin/fuselage.

Here is one more. See the gap?

 

Here is one I posted earlier in this thread, but here it is again:

I can keep going. Keep fighting me and I will come back with more of the same. All of the images above are consistent and show the same thing. They look exactly like “Black 6” ( before and after the accident). I only used photos of “Black 6” because I have many photos of it and it is a beautifully-preserved aircraft, but I can find other photos. You could find them too if only you wanted to find them - these were found on Google Images and it did not take me that long. “There ain’t no man more blind than he who does not want to see.”
You mentioned the “damage” to “Black 6”. OK, let us talk about that. The damage suffered by “Black 6” is very well documented. There are many photos on the internet that show how extensive was the damage. It was flattened. The restorers worked really hard to bring the plane back to flyable condition and they did everything exactly as it was supposed to be. Considering what the plane looked like after the accident and how it looks now, it is nothing short of a miracle of engineering. I do not believe that the restorers invested all that skill and effort to get everything restored to perfection and then they had a sudden fit of stunning incompetence just when it came to the tailplane flanges.

Radu

Edited October 5, 2022 by Radub

[fab]

Huuummm

 

Did the others ME have the same?

 

I was thinking about 262...

 

Amities

 

Fab

[fab]

The first who ask for Me163... 

[pvanroy]

Of course, there is a small gap between the flange on the stabilizers and the vertical fin. The flange is screwed onto the stabilizers, and hence needs to be able to move freely to adjust the trim in pitch, so by necessity there needs to be a small gap between the flange and the fin. I don't think anyone is disputing that, or the fact that, as a consequence, the flange sits proud of the fin. 

 

Rather, the issue is that in the ZM kit, the depiction of the flange is a tad heavy handed, and its distance from the fin is a bit overscale.

 

In reality, the flange sits a couple of mm proud of the fin, as the numerous images in this thread show - I should check, but IIRC Messerschmitt technical documentation specifies a gap of 1 mm; add to that 0.75 mm for the thickness of the sheet metal, and you arrive at 1.75 mm distance for the outer surface of the flange from the fin. Factoring in wear, and the fact that out-of-wind tolerances needn't be as tight, the real distance on a used airframe may be somewhat bigger. So, let's double this number and round it up, and you arrive at a realistic distance that maybe can go up to 4 mm (and an aircraft would still be safely flyable with a larger gap, but as the gap gets bigger, the flange will start to generate drag, which is undesirable, at least for an operational aircraft where performance is paramount).

 

As Gazzas previously has shown, on the ZM kit, the flange sits around 25 mm in scale proud of the fin, which is clearly excessive; I at least have never seen any actual airframes, or photographs, documenting a 25 mm gap.

 

That being said, personally, I don't think this is a big issue, as it seems fairly straightforward to rectify. In addition, even taking into account this and a couple of other minor shortcomings, the ZM kit still is without any doubt the most accurate and detailed Bf 109 of any type in any scale ever produced, and will likely stay so for a long time. So, yes, the depiction of the flange on the new ZM kit is a bit overscale, but that's no reason to blow the whole matter out of proportion 

[Martinnfb]

Funny how the quote reduction alters the context . 

Radu, you're calling me "blind", perhaps you should look at my previous post and read what I said and look at the pictures I already posted here and elsewhere .  

 

There is an elephant in the room isn't ?  

 

 

Talking about the damage. It is well known fact that after careful assessment the black 6 was restored to the condition of a static display only , no more flying for this plane. Reasons as presented in the media at the time were two, the uniqueness of the only one original 109 airframe and structural damage that would required manufacturing load-bearing components and replacing the original parts.

 

This is quoted AviationSafety, where you can find the accident report as well :

 

Registration G-USTV cancelled by the CAA as "permanently Withdrawn from use" on 24/09/1998. In view of the rarity and historical significance of this airframe, it was repaired and rebuilt to static display standards as part of the IWM Duxford Collection and statically displayed at Duxford and at the RAF Museum Hendon, London

 

There is a decent number of aviators, engineers and inspectors on this forum to concur with the above based on the damage STILL apparent on the picture you posted. Restores did remarkable job to preserve this historic treasure .

 

 

Not so much flyable condition anymore , right Radu?  I understand that you are affiliated with ZM, but please, don't make it so apparent.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Martinnfb

[pvanroy]

Indeed, Black 6 was NOT restored to flying condition after its 1997 crash; the team behind the restoration only repaired the aircraft for static display, re-using as many original parts as possible. This probably also explains the somewhat beaten-up look of the fairings on the stabilizers and the root of the fin - so not the best example to illustrate normal tolerances for the fitting of these fairings.

 

In the words of Russ Snadden himself:

 

"Damage was confined, in the main, to the rear fuselage and the vertical tail, but the propeller and its spinner were destroyed and the cockpit canopy damaged. We removed every component from the fuselage before setting about cutting out the damaged areas. A new section of rear fuselage was grafted in using a jig and an original, but reskinned, fin fitted and the rudder rebuilt using as much original material as possible. While these repairs were being effected, the team cleaned up all internal equipment and repainted where necessary. I might add that this work was not required by contract. Simultaneously our engine 'bods' partially stripped the engine for inspection as required by the Air Accident Investigation Branch as part of its thorough investigation. Nothing was found which could have contributed to the events during that last flight. The Daimler-Benz was assembled and inhibited, after which the exhaust ports and supercharger intake were sealed. The original VDM propeller, which we had held in reserve, was assembled and fitted together with a replacement spinner supplied by a good friend in Germany. Our final task at Duxford was to repaint the aeroplane, a task with which we were very familiar."

[pvanroy]

2 hours ago, fab said:

Huuummm

 

Did the others ME have the same?

 

I was thinking about 262...

 

Amities

 

Fab

 

Yes, the Me 262 also had a variable incidence tailplane for trim in pitch, but it was operated by an electro motor. In addition, the elevators had inset trim tabs, but these were de-activated on most aircraft.

 

The Bf 108 also had a manually actuated variable incidence tailplane. This solution for trim in pitch is common on German single-engine aircraft of the era - you can find the same mechanism also on e.g. the Ju 87 and Fw 190.

[MikeC]

5 hours ago, pvanroy said:

you can find the same mechanism also on e.g. the Ju 87 and Fw 190

And, I believe, the Do 17 series.

[fastterry]

And Bf110 as well.

 

TRF

[Radub]

10 hours ago, pvanroy said:

I should check, but IIRC Messerschmitt technical documentation specifies a gap of 1 mm; add to that 0.75 mm for the thickness of the sheet metal, and you arrive at 1.75 mm distance for the outer surface of the flange from the fin.

 

Can you please post here a scan of that document? I am sure that others would like to see it too. There are plenty of photos (more than "Black 6") that I posted here showing that the distance is MORE, MUCH MORE, than 1.75 mm. 

 

10 hours ago, Martinnfb said:

Not so much flyable condition anymore , right Radu?  I understand that you are affiliated with ZM, but please, don't make it so apparent.

 

Martin, as I said ot you in private as well, you do not need to obsess over "Black 6". You have a terrible fixation with this "damage". OK, let us ignore it. Please explain the other photos I posted showing the same distance between the flange and the fuselage. The photos are just above. Would you like me to post them again? Would you like me to enlarge these photos and put arrows indicating where to look? 

As for my "affiliation with ZM", there is no need to make this personal. That is a cheap low blow. First of all I am not ashamed of my "affiliation with ZM". Secondly, do you think that saying that is placing some kind of "fog of doubt" over my posts and it changes the reality? The photos (all photos, not just the ones you pick)  I posted in this thread show a truth that goes beyond anything to do with me. People can see the photos and can read yor posts. Guess who comes out worse? 

 

Radu 

 

 

Later edit: 

For all it's worth, here are a couple of photos of "Black 6" when it was still flyable, i.e. before the "damage". Note the gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage. To me this "damage" narrative is just a "rodeo clown", something intentionally thrown in to distract and divert attention. Let us stay focused on the subject, which is the flange on the Bf 109. 

 

Apparently that overlapping panel under the tailplane was "damaged" when the plane was flyable. 

 

"Black 6" was repainted in this photo. This may not be the clearest photo, but the dark shadow on the left of the fin shows that there is a distance between the flange and the fin/fuselage. Spinning propeller indicates that this was still the "flyable" aircraft, i.e. before the "damage". 

 

And. saving the best for last, here is a photo of "Black 6" in flight, i.e. before the "damage". Note that gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage. Let us keep in mind that the Bf 109 is circa 9 metres in length. For argument's sake let us say that the photographer was 1 metre away from the nose of the aircraft (but obviously more...) so, let us say that altogether the tailplane is about 10 metres away from the camera. What kind of distance do you think should be there between the flange and the fin/fuselage in order to show up THAT evidently in a photo taken from at least 10 metres away? 

 

Need more? I can keep looking. Anyone can look too. You all have Google Images. There is a word for when someone tries to convince you that what you see with your own eyes is not true and you  should only believe their words. I am showing images, they only have words. Believe your eyes. 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Radub

[CRAZY IVAN5]

12 hours ago, Radub said:

Please look at the photos I showed in my previous post. You can clearly see that there is ABSOLUTELY no change to the tail plane of “Black 6” between the time when it was flying and when it was placed in a museum. There are other museum or flying Bf 109 and Bouchons that show similar features, which I showed earlier in this thread.
I showed  plenty of evidence in this thread, including other aircraft. 
You want more? 
Here is the Air Venture flyable Bouchon. Look at that gap when viewed from the back:

 

Now look at the same tail from the side. The gap is barely visible. THAT is why you cannot see the gap in the photos from the side.

 

Here is the Biuchon of the Aircraft Restoration Company. Look at the gap between the flange and fin/fuselage.

Here is one more. See the gap?

 

Here is one I posted earlier in this thread, but here it is again:

I can keep going. Keep fighting me and I will come back with more of the same. All of the images above are consistent and show the same thing. They look exactly like “Black 6” ( before and after the accident). I only used photos of “Black 6” because I have many photos of it and it is a beautifully-preserved aircraft, but I can find other photos. You could find them too if only you wanted to find them - these were found on Google Images and it did not take me that long. “There ain’t no man more blind than he who does not want to see.”
You mentioned the “damage” to “Black 6”. OK, let us talk about that. The damage suffered by “Black 6” is very well documented. There are many photos on the internet that show how extensive was the damage. It was flattened. The restorers worked really hard to bring the plane back to flyable condition and they did everything exactly as it was supposed to be. Considering what the plane looked like after the accident and how it looks now, it is nothing short of a miracle of engineering. I do not believe that the restorers invested all that skill and effort to get everything restored to perfection and then they had a sudden fit of stunning incompetence just when it came to the tailplane flanges.

Radu

Just a quick question as I'

ve never been very close to a 109, are those fairings being secured with Dzus fasteners or camlocs ? I'm surprised also that the maint. manual says to set the clearance to 1 mm , that's really small, but if the book says it then that's what it needs to be . Working in the jndustry for 45 years , you follow the book, no ifs ,ands or buts

[Radub]

9 hours ago, CRAZY IVAN5 said:

Just a quick question as I'

ve never been very close to a 109, are those fairings being secured with Dzus fasteners or camlocs ? I'm surprised also that the maint. manual says to set the clearance to 1 mm , that's really small, but if the book says it then that's what it needs to be . Working in the jndustry for 45 years , you follow the book, no ifs ,ands or buts

 

These are the fasteners.  

 

 

I have many manuals for many versions of the Bf 109 and I cannot find any reference for any specific distance between the flange and fin/fuselage, no number is specified anywhere, it is as if they could not care less. 

Actually there is no mention of any "flange adjustment" in any manual. 

Here are the relevant pages from the manual. 

 

 

 

Here are the component parts from the G parts list: 

 

Here is a list of what those numbers mean. The fasteners are items 48/49. 

 

Here are the components from the F list. Of note is the profile image that explains the "piano hinge" detail I mentioned earlier in this thread. 

Here is a list what those numbers mean. 

 

I looked at all the documentation I have, and I have a lot, and I cannot find any reference to the distance between the flange and the fin/fuselage. Pvanroy said he had it, so I am looking forward to it. 

Radu 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Radub

[alaninaustria]

Radu, your scholarly approach is meticulous and unparalleled!

Cheers

Alan 

[RBrown]