Bf 109 Tail plane root

[pvanroy]

1. First, a simple request. As Gazzas has shown, in the ZM kit, the distance between the outer surface of the flange and the fin is at least 25 mm in scale. Can anyone show any evidence, either photographic or documentary, that corroborates a gap of circa 25 mm between the fin and the flange in any variant of the Bf 109 F/G/K as is depicted in the ZM kit?

 

2. I am currently travelling, so I don’t have access to most of my references, but I should normally be back to access them in 7-10 days, so I can check then if my memory of a specified width of 1 mm for the gap is correct or not. As I clearly indicated in my previous message, I am NOT definitely claiming that Messerschmitt specified a gap of 1 mm, I’m just working from memory, which may be incorrect. In any case, Mr Brinzan posted several images from the Handbuch and the Ersatzteillisten, but you’re unlikely to find the tolerances for the flange specified there. The Handbuch is a general technical description and operations manual, outlining protocols and procedures, and these manuals will generally only specify critical ranges and tolerances for e.g. deflections of control surfaces, etc. The Ersatzteilliste is simply an illustrated spare parts list with numbers for the individual parts and subassemblies, so that units and workshops could order required replacements, and does not normally provide any tolerances. The tolerances for parts in an assembly will be indicated on the relevant engineering drawings, and may also be listed in the repair and maintenance manuals. Therefore, the tolerance for the flange *MAY* be specified somewhere in D(Luft)T 2109/Reparaturanleitung from 1942, so you could have a look there. Again, I said *MAY* - I can’t check this at the moment, so don’t misquote me as saying it definitely is!

 

3. I also EXPLICITLY stated that the gap likely could be quite a bit larger than 1 mm on a used airframe, but Mr Brinzan for some reason cut this statement when quoting my earlier post. However, the flange is intended to reduce drag, first by covering the rectangular gap in the fin through which the stabilizer is mounted, and second by smoothing the abrupt transition between the horizontal stabilizer and the vertical fin. So, there is an incentive to keep the gap as small as practically possible, because the wider it gets, and the further out the flange sits, it starts moving from the low-speed laminar boundary layer close to the fin into high-speed air, where the flange would start to generate turbulence and hence drag – i.e., the opposite of what it’s supposed to do. Moreover, if the flange moves out too far from the fin, it also loses its efficiency as an aerodynamic cover for the gap in the fin surrounding the stabilizer. This is an issue of particular significance for an operational aircraft, where performance is of the utmost importance. As it stands, none of the images posted in this thread, nor any I have ever seen elsewhere, nor any preserved examples I have seen, including Black 6, show a gap of the order of 25 mm as depicted by the ZM kit. Indeed, Mr Brinzan himself, in this very thread, has stated in his opening post that the gap between the flange and the fin in Black 6 is of the order of 7-10 mm, so significantly less than the 25 mm of the ZM kit. Hence, again, the simple question: does anyone have any evidence for a gap as large as 25 mm, as shown by the ZM kit?

 

4. This thread is getting increasingly bizarre. From all I can tell, it seems no-one previously brought up the root of the stabilizers in ZM’s Bf 109 G kit. Mr Brinzan started this topic himself – yet, when he is confronted with the fact that, judging from available evidence, the flange on the ZM kit appears a bit overscale, he immediately becomes defensive. Rather than candidly addressing this minor deficiency of an otherwise stellar kit, it seems Mr Brinzan unfortunately keeps reverting to straw man arguments while avoiding the actual issue – begging the question why he drew attention to this topic in the first place. Again: this is NOT about whether there is a gap between the fin and the flange – there obviously has to be, and NO-ONE is disputing that. Neither is anyone claiming that the gap cannot possibly be bigger than 1 mm – it very well can be, within limits. The issue at hand is that, while there obviously is a small gap between the fin and the flange, a distance of 25 mm as shown by the ZM kit appears exaggerated, based on the available evidence. If this is not the case, then please show evidence of an actual Bf 109 F/G/K with the flange sitting as far out as depicted by the kit – so far, all images and measurements that have been posted, including of Black 6, seem to confirm that the gap between the fin and flange was considerably smaller than suggested by the ZM model.  Again, I think this is a minor issue which can be fully corrected with some work, so it’s nothing to get worked up about!

[Radub]

1 hour ago, pvanroy said:

. The issue at hand is that, while there obviously is a small gap between the fin and the flange, a distance of 25 mm as shown by the ZM kit appears exaggerated, based on the available evidence. 

What is  this “25 mm” that you are you talking about? Can you please explain? 
Radu

Edited October 6, 2022 by Radub

[pvanroy]

30 minutes ago, Radub said:

What is  this “25 mm” that you are you talking about? Can you please explain? 
Radu

 

The “25 mm” refers to an earlier post in this thread by Gazzas, where he shows a close-up of the assembled tail of the ZM kit and states that the distance of the flange works out to circa 25 mm in scale. I don’t have the kit yet myself (my local retailer is still awaiting stock and I didn’t pre-order from ZM directly), so I can’t confirm the exact measurement of 25 mm, but comparing the assembled tail to both photographs, and actual airframes I saw myself in the past, I’m afraid the flange does indeed appear a bit overscale on the model.

 

Please, understand that I’m not trying to dish this model – to the contrary. Everything I’ve seen so far leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is an amazing effort, the very best Bf 109 on the market by a very wide margin. As a Bf 109 fanatic for over 35 years, I can see myself getting multiple copies of this kit. It’s just a matter that even this model is not perfect, as no model ever has been or ever will be. There are a couple of very minor issues, which overall do not detract from a brilliant effort at all. I can understand that having your work critically discussed like this is sensitive, especially as some people in the past have tried to inflate the minor deficiencies of the kit. This is not my intention. I was just hoping for an objective and honest discussion about the many merits and few shortcomings of the very best Bf 109 kit ever made, so that anyone wanting to address these minor niggles is aware of them. That’s all.

[Christa]

47 minutes ago, pvanroy said:

the very best Bf 109 kit ever made

Golly! I've got some shopping to do.

[Radub]

This thread has always been from the very beginning about the real aircraft. The photos, the very many photos, speak for themselves. If this was about a model, then it is about ALL models. This thread was not intended to defend any particular model or, indeed, to condemn any other particular models. Yes, there is no coincidence that this thread was started after the launch of the ZM kit but only in the sense that few people actually understood what was going on in that area, including "experts." Some "experts" still can't seem to be able to understand photos. I hope that my explanations reached enough sane people.

 

As all of you can see I never mentioned even once that this thread was meant to excuse or praise the ZM kit. Others did that. 

 

I see that some bizarre dimensions have been thrown into this discussion as some kind of "damning evidence". I do not know what is worse, making up random numbers or falling for it. I am not going to get into that discussion (how do I find any means to answer such strange statements ?) but anyone can take a caliper, measure the kit (any kit) parts and get the correct numbers. Enough hysteria was generated by one particular kit and, as shown above, not based on much reality. 

Radu

Edited October 7, 2022 by Radub

[LSP_Matt]

Hi everyone. Just letting you all know that the mods have been keeping a close eye on this topic.

 

For the most part, and probably for most of us, we've found it very informative. Radu's pictures highlighted something that for many of us was a surprise. This cultivated our curiosity and interest. The contributions from everyone have been what this websites strives to encourage. I've been learning from all the contributors...so thanks.

 

Arguing is fine but 'tone' in how we do it matters. Deepening our understanding on the topic need not be inherently adversarial. People hold to certain views but lets be kinder and more thoughtful towards each other when we're challenging others about what we think is intransigence or an error. 

 

I'm only posting like this because we've had a few formal complaints about peoples tone or choice of words.  We felt some of the comments contained borderline issues but not so bad the thread needed editing or locking.

 

Thanks Matt

[Radub]

Here are some photos that I took this morning. I invite all of you who have to kit to do the same things that I am going to show in the next photos. 

 

So, let us start.

This is the distance between the top edges of the flanges. As you can see on the calliper screen, the distance is 4.30 mm. 

 

This is the width of the fin. As you can see on the calliper screen, the width is 3.70 mm. 

 

So, simple calculation, 4.30-3.70=0.6 mm. Divide by two and that means that the width of each flange is 0.3 mm. What is 0.3 mm? 0.3 mm is the width of a regular business card. In this photo I used the calliper to measure the thickness of a business card. 

 

Now, I placed the business card on the fin, on top of the flange. You can see that the flange is actually slightly thinner than the card in this particular spot. Note that this is the widest spot on the flange, it is slightly thinner at the back.

 

Here is a photo of the tailplane attached to the fuselage. Those of you who remember the photos of the flyable aircraft posted earlier in this thread may be able to spot the similarity. 

 

Some of you will say "Wait a minute, that is not what we were shown in the photos posted elsewhere."

There are two things going on there:

Thing 1: Let us remember that when the first complaints about the flange were posted on the internet, they came from people who did not know that the flange was supposed to stand proud of the fin/fuselage. To them any "step" was a "problem", a noticeable "step" was a noticeable "problem". But here is the crux of the issue: a "step" is not a "problem", it is a "feature". I think that that very many photos of the flyable aircraft I posted in this thread demonstrated clearly that the flange does indeed stand at quite a distance from the fin/fuselage. 

Thing 2: I can replicate the "problem" with lighting and angle. 

From this angle the lighting creates a shadow that exaggerates the joint line and makes the flange look huge.  

 

This is the part turned around. It changed again. 

 

here is the part photographed from above, which really shows the true thickness of the material. 

 

Here is a photo from the back: 

 

So, that is it, a 0.3 mm (less in some places) flange in scale 1/32. In real life that is 0.3 x 32 = 9.6 mm. That is just shy of 10 mm. Take a metric ruler. Look at 10 mm. Then look at the photos of the flange on the flyable aircraft shown in this thread. You make up your own minds. 

I hope this helps. 

Radu 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Radub

[pvanroy]

40 minutes ago, Radub said:

Here are some photos that I took this morning. I invite all of you who have to kit to do the same things that I am going to show in the next photos. 

 

So, let us start.

This is the distance between the top edges of the flanges. As you can see on the calliper screen, the distance is 4.30 mm. 

 

 

This is the width of the fin. As you can see on the calliper screen, the width is 3.70 mm. 

 

 

So, simple calculation, 4.30-3.70=0.6 mm. Divide by two and that means that the width of each flange is 0.3 mm. What is 0.3 mm? 0.3 mm is the width of a regular business card. In this photo I used the calliper to measure the thickness of a business card. 

 

 

Now, I placed the business card on the fin, on top of the flange. You can see that the flange is actually slightly thinner than the card in this particular spot. Note that this is the widest spot on the flange, it is slightly thinner at the back.

 

 

Here is a photo of the tailplane attached to the fuselage. Those of you who remember the photos of the flyable aircraft posted earlier in this thread may be able to spot the similarity. 

 

 

Some of you will say "Wait a minute, that is not what we were shown in the photos posted elsewhere."

There are two things going on there:

Thing 1: Let us remember that when the first complaints about the flange were posted on the internet, they came from people who did not know that the flange was supposed to stand proud of the fin/fuselage. To them any "step" was a "problem", a noticeable "step" was a noticeable "problem". But here is the crux of the issue: a "step" is not a "problem", it is a "feature". I think that that very many photos of the flyable aircraft I posted in this thread demonstrated clearly that the flange does indeed stand at quite a distance from the fin/fuselage. 

Thing 2: I can replicate the "problem" with lighting and angle. 

From this angle the lighting creates a shadow that exaggerates the joint line and makes the flange look huge.  

 

 

This is the part turned around. It changed again. 

 

 

here is the part photographed from above, which really shows the thickness of the material. 

 

 

Here is a photo from the back: 

 

 

So, that is it, a 0.3 mm (less in some places) flange in scale 1/32. In real life that is 0.3 x 32 = 9.6 mm. That is just shy of 10 mm. Take a metric ruler. Look at 10 mm. Then look at the photos of the flange on the flyable aircraft shown in this thread. You make up your own minds. 

I hope this helps. 

Radu 

 

Mr Brinzan, many thanks for posting these pictures of the ZM tailplane! These indeed are very enlightening, and I agree that a distance of the flange of less than 10 mm on either side of the fin is within realistic limits for a real, flyable aircraft, and certainly as good as anyone could ever want in a model.

 

It just would have been good if you had simply posted these images and measurements when the issue first was raised, as it would have avoided several pages of needless drama. I really don’t think anyone in this thread intended to attack your work, or you personally. People just brought up what they honestly perceived as a genuine issue – i.e., a supposed gap of 25 mm, which, if true, clearly would have been excessive. As the designer of the kit, you are the person who is best placed to comment on this issue. You have now quite conclusively demonstrated that that the depiction of the gap in fact is within reasonable limits, and I really believe that this is all anyone was hoping to get out of this discussion.

 

Personally, I feel this matter is now settled. Thanks again for taking the time to do these measurements and for posting these instructive images!

[D.B. Andrus]

4 hours ago, Radub said:

Here are some photos that I took this morning. I invite all of you who have to kit to do the same things that I am going to show in the next photos. 

 

So, let us start.

This is the distance between the top edges of the flanges. As you can see on the calliper screen, the distance is 4.30 mm. 

 

This is the width of the fin. As you can see on the calliper screen, the width is 3.70 mm. 

 

So, simple calculation, 4.30-3.70=0.6 mm. Divide by two and that means that the width of each flange is 0.3 mm. What is 0.3 mm? 0.3 mm is the width of a regular business card. In this photo I used the calliper to measure the thickness of a business card. 

 

Now, I placed the business card on the fin, on top of the flange. You can see that the flange is actually slightly thinner than the card in this particular spot. Note that this is the widest spot on the flange, it is slightly thinner at the back.

 

Here is a photo of the tailplane attached to the fuselage. Those of you who remember the photos of the flyable aircraft posted earlier in this thread may be able to spot the similarity. 

 

Some of you will say "Wait a minute, that is not what we were shown in the photos posted elsewhere."

There are two things going on there:

Thing 1: Let us remember that when the first complaints about the flange were posted on the internet, they came from people who did not know that the flange was supposed to stand proud of the fin/fuselage. To them any "step" was a "problem", a noticeable "step" was a noticeable "problem". But here is the crux of the issue: a "step" is not a "problem", it is a "feature". I think that that very many photos of the flyable aircraft I posted in this thread demonstrated clearly that the flange does indeed stand at quite a distance from the fin/fuselage. 

Thing 2: I can replicate the "problem" with lighting and angle. 

From this angle the lighting creates a shadow that exaggerates the joint line and makes the flange look huge.  

 

This is the part turned around. It changed again. 

 

here is the part photographed from above, which really shows the thickness of the material. 

 

Here is a photo from the back: 

 

So, that is it, a 0.3 mm (less in some places) flange in scale 1/32. In real life that is 0.3 x 32 = 9.6 mm. That is just shy of 10 mm. Take a metric ruler. Look at 10 mm. Then look at the photos of the flange on the flyable aircraft shown in this thread. You make up your own minds. 

I hope this helps. 

Radu 

 

Radu

 

Photos aren't visible. Looking forward to seeing them.

 

Cheers,

Damian

[pvanroy]

57 minutes ago, D.B. Andrus said:

 

Radu

 

Photos aren't visible. Looking forward to seeing them.

 

Cheers,

Damian

 

I can see them without problem. Maybe some setting on your computer?

[fab]

Damien...cause it's a geheim data from Me Mwf type 123?

 

Despite the rich documentation share by Radu, the improve precisions from Pranvoy, i find it's - a bit- a pity that how this thread is going on, as I can understand about it said...than i am very found of this sort of technical analysis... I would not want that this discuss would be closed

 

To share my own experience about the disjoint sheet metal... i partipated for 10 years for maintenance and be lucky to flew the p51 "Jumping Jack"...I can swear you that for an american standart, you can see light, or more exactly some ditch between sheet...and not only the removal... 

If you take time to look at a Spit, the usual british rigor could be challenged....If you can observe for last example a perfect french plane like a D520...the fact is that your nose have spent too much time nearest your glue, cause, as everybody knows, we are not able to keep anything else than our wines

 

Then, perharps the tail end of Zm need some mastic, perhaps the hasegrevell need to bee engrave...it doesn't matter, and it will noticed as for sure in Thierry's tweaklist...

 

And, please, keep on to share in a common cultural knowledge

 

Amities

 

Fab

 

Ps...still waiting for a decent 110G, a Do215, a A234N 

[Radub]

1 hour ago, D.B. Andrus said:

 

Radu

 

Photos aren't visible. Looking forward to seeing them.

 

Cheers,

Damian

 

This may be something to do with Google Photos. I reloaded the photos. Hopefully it works now. 

Radu 

[Juggernut]

47 minutes ago, Radub said:

 

This may be something to do with Google Photos. I reloaded the photos. Hopefully it works now. 

Radu 

 

They do.  Thank you for that and the explanation.

[D.B. Andrus]

Alles klar, Radu!

 

Damian

[chrish]

That last post by Radu was highly enlightening…my kit has been ordered!