Quantcast

Me109 85% replica

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

wr1212

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
2
Just posted on YouTube last month, a beautiful 85% Me109 replica. 75%- 85% seems like a good scale for a 109. Not sure what engine he's using, he states some Rotax?
Does anyone have more info on this.

 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,758
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
It would be alomst perfect if they put the landing gear to the correct degree of extension. It only looks like it's 3/4 of the way extended. Perhaps they did that on purpose to make the notoriously narrow 109 gear a little wider, but it doesn't look right. The rest of the aircraft is an incredible achievement, bravo to whoever built that.

And yes, dubbing the sound from some other airplane on top of the video is just completely cheesy. IT's obviously some sort of inline or vee engine, let's hear it :)
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
67
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
Agreed VB. It's the best reduced scale replica of a Gustav I've ever seen in all respects, apart from the landing gear extension and angle. Although l appreciate concern over narrow track undercarriages, l'd personally live with that for the sake of authenticity.

I would bet that a steeper leg angle in front elevation would be potentially more robust although I acknowledge the brilliance of the overall design.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,066
Location
North Carolina
It does look nice. Shame we can't hear it too. Judging by the cowl shape, it's an inline, maybe a 582 or similar. 25% of 109 losses were TO and landing. Not copying the gear exactly seems a wise idea to me. Maybe it could have a 'display' position as a PITA compromise.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,758
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Someone went to a LOT of trouble to build a nearly perfect sub-scale replica of a truly iconic, historically significant aircraft. An aircraft that is instantly recognizable and that (most of us) built many many models of. Actually, 'iconic' is an understatement.

So when a compromise is made that makes the aircraft look different, it is noteworthy, and several of us made note of it. It didn't ruin my day, and the rest of the aircraft is nothing short of magnificent, but I stand by my feeling that it does deserve mention. Not eviscerating the builder for unforgivable insult, not banishing him off into the margins of irrelevance, but a notation that it is the only blemish on a spectacular achievement.

If the builder had enlarged the horizontal tail slightly due to "scale effect", that is a very slight historical deviation that is quite forgivable, but wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.

I realize that the narrow track of the 109 caused problems. Remember it was originally designed for large European grass airfields where you could take off and land into the wind. But I have to stand by the notion that if you are going to build a really good replica, you should not interfere with the visual cues and proportions that made the original so recognizable.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,456
Location
Memphis, TN
The stock longer gear is prone to ground loops and really needs three point landings and tail low takeoffs. It’s just how pilots flew planes 70 years ago. The gear moved back just a hair and shorter, takes the squirrel out. It’s really scary watching modern pilots land a real 109. They try to wheel it and it’s on the verge. The best P-51 landing I ever saw was a three pointer. Down and stopped 1500 ft. The wheelers will have the tail up that long.
 

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,407
Although l appreciate concern over narrow track undercarriages, l'd personally live with that for the sake of authenticity.
I'm not sure I would compromise handling and safety for aesthetics. But, if I were the "world's greatest fighter pilot" I guess why not.
 

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,407
A couple of things I noticed. The plane has a blacked out Swastika on the tail....as required by German law....perhaps other European countries too. It doesn't have a civil aircraft identification code other than the replica letters WG-RF on the bottom of the wing. If the plane is German it should have a code that starts with "D" and if in the Czech Republic it should start with OK. As for the engine; I don't think a Rotax 582 would fly the plane as shown. Must be a 912 series if its a Rotax. More likely not a Rotax.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,305
Location
Thunder Bay
I just did a quick googling for pics to support that I don’t think the splay of the gear is that far off scale and ended up noticing that even Messerschmitt appears to have widened the track over the years. Either that or it’s some optical illusion caused by the different shape cowls that ‘109s wore through their development.
 

ScaleBirdsScott

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,258
Location
Uncasville, CT
I would wager its a 912. I could fit a 912 into my original P40 cowling models. It was tight, but it's not that bad and with a big wide spinner it's easy to hide. Our plane is probably very very similar in size to this replica, if not slightly smaller, so definitely would probably be the 100hp 912 or better.
 

Old Koreelah

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Australia
What a great acheivement; looks more authentic than the Merlin-powered BoB movie planes.

Another 109 replica built years ago by an old mate who actually flew the real thing in the later stages of the war.
As a pensioner, the only engine he could afford was a small 2-stroke, which sure limited the authenticity of the result.
image.jpeg
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
67
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
Responding to the discussion on the replica Me 109 undercarriage track and length, the original 109s featured slightly longer, more upright legs but the later, heavier examples from the F onwards had a shorter leg, more forward raked with a somewhat wider track. Nonetheless, during the course of the war, some 1500 Me 109s were lost in accidents attributed to the undercarriage design, despite an automatic tailwheel locking device being introduced early on.

But the original track amount to 1/5 of the wingspan, which can be considered a norm, depending on wing weight. The early models did not have wing radiators or plumbing while later on the wing had radiators and often carried external armament packs, etc. A comment was made about the P-51's landing capability and another that 109s were nowadays 'landed from a 'wheeler', something of which I am unaware: Klaus Plaza, an experienced Me 109G demonstration pilot, warns never to attempt a wheeler or the pilot will lose the major advantage of the locked tailwheel and be dancing on his toes.

Evaluation of the Bf 109E-3 at the RAE Farnborough in 1940 showed that due to the large angle through which the 109 had to be rotated to flare, the temptation was to perform wheel landings during which there was a strong tendency for the left wing to drop just before touchdown, and when the ailerons were used quickly to raise the wing, they snatched, causing over-correction. This was overcome by holding off a little high, allowing the aircraft to sink slowly onto all three points, with no tendency to wing drop. The evaluating pilots quickly became accustomed to this technique and had no further difficulty. Landing runs were relatively short and so too the take-off runs with excellent acceleration and 'no tendency to swing or bucket', although the aircraft did rock slightly from side to side. On no account should it be pulled off early and even after flying speed had been gained, the pilot was advised to keep it on the ground for a while. Failure to do this resulted in wing-drop, aileron-snatch and possible divergence.

With the CG well behind the wheels the aircraft could be taxied quickly though harsh braking was necessary to turn. This presented no special problems other than the resulting wider turning circle.

The Spitfire has a similarly narrow track, but the legs are shorter and the broad elliptical wing combined with the 'air-dam' effect of the 90 degree split-flaps on landing cushions the touchdown, as may be seen on many film clips. A 109, flown expertly, has been seen to land from a side-slipping approach into a high flare that resulted in a beautiful three-pointer with short run, on grass. Connie Edwards firmly believed in the aircraft's qualities even as a Buchon. It had its drawbacks as a fighter but was still a formidable weapon in 1945 in the right hands and circumstance.

My thoughts on the scaled replica Gustav's undercarriage angle were not purely aimed at the aesthetics and my comment had nothing to do with being a 'the world's best fighter pilot'. I appreciate that wide-track landing gears tended to be favoured, especially as WW2 progressed (eg. P-51 and Fw 190) while the redoubtable Hurricane confirmed that early on. Not to too closely compare apples with pears, the Messerschmitt 109 was sometimes ironically referred to as a 'good training machine for the Bu 131 Jungmann', the Luftwaffe's basic and aerobatic trainer, for its propensity to ground loop and overturn, due to the extreme toe-in of its narrow undercarriage geometry when unmodified (to alter the toe-in) which was effected on some later Jungmanns. The extreme opposite of this angular geometry in biplane terms, post-WW2 must be the Marquardt Charger.

I reiterate that the replica 109 featured here is an amazing achievement. I re-attach herewith one version of my proposal for an ultralight 109 undercarriage, which I posted to the HBA site some years ago to assist with a design then under discussion.
 

Attachments

Top