ME 109 replica
Veeduber
><stri...@bigfoot.com>
>Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 02:01 EST
>
>How come nobody makes an ME 109 kit?
>
Mike (and the Newsgroup),
In 1970, while stationed at the Pentagon and a member of EAA Chapter 189, a
group of us did some design studies of scaled replicas including the P-38 and
the Me-109, among others. Although a number of powerplants were considered,
including an inverted Buick V8, none proved suitable for the Me-109, which is a
relatively small airframe to begin with. Also, I recall there were some
problems unique to the Messerschmitt due to its landing gear.
The advent of V6 -- and at least one V8 -- having 60 degrees between banks vs
90 has caused me to wonder how such a powerplant might work. I've also been
curious as to the outcome of the P-38 project, having seen nor heard nothing of
it since that time.
-Bob Hoover (No. I'm the other one.)
-EAA 58400 (Life Member)
Pete Johnson
unless you're thinking of 100 percent. The 109 is so small, especially
in shoulder dimensions that it would be pretty difficult to make a
smaller scale look anywhere near accurate.
Pete
Duncan Charlton
> I've also been
>curious as to the outcome of the P-38 project, having seen nor heard
nothing of
>it since that time.
>
>-Bob Hoover (No. I'm the other one.)
>-EAA 58400 (Life Member)
I recall seeing an article about the reduced scale P38, probably in Sport
Aviation, in the last 12 months.
Duncan
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <3502F018...@erols.com>,
Pete Johnson <pj...@erols.com> wrote:
>Veeduber wrote:
> I'd suggest that size is the biggest problem in making a replica 109
>unless you're thinking of 100 percent. The 109 is so small, especially
>in shoulder dimensions that it would be pretty difficult to make a
>smaller scale look anywhere near accurate.
A couple of months back, SPORT PILOT had a cover article about two guys
in Cassletown, ND (just outside of Fargo) who have built an extremely
accurate full-scale BF-109 replica. Hadn't flown it yet, still working
on the engine if I remember right.
The weirdest thing about it was that my Dad knows one of the guys....
Ron "NDSU '76" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
dave morss
Duncan Charlton wrote:
yes there is a nice write up about the plane if you dont get sport av you
can see a picture of the plane on my web page under test flights.
http://www.ksql.com/myriad.htm
dave morss
John R. Johnson
Actually, the 100% scale ME 109 is STILL a small airplane. I would not
think it would scale down well. However, it would not be difficult to
build one full scale. There were some pretty impressive castings used
at the wing connection point and for the engine mounts, as I recall. It
has been quite a few years since I saw one up close and open. :-)
John
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Pete Johnson wrote:
> Veeduber wrote:
> >
> > ><stri...@bigfoot.com>
> > >Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 02:01 EST
> > >
> > >How come nobody makes an ME 109 kit?
> > >
> >
> > Mike (and the Newsgroup),
> >
> > In 1970, while stationed at the Pentagon and a member of EAA Chapter 189, a
> > group of us did some design studies of scaled replicas including the P-38 and
> > the Me-109, among others. Although a number of powerplants were considered,
> > including an inverted Buick V8, none proved suitable for the Me-109, which is a
> > relatively small airframe to begin with. Also, I recall there were some
> > problems unique to the Messerschmitt due to its landing gear.
> >
> > The advent of V6 -- and at least one V8 -- having 60 degrees between banks vs
> > 90 has caused me to wonder how such a powerplant might work. I've also been
> > curious as to the outcome of the P-38 project, having seen nor heard nothing of
> > it since that time.
> >
> > -Bob Hoover (No. I'm the other one.)
> > -EAA 58400 (Life Member)
> I'd suggest that size is the biggest problem in making a replica 109
> unless you're thinking of 100 percent. The 109 is so small, especially
> in shoulder dimensions that it would be pretty difficult to make a
> smaller scale look anywhere near accurate.
> Pete
>
>
Mike
If you built one at 100%, what type of engine would you use? The
original had a 1500 HP inverted V-12. It seems to me that the only
viable engine would be a commercial turbo-prop which is beyond my means.
Mike Mitchell
jo...@siu.eduIn article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.980309100504.1012i-100000@reliant>, jo...@siu.edu (John R.
Johnson) wrote:
> Article: 70034 of rec.aviation.homebuilt
> Path:
news.cix.co.uk!peernews.cix.co.uk!peernews.ftech.net!news-spur1.ma
>
xwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!saluki-new
> s.it.siu.edu!reliant!john
> From: "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
> Subject: Re: ME 109 replica
> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:06:35 -0600
> Organization: Southern Illinois University - Carbondale
> Lines: 42
> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980309100504.1012i-100000@reliant>
> References: <350242...@bigfoot.com>
<19980308183701.NAA17614@ladder0
> 2.news.aol.com> <3502F018...@erols.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: reliant.cwis.siu.edu
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> X-Sender: john@reliant
> In-Reply-To: <3502F018...@erols.com>
> Xref: news.cix.co.uk rec.aviation.homebuilt:70034
Over here in the UK there are a number of Spanish built Me 109s(HA1112)
powered by RR Merlins. There is a pronounced swelling under the nose
compared with the original DB powered 'Black 6' Yes, 100% is still a
small aircraft!
Regards, Mike.
John R. Johnson
Actually the original original had a 900 HP V-12. Most, if not all,
of the ME-109's still airworthy were spanish ones. If I am not mistaken
they were all reengined after the war with Packard Merlins. It does make
them just a bit interesting to fly, because the original engine turned
the opposite way and the fin is offset in the wrong direction for the
Merlin.
I would think you could use something like the Thunder V-12 without much
problem, and you certainly could offset the fin in the correct direction
for your engine rotation if you built a "replica."
John
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Mike wrote:
> If you built one at 100%, what type of engine would you use? The
> original had a 1500 HP inverted V-12. It seems to me that the only
> viable engine would be a commercial turbo-prop which is beyond my means.
>
> John R. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Actually, the 100% scale ME 109 is STILL a small airplane. I would not
> > think it would scale down well. However, it would not be difficult to
> > build one full scale. There were some pretty impressive castings used
> > at the wing connection point and for the engine mounts, as I recall. It
> > has been quite a few years since I saw one up close and open. :-)
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Pete Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Veeduber wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ><stri...@bigfoot.com>
> > > > >Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 02:01 EST
> > > > >
> > > > >How come nobody makes an ME 109 kit?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mike (and the Newsgroup),
> > > >
> > > > In 1970, while stationed at the Pentagon and a member of EAA Chapter 189, a
> > > > group of us did some design studies of scaled replicas including the P-38 and
> > > > the Me-109, among others. Although a number of powerplants were considered,
> > > > including an inverted Buick V8, none proved suitable for the Me-109, which is a
> > > > relatively small airframe to begin with. Also, I recall there were some
> > > > problems unique to the Messerschmitt due to its landing gear.
> > > >
> > > > The advent of V6 -- and at least one V8 -- having 60 degrees between banks vs
> > > > 90 has caused me to wonder how such a powerplant might work. I've also been
ken...@isrv.com
In article <6dv37j$8dv$1...@halcyon.com>, want...@halcyon.com (Ronald James
Wanttaja) wrote:
> A couple of months back, SPORT PILOT had a cover article about two guys
> in Cassletown, ND (just outside of Fargo) who have built an extremely
> accurate full-scale BF-109 replica. Hadn't flown it yet, still working
> on the engine if I remember right.
>
> The weirdest thing about it was that my Dad knows one of the guys....
>
> Ron "NDSU '76" Wanttaja
> want...@halcyon.com
> http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
I ran across this website with photos and information about the project.
http://www.akcache.com/akscan/miller/index.html
Mike Ellenberger
J Morris
John R. Johnson <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
> Actually, the 100% scale ME 109 is STILL a small airplane. I would not
> think it would scale down well. However, it would not be difficult to
> build one full scale. There were some pretty impressive castings used
> at the wing connection point and for the engine mounts, as I recall. It
> has been quite a few years since I saw one up close and open. :-)
There were a couple of guys in the UK who built a full size Spitfire out of
wood and powered it with a Jaguar V12. I think it gave them about 350hp, so
an ME109 of similar weight should be doable with in inverted V8 of similar
horsepower. In fact, it should be quite a lot easier than a Spitfire. (not
as many compound curves!)
Jeff
John R. Johnson
Right. The airframe is stone simple. It is also quite a bit smaller than
the Spitfire, so it should perform quite well with a smaller engine. One
thing we often forget about warbirds. Most carried quite a few pounds of
armour plate to protect the fuel and the engine and the pilot. Removing
the armour plate from most fighters can reduce the weight a remarkable
amount. A lighter weight replica, even full size, would be quite sprightly
even with considerably less power. A 600 hp thundering V-8 would certainly
get your juices flowing! :-)
John
John R. Johnson
There are several. It is rather a generic description. There exist
a series of big bore V-8 conversions with chain drive system that are
sold primarily to the ag aircraft trade to replace their hard to get
Pratt & Whitney engines. They produce about 600 HP and would likely
make an excellent choice for a fighter replica.
I would expect an "armour free" light weight replica of a Messerschmidt
to perform quite well with one of those engines. The fellow who does
these conversions is named Ed Geschwender.
John
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Ahura wrote:
> What exactly is a "Thundering V-8"?
Ahura
Rick Pellicciotti
Marcel Jurca, a French aircraft designer has a series of plans-built,
3/4 scale warbirds. I am getting ready to start on a Spitfire. He has
also designed a full-scale Spitfire replica along with a full-scale
Me-109 replica. Marcel is represented in the U.S. by Mr. Ken Heit.
Pictures of the 3/4 and 100% Spitfire along with contact information for
Mr. Jurca can be found on my Spitfire web site (under construction).
The url is: http://www.eracer.org/hangar_html/spitfire
Click on the "Spitfire Replicas" link.
Rick Pellicciotti
Mike wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> How come nobody makes an ME 109 kit?
--
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.spitfire.org (under construction)
The Spitfire Enthusiasts Web Site
Mike
Unfortunately, Jurca sells the 100% ME-109 plans for $3,750.00 which is
somewhat steep. He also admits that the appropriate engine, a 600-1500
HP V-12 doesn't exist and you have to tweek with a ranger V-12 to make
it fly.
Mike
John R. Johnson wrote:
> Right. The airframe is stone simple.
Can you elaborate on "stone simple"?
Also, those two guys in SD built their skin out of fiberglass from a
mold. Is this the best way to do it or would you use sheet metal and
rivets? Which is cheaper?
Mike
Phil Neiswanger
John R. Johnson (jo...@siu.edu) wrote:
: Actually, the 100% scale ME 109 is STILL a small airplane. I would not
: think it would scale down well. However, it would not be difficult to
: build one full scale. There were some pretty impressive castings used
: at the wing connection point and for the engine mounts, as I recall. It
: has been quite a few years since I saw one up close and open. :-)
Just kinda curious. What metals were used in WWII aircraft to produce the
bulkheads, longerons, spars, ribs and engine mounts?
--
phil
email: ph...@cs.weber.edu
tom c
Veeduber <veed...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980308183...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> ><stri...@bigfoot.com>
> >Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 02:01 EST
> >
> >How come nobody makes an ME 109 kit?
> >
>
>What about the MJ-90 ME-190 Jurca Plans? Not authentic or to expensive?
Tom Cooper
Robert Chilcoat
I seem to recall that the fuselage formers were pressed out of the skin
itself, at one end of each skin panel. When these panels were riveted
together, they formed most of the structure without separate bulkheads
and formers. Lightweight stiffening stringers were riveted to the
inside of the panels to complete the structure. Really neat
construction, but "Elegant" might be a better description than "Stone
Simple". The compound curves and tight radii of the ends of the panels
would be very difficult to fabricate without sophisticated presses. I
don't think you could make these panels with an English Wheel - but I
could be wrong (it's happened before).
Bob
John R. Johnson
As I recall though, most of the panels were simple conics. Folding
a flange on the end of the sheet could be tricky, but you would NOT
have to do that. You could use a standard ring bulkhead and fit it
at the skin lap. One of the cute tricks Willie did, was lap the
sheets what most people call backwards. He lapped the back sheet
over the one in front. This gave a pressure gradient at each lap
that caused the laminar flow to reattach rather than separate, at
each skin lap to reduce drag!
Basically, it is about a complicated to build a replica as it is to
build an RV-3. Slightly different shape and slightly larger, but not
really any more difficult. That is what I meant by stone simple.
Compare that to the parts in a P-51 or a Spitfire.
John
John R. Johnson
Mostly aluminum! :-) Actually the alloy designations were 17ST and
24ST. I know that 24ST is now known as 2024. 17ST is a weaker alloy
with better corrosion resistance, probably close to 6061, but I am
probably wrong. I am sure it is in one of my mechanic reference books
in my hangar somewhere. Of course that is NOT where my computer is!
Alclad was real popular in this country. Alclad was/is 2024.
John
Dave Sutton
Got into this thread sort of late, but you guys
-do- know that there is a full sized ME-109
in run and taxi stage out on Long Island NY,
(Republic, I think) with a Ranger engine installed
and running??? The plan is to fly it this summer.
Dave Sutton pil...@planet.net
Yak-50, Fouga Magister, DeHavilland Vampire, MiG-17
"There is no substitute for horsepower...."
John R. Johnson
No, I didn't know that! Is it the V-12 Ranger or the little six?
I did meet a guy several years ago, who was with the Confederate
Air Force, who was trucking home one of the Spanish 109's to
bebuild. I got to climb all over it. It really is NOT a large
airplane. There are many weight savings you could manage on a
replica. Like the thick quartz glass bullet proof canopy!
I thought one of the interesting, and slightly disturbing, things
about the design was the seat shaped fuel tank with a seat belt on
it sitting in the cockpit! The pilot literally sits on the fuel
tank! That has to be interesting in a "gear up" landing! :-)
Even worse than a Howard!
John
Patrick Calders
Rick Pellicciotti wrote:
>
> Marcel Jurca, a French aircraft designer has a series of plans-built,
> 3/4 scale warbirds. I am getting ready to start on a Spitfire. He has
> also designed a full-scale Spitfire replica along with a full-scale
> Me-109 replica. Marcel is represented in the U.S. by Mr. Ken Heit.
> Pictures of the 3/4 and 100% Spitfire along with contact information for
> Mr. Jurca can be found on my Spitfire web site (under construction).
> The url is: http://www.eracer.org/hangar_html/spitfire
>
Is it possible something is wrong with this URL (or my Browser !) ?
When I try to access it, I get the script, in stead of the result.
This is a pitty, as I'm interested in these replicas.
Kind regards
Patrick
Rick Pellicciotti
Patrick,
Thanks for your post. As I said in the previous message, the site is
under construction. There seems to have been a problem with the
javascript and older browser versions. I think it is fixed now. Please
try it again.
Rick
--
EyeBLS
>f you built one at 100%, what type of engine would you use? The
original had
>a 1500 HP inverted V-12. It seems to me that the only
viable engine would be
>a commercial turbo-prop which is beyond my means.
The early 109s had MUCH less horsepower! The 1st prototype flew with a 675 hp
Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine. Another prototype had a 610 hp Jumo 210A engine.
These aircrafte flew in 1936. A 960 hp Daimler-Benz came along in '37. The E
model was the first true production version and it had a 1,100 hp DB 601A
engine. The F model had 1,200 hp. The G had 1,475hp at sea level but less at
higher altitudes. The K model had 2,000 hp for takeoff and 1,800 hp at 16,700
feet.
Bill Lattimer
On 13 Mar 1998 01:08:35 GMT, eye...@aol.com (EyeBLS) wrote:
>The early 109s had MUCH less horsepower! The 1st prototype flew with a 675 hp
>Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine. Another prototype had a 610 hp Jumo 210A engine.
>These aircrafte flew in 1936. A 960 hp Daimler-Benz came along in '37. The E
>model was the first true production version and it had a 1,100 hp DB 601A
>engine. The F model had 1,200 hp. The G had 1,475hp at sea level but less at
>higher altitudes. The K model had 2,000 hp for takeoff and 1,800 hp at 16,700
>feet.
>
The Ryan Falconer V12 used in the Thunder Mustang puts out 640 HP in
fairly mild tune. Papa51 will offer both a super- and turbocharged
version that should easily hit 1100 HP. Basically the tradeoff is
power for TBO, and certainly Falconer engines have been built and
raced (auto) at these and higher HPs.
John R. Johnson
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Bill Lattimer wrote:
<snip>
> version that should easily hit 1100 HP. Basically the tradeoff is
> power for TBO, and certainly Falconer engines have been built and
> raced (auto) at these and higher HPs.
>
WWII also! :-) Do you suppose there is something fundamental about
swapping reliability for power and vice versa?
John
Bill Lattimer
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:35:44 -0600, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Bill Lattimer wrote:
Most certainly. I have no aircraft engine experience, but I there are
definite trade-offs in a car engine for performance vs.
reliability/rebuild time, especially at the high end of the curve.
For example, wide intake/exhaust seats last much longer, but can cost
10-25 HP. Narrow seats add that much HP, but will seldom go beyond
30K miles in a street-driven engines. Racing engines take these types
of concepts to the very extremes where you have 1/4 milers replacing
pistons between runs.
I was told once that a Merlin's TBO is about 400 hours, and a standard
overhaul is about 70K.
