Stiknrudder

My Feedback: (3)

I understand the visual of the outward splayed landing gear, but it's still the base between those wheels that makes it so squirelly. I'm sure Willy Meschersmitt knew the narrow stance was a problem and therefore the outward angle to effectively widen the base it rested upon. Certainly other factors played into it's propensity to groundloop such as the moment arm behind the base, etc and the gyroscopic forces generated by the revolving wheels.
I would wager if the legs were perpendicular to the ground and the wheels were the same distance apart and canted in regards to horizontal like the BF-109's, it would be just as squirrelly. Take the F4F. How far apart were it's wheels compared to the 109? BUT the tread was square to the ground and it had a short moment arm behind those wheels, and it doesn't have the same rep as the 109.

JMHO,
Rick

David010567

My Feedback: (2)

oh my

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

If the G6's had the old style canopy or not, isn't the question. The model, as painted was a late model G6 with the Erla style canopy.



So yeah, if we sand off the paint we are good to go with any of the early G6's (and there are quite a few GREAT looking paint jobs on G6's), but as it is painted... Nope.



There was a VERY specific reason the legs on the Bf 109 are where they are.

The plane was designed to be shipped on its own legs with its wings removed. Ease of transport, per the original RLM request.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

yah, that explains why sawhorses have perpindicular legs...

SCALECRAFT

My Feedback: (13)

So, who was the pilot of black 14 with yellow border?? JG ?? Must of flew more than one 109

Steve

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

Hptm. "Tony" Hackl I believe.

Tisoy909

My Feedback: (21)

Wow that guy has 192 Kills, talk about making ace!

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Uffz. Hugo Hausotter was the original pilot of this particular bird., 8./JG 1 in 1944.

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

when did Hackl fly her? or was I wrong about this pilot?

TA152

Does it exist any pics of the original airplane?

pandissix

My Feedback: (134)

Right there with you DP. All this over an ARF...and a decent one at that. Im sure Dino has a few 102" ones ready to ship....with any canopy you want. If you want scale...go to Meister Scale...there is nothing better. Gents take the 109 off on pavement in a scale manner without 3D flying circus take offs....and land the 109 in a cross wind....then come back with an opinion. Im just saying.

kahloq

Yea regardless of what the paint job is, the plane is pretty scale(not 100%) and will undoubtably fly quite well and MOST ppl that buy it will be very happy for that fact. On top of all that, its a damn fine looking me-109, especially for an arf.
Minor scale descrepancies can be changed by the builder. Im just glad and very happy there is an ME-109 in this size, thats an arf, and that looks damn good. I dont have the space to do a kit build from a box of wood.
Now..if you think about that ridiculous offering from easytiger models...hell..this one is by far and away, the best looking me-109 arf ever made.
I would be proud to fly this one next to someone flying a meister scale.

rrudytoo

My Feedback: (27)

All,

Regarding the loss rate of 109s to ground handling accidents I posted earlier, the numbers I copied from Flight Journal Magazine were not my own but were quoted by Captain Eric Brown yet his claims seem dubious to a couple of you. Captain Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, is a legend in the RAF and a test pilot who has flown a world record of 487 aircraft types. In his flight logbook he includes gliders, fighters, bombers, amphibians, flying boats, airliners and helicopters and he holds the record for the most aircraft carrier landings (2,407) and the most catapult launches. I doubt very much that he is prone to exaggeration.

Flight Journal Magazine is a quality publication with experienced, well-known contributors from the aviation field. I doubt that they would knowingly publish errors that could be readily discredited.

Attached is a brief article by Corky Meyer concerning the Bf 109 and he quotes Johannes "Macki" Steinhoff as to precautions to observe before flying a 109 for the first time. Corky Meyer was a Grumman test pilot during WWII and also had flight time on most of the then-current US fighters, a few other Allied fighters as well as a few captured examples. He spent 36 years with Grumman Aircraft and was the first civilian to be jet-qualified for carrier operations. I doubt if Mr. Meyer would unwittingly cite erroneous facts.

Also attached is a scan from Mr. Meyer's book, "Corky Meyer's Flight Jounal", where he was rating the various aircraft in the ETO. Again, mention is made of the losses due to the abismal ground handling of the 109.

Al

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

First, lets clarify something, a little over 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents. 10% of almost 34,000 is 3400 aircraft. Lost during takeoff and landing.

The images for his plane are included in the same EagleCal decal kit as Black 14 (EC#40)

This is Hackl's plane:




Here is the decal set:

SCALECRAFT

My Feedback: (13)

Thanks for the info Evil.

Steve

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

10% loss is pretty typical of any aircraft during that era too. so the Me 109 is no worse or better in that regard.
good info as always Evil.

kahloq

Thank you Mr Merlin!

kahloq

An RAF pilot is going to be biased no matter what regarding the ME-109. Sure he had to be given special warning on how to fly it, cuz, well, an RAF pilot is not used to flying one....no matter hopw good he is. So comapred to something trainer esque like a P-51 or Hurricane on ground handling, yea they gonna say the 109 is so poor.
But..well...34,000 planes produced says alot more then a few naysayers.

And again...there are so may places you can find the number closer to 10%. 11,000 as posted in Meyers article is only based on what a person thought or said, not actual RLM records. There was nothing in that article to back up that claim.

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

I think It is time for someone to come up with some hard facts and let the truth lay where it may. Ehwn I say hard facts I mean a good black and white shot with some kind of time period listed. Some times more often then not these planes were outfitted in the field and different pilots flew different planes during the same time period because their regular mount was not always avaiable when they needed it. It is time to get back to the kit that is not out yet. There is so much speculation on this kit I cannot believe. I saw on one site that the price will be somewhere between $699 to $799 and then another site had it at $499 and it is suppose to be a 50cc plane and the one site has it at a little over 16 lbs. It looks like a very good arf so maybe we should waite till we have some good and I stress good info. on it.

thanks bob

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

I betcha the WIDE gear set stance of the P-51 Mustang had muchmore takeoff/landing mishaps then the 109 ever did.

kahloq

I emailed Tomas at Vqwarbirds and was told the plane will be available the later part of march/april. He has the release date range listed on the homepage. As for price...any of the other 50cc planes listed should give a pretty good clue. $629-$659

hellcat56

My Feedback: (21)

80in, me 109, arf, for 699
what a deal
try buying something in this size and quality for that price
doesnt exist

While I consider myself a scale nut of the first degree
some need to quit being so picky on every plane that comes out and appreciate the selectionit is an ARF not a museum quality scale replication
maybe inside the wheel wells are missing the third nut on the second row behind the sheeting cover by a hatch inside the wing
But give me a break

This will be an impressive plane at any field
As for landing a 109 I have had a 70 in and a 102in and the only thing to worry about is with the gear so close it is easy to scrape a wing tip but so is the spitfire

enjoy the planes and quit looking for mistakes that only a few would Ever notice

gtobil

Second that. Alot of complaining all through these forums.

kahloq

hellcat...its 88" not 80 so even better bargain for price. Im sure you meant 88, just makin sure.

As for scraping a wing tip due to the narrow gear, one COULD but little wing skids at the tips to protect them and no one would ever seem them. I'm just saying.
http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbyking/s...idProduct=8406

David010567

My Feedback: (2)

Here's my 2 centavos...

Yea... 109's have narrow tall landing gear. Yea... You better be on top of your game on take off and landing. There's lot's of planes out there with a few "tendencies" such as Spitfires and P-40's (wing tip skid city) Stangs and 190A's (nose over and over). The guys who build and fly 109's, do so because they are passionate about them. If you want a perfectly balanced, zero bad habit airframe then go fly a TOC/YAK or a Dora.

109's are my passion and I for one welcome this new ESM ARF. I think it looks great and should fly very well. This airframe with a cockpit kit, some nice Sierra retracts, Glennis wheels and little creative detailing can easily do very well in most fly-in/fun fly contests. It really takes rare bread of modeler to take on any 109 project. The guys who fly off grass will definitely have an advantage.

FYI... My 1/4 scale G14/AS has the taller tail wheel and enlarged rudder. I have to admit having flown the standard G6 tail, the taller tail really does help with getting the tail up a little faster and enlarged rudder has a little more authority.