Messerschmitt Bf 109 G2 "Black 6"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Messerschmitt Bf 109 G2 "Black 6"
One war plane I would like to see flying again is the "Messerschitt Bf109 G2 'Black 6' ".
I was lucky enough to see this aircraft fly powered with its "Daimler-Benz DB-605A" engine in 1995 or 1996.
Does anybody know if this aircraft is likely to fly again after its crash on the 12th October 1997. (Attached 2 Photographs on that day)
I think it's important to have a "Axis" aircraft with its german engine to fly with the Spitfire & Hurricane.
Regards
Mighty_Quinn
I was lucky enough to see this aircraft fly powered with its "Daimler-Benz DB-605A" engine in 1995 or 1996.
Does anybody know if this aircraft is likely to fly again after its crash on the 12th October 1997. (Attached 2 Photographs on that day)
I think it's important to have a "Axis" aircraft with its german engine to fly with the Spitfire & Hurricane.
Regards
Mighty_Quinn
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black six
Whatever the circumstances of the unfortunate landing - and see Luftwaffe statistics for shed-loads of those - the pilot involved refused to let them cut him out, as it would damage the airframe - despite being trapped with his nose in the dirt with a lot of high octane fuel around, above him.
I would think that worth rather more than a round of applause, ie a gong, no matter how the original landing went.
DZ
I would think that worth rather more than a round of applause, ie a gong, no matter how the original landing went.
DZ
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,703
Received 2,706 Likes
on
1,147 Posts
"Whatever the circumstances of the unfortunate landing - and see Luftwaffe statistics for shed-loads of those - the pilot involved refused to let them cut him out, as it would damage the airframe - despite being trapped with his nose in the dirt with a lot of high octane fuel around, above him.
I would think that worth rather more than a round of applause, ie a gong, no matter how the original landing went..."
Shame was it appears it was possibly the pilots fault in the first place that black 6 became black 9!
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_501760.pdf
I would think that worth rather more than a round of applause, ie a gong, no matter how the original landing went..."
Shame was it appears it was possibly the pilots fault in the first place that black 6 became black 9!
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_501760.pdf
Gibbes and Ken McRae (who 'found' it in the desert) flew over to the UK in 1991 to be re-united with it, when Black 6 was officially 'rolled out' after its restoration back to flying condition.
Last edited by GeeRam; 20th Jan 2018 at 15:51.
When Russ Snadden and the team started the restoration in 1972 the intention was for static display at Hendon. Russ then asked if they could restore 'Black 6' to flying condition and permission was granted for a 'limited flying life'. Prior to the first flight in 1991 the flying life was defined as being 3 years. Serviceability problems resulted in little flying being done in some seasons and so the '3 years' lasted until 1997. The accident sortie was, ironically, planned as the last public display sortie. After the accident the airframe was then rebuilt to an airworthy standard but the engine was never stripped and overhauled. The original propeller, which had been damaged but was flown on a concession for a couple of years, was refitted and the original fuel tank, which had developed a leak, was also refitted. Therefore, the aircraft as displayed in Cosford today is not totally airworthy but could be made so. Three of the 5 pilots that flew 'Black 6' are still flying warbirds. However, the aircraft essentially belongs to the RAF Museum collection and they do not fly their aircraft. It would be fantastic to get her airborne again, especially as a tribute to Russ and his magnificent team but, sadly, I doubt that will ever happen.
There are some on these forums who were involved in the project and may have more to add.
L
There are some on these forums who were involved in the project and may have more to add.
L
Last edited by LOMCEVAK; 21st Jan 2018 at 08:14. Reason: Grammar!
The airframe was rebuilt to an airworthy standard but the engine was never stripped and overhauled. The original propellor, which had been damaged but was flown on a concession for a couple of years, was refitted and the original fuel tank, which had developed a leak, was also refitted.
The DB605 was fully stripped, overhauled and rebuilt by the team at RR Filton, and the prop was overhauled by Hoffman in Germany, and the original and perished fuel cell was replaced by a new build one, all before its first post restoration flight by Reg Hallam in 1991.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ON TOP OF OLD SMOKEY
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank GeeRam . . .. . . Bobby had his homebuilt Cri-Cri at an airshow at RAAF Richmond around 1990. He had an engine failure taxying out to give a display. It was hot and windy. He was pushing his plane back to the parking area through a minor dust-storm. Later gave him a few shots I took on that occasion. He would not let me leave his home in Collaroy till the whisky bottle was drained and I had handed over the purchase price of his autobiography - "YOU LIVE BUT ONCE".
GeeRam,
It may have been the way in which I worded this but the comments above relate to after the accident, not before first flight. The original propeller was slightly damaged on the first flight when it struck the ground during take-off due to an incorrectly filled trench that had been dug across the strip an Benson. The prop was blended and it was used for the 1991 season and possibly 1992 also. Hoffman then made a composite propeller that was aerodynamically the same but each blade was about 50 lbs lighter which helped because with the metal prop it was being flown at the forward c.g. limit. The original fuel tank started to leak and was replaced after a few seasons flying, not before first flight.
Please note that all of this is from memory and, for all of us, it was a long time ago!
Originally Posted by LOMCEVAK
The airframe was rebuilt to an airworthy standard but the engine was never stripped and overhauled. The original propellor, which had been damaged but was flown on a concession for a couple of years, was refitted and the original fuel tank, which had developed a leak, was also refitted.
The airframe was rebuilt to an airworthy standard but the engine was never stripped and overhauled. The original propellor, which had been damaged but was flown on a concession for a couple of years, was refitted and the original fuel tank, which had developed a leak, was also refitted.
Please note that all of this is from memory and, for all of us, it was a long time ago!
For a few years I was a university lecturer teaching aircraft design. I wasn't far away from Hendon, and went over there - and at one point had a meeting with the director - about using the museum as a resource for teaching.
Basically, no go. Despite the geography, despite the free admission, the whole place seemed to be about history and preserving non-airworthy exhibits in aspic. I just couldn't use it as a useful teaching resource.
I ended up spending quite a lot of the university's money taking my students to Duxford, about whom I can still make complaints, but they were an order of magnitude better in support to my attempts to teach the science and technology aspects of aviation, and of course I got to show my students airworthy aircraft (and to talk to people whose job it was to keep them airworthy) from which they benefited massively.
Of course you can't keep all museum exhibits airworthy, nor should you try. Resources are limited, and some aircraft really do need preserving in aspic -but in my opinion the RAF museum historically has not got this balance faintly correct.
G
I've always wondered how the Bf 109 came to be known as a "Messerschmitt" and ME 109. Messerschmitt was the chief designer at Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) (Bavarian Aircraft Works), where the Bf originates in the aircraft designation. We don't talk about a Chadwick Lancaster, Camm Hurricane, Johnson P-38, Schmued P-51, so why Messerschmitt prior to Bayerische Flugzeugwerke becoming Messerschmitt in mid 1938 when subsequent designs did carry the Me prefix, the Me 163 didn't give any recognition to its designer Alexander Lippisch. No original German copy of the Bf 109 pilot notes, in any of the aircraft versions, contains the word Messerschmitt. Just curious if anyone has an insight.
In 1938 Willy Messerschmidt acquired a controlling share in Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, where he worked as chief designer. Anything in production at that time retained the 'Bf' designation, anything entering service after that date became 'Me'. So basically, he took over the business and put his name on it.
If you want the long version, see here: So which is it? Bf or Me 109?
If you want the long version, see here: So which is it? Bf or Me 109?
If readers are confused by the reference to a damaged propeller on Black 6, this photo may explain it. This is the surface of RAF Benson's 24/06 (Grass) strip a week after Black 6 first post restoration flight.
Last edited by VX275; 21st May 2020 at 14:48. Reason: runway reciprocal added
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: South
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1938 Willy Messerschmidt acquired a controlling share in Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, where he worked as chief designer. Anything in production at that time retained the 'Bf' designation, anything entering service after that date became 'Me'. So basically, he took over the business and put his name on it.
If you want the long version, see here: So which is it? Bf or Me 109?
If you want the long version, see here: So which is it? Bf or Me 109?
Aeroplane companies are mostly named after their founder/s, or chief designer or founding city or region or country. A minority tried more inspiring names such as Supermarine or Airspeed.
I've always wondered how the Bf 109 came to be known as a "Messerschmitt" and ME 109. Messerschmitt was the chief designer at Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) (Bavarian Aircraft Works), where the Bf originates in the aircraft designation. We don't talk about a Chadwick Lancaster, Camm Hurricane, Johnson P-38, Schmued P-51, so why Messerschmitt prior to Bayerische Flugzeugwerke becoming Messerschmitt in mid 1938 when subsequent designs did carry the Me prefix, the Me 163 didn't give any recognition to its designer Alexander Lippisch. No original German copy of the Bf 109 pilot notes, in any of the aircraft versions, contains the word Messerschmitt. Just curious if anyone has an insight.
Looking through the "Janes" copy of WWII aircraft it says, "With the reconstitution of the company (BFW) as Messerschmitt A.G. the designation was changed to Me 109, the first production version to carry this designation being the Me 109E, with which the Luftwaffe went to war in 1939". "Janes" uses the Me in both 109 and 110 designations throughout, despite saying Me was introduced with Emil and no mention of Bf anywhere.
"Messerschmitt Bf 109: The Design and Operational History", by Jan Forsgren, says, "On 8 September 1927 an agreement was signed by Messerschmitt with BFW in which he would concentrate on design and development while BFW concentrated on aircraft manufacture. Messerschmitt was to retain patent rights to his designs, as a result they were two separate entities, for all practical purposes, effectively working as one company". The first reference to Me 109 comes in a statement made by Dipl. Ing. Franke in 1936 to BFW test pilot Hermann Wurster, who was about to demonstrate the He 112, “just remember that you cannot do the same crazy things you had shown us in your Me 109”. Messerschmitt being the chief designer it's understandable how the Me was given as the prefix, and possibly explains the later wide spread, though incorrect use of same.
Neither the 109 of 110 were ever officially dubbed with the Me prefix, all Luftwaffe aircraft left the factory with Bf on the data plate, and similarly the pilot notes, no mention of Messerschmitt anywhere.
It would be remiss not to mention Robert Lusser who joined BFW in 1933 and assisted in the design of the 108 and 109, later becoming head of Messerschmitt's design bureau and in charge of the Bf 110 heavy fighter project.
The link Jhieminga kindly provides, argues that Bf and Me are both correct cites reports written in 1943 and 1944 when Me designated products were being built. I would suggest the report writer in this case just got it wrong for whatever reason. Bf products were 108, 109, 110, 161, 162, 163 (not to be confused with the Me 163 which highlights why correct designations are important) and 165, whereas there were 24 different aircraft types to carry the Me prefix – some only projects either not built or not flown. Not included is the Bf 109TL, a twin jet proposed as a Me 262 backup, comprising fuselage from the Bf 109H/BV 155B, wing from Me 409 and tricycle undercarriage from Me 309.
On this test report link you will see that the correct aircraft designations are used, Me 210, Bf 110, Bf 109, Me 209
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-turn-time.jpg
In summation, the use of Me is not the correct prefix on those with Bf, and I don't know how "Janes" comes to its conclusion - fog of war? I'm assuming they assumed the designation changed when the company became Messerschmitt in mid 1938 and the Emil entered production in late 1938.
"Messerschmitt Bf 109: The Design and Operational History", by Jan Forsgren, says, "On 8 September 1927 an agreement was signed by Messerschmitt with BFW in which he would concentrate on design and development while BFW concentrated on aircraft manufacture. Messerschmitt was to retain patent rights to his designs, as a result they were two separate entities, for all practical purposes, effectively working as one company". The first reference to Me 109 comes in a statement made by Dipl. Ing. Franke in 1936 to BFW test pilot Hermann Wurster, who was about to demonstrate the He 112, “just remember that you cannot do the same crazy things you had shown us in your Me 109”. Messerschmitt being the chief designer it's understandable how the Me was given as the prefix, and possibly explains the later wide spread, though incorrect use of same.
Neither the 109 of 110 were ever officially dubbed with the Me prefix, all Luftwaffe aircraft left the factory with Bf on the data plate, and similarly the pilot notes, no mention of Messerschmitt anywhere.
It would be remiss not to mention Robert Lusser who joined BFW in 1933 and assisted in the design of the 108 and 109, later becoming head of Messerschmitt's design bureau and in charge of the Bf 110 heavy fighter project.
The link Jhieminga kindly provides, argues that Bf and Me are both correct cites reports written in 1943 and 1944 when Me designated products were being built. I would suggest the report writer in this case just got it wrong for whatever reason. Bf products were 108, 109, 110, 161, 162, 163 (not to be confused with the Me 163 which highlights why correct designations are important) and 165, whereas there were 24 different aircraft types to carry the Me prefix – some only projects either not built or not flown. Not included is the Bf 109TL, a twin jet proposed as a Me 262 backup, comprising fuselage from the Bf 109H/BV 155B, wing from Me 409 and tricycle undercarriage from Me 309.
On this test report link you will see that the correct aircraft designations are used, Me 210, Bf 110, Bf 109, Me 209
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-turn-time.jpg
In summation, the use of Me is not the correct prefix on those with Bf, and I don't know how "Janes" comes to its conclusion - fog of war? I'm assuming they assumed the designation changed when the company became Messerschmitt in mid 1938 and the Emil entered production in late 1938.
