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.


http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...ty_quinn/1.jpg
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...ty_quinn/2.jpg

Regards
Mighty_Quinn

Sadly I would think it unlikely Black 6 will fly again, it's now part of the RAF Museum Collection at Hendon

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

"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

NutLoose. You're a diamond.......
Very intreasting read from your attached link regarding this unfortunate event.
Thank you for your response.

Regards
Mighty_Quinn

Before Black Six was recovered from North Africa, is there any record of which Australian pilots may have flown it there? Such as Bobby Gibbes or Ted Sly?

Yes, Bobby Gibbes did fly it on multiple occasions, the a/c was marked with his personal CV-V codes after capture and repair to airworthy by the 3 Sqdn fitters. He was the only 3 Sqn pilot to fly it, on 5 occasions before having to hand the aircraft over for evaluation as it was the first Gustav to be captured.

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.

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

Err......nope.

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.

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!

Which opens a whole separate can of worms.

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?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....efe3878873.jpg
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.

It’s very similar to what happened at Miles Aircraft, FG Miles was a minority share holder/Chief Designer at Phillips and Powis Aircraft ltd but everything that was produced was universally called Miles. It was only after Rolls Royce sold its share that FG was able to take a controlling stake and the company name brought into line with the brand name.

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.

Or "BAe Systems"... !

There is no such company.

But there is one called "BAE Systems" which still owns and trades under the name "British Aerospace" and "BAe" but only in certain specific parts of the world.

PDR

Nobody actually ever called the 109 a 'BF' verbally - iirc some Germans pronounced something like 'May', some people verbally used 'messer' or some other diminuation of Messerschmitt.I always just say 109 or 190 and everybody understands.

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.

Like I said above - nobody ever called any of those aircraft 'BF',it would be misleading to suggest otherwise.The 'BF' saga started in the 70's (?) - prior to that most people were happy to call these a/c 'Me' including their pilots and Groundcrew ;)

Further examination finds that though the German pilot notes make no mention of Messerschmitt or Me the maintenance manuals do use the designation Me 109. The question now is, why were they not consistent in their designation?

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attach...-1-pdf.517790/

Rest of the manual for those interested.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attach...-2-pdf.517811/
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attach...-3-pdf.517812/
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attach...-4-pdf.517813/

Interesting document megan. Front page states Me 109, on page 10 the first paragraph mentions the 'BF 109 E'. I think this is a subject that we can argue about until the end of times and not come to a consensus. They switched designations at some point, probably related to restructuring the company as Messerschmidt A.G. in 1937. There was also the custom of linking the designation to the chief designer (see Ta 152 for an example) so perhaps this led to people calling it a Me 109 while the company tried to stick to Bf 109, before giving in and changing the name of the company to Messerschmidt. And then there is the already mentioned 'fog of war' that will have influenced a consistent strategy in designations.

I have seen similar discrepancies and variations for other, post WW II types as well. Getting everyone in a large company to call a product by the same name or designation can be difficult. Try starting a discussion on designations for Fokker built types ;)

Perhaps they had more important things to worry about Megan :)

I doubt the Company was worried about the prefix LOL,as I previously posted - nobody ever called it a 'BF'109 and why would Willy bother about people calling the a/c after his Surname ?? The Company became Messerschmitt in 1938 so I would say fair enough to prefix as Me after 1938,I can never understand why all this matters so much and has taken up so much bandwidth over the years,who cares ? the Germans didn't ;)

You can question why anybody has an interest in anything, folks have interests in all manner of things. ;)

A source that puts matters to rest.

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance