Za Germans are not yet defeated.

[DKsvejseko]

Thought this might be good reading for some:

 

http://www.havarikommissionen.dk/~/media/Files/Havarikommissionen/Havarirapporter/Luftfart%202013/HCLJ510_2013_242.ashx

 

 

[DD_bongodriver]

very interesting and quite surprising the 109 is not designed for inverted flight.

[Saurer]

Some pictures of here in a better contition (and of her sister)
 











 
http://youtu.be/Mm5Mt7tY7bI

Edited May 9, 2014 by tonebener

[HansHansen]

Very interesting and sad that people who should know better crashed this beautiful 109 because of some stupid mistake.

 

Apparently this airshow routine has not been practiced before, includinging maneuvers clearly not recommended by the manual.

Unbelievable, this can't be the whole story...   I am very disappointed right now.

[Saurer]

Its the 3 time they crashed it i think. 

 

When i saw it at Airpower09 (i belive) they flew it very carfull

[DKsvejseko]

The fuel system is not made according to the BFs manual, that was the problem. A real BF could fly inverted without problems. It is a restored Hispano which got a DB engine in 2008. Dont know if the Hispano is known to have problems with inverted flight, but i have never seen, read or heard of BFs not being able to fly inverted.

[DD_bongodriver]

But the last page of the report seems to be an extract from a German manual for the G-6 and it states it is not suitable for inverted flight.

 

Even though it's a Spanish airframe the rebuild to G-6 spec would mean it gets the fuel system for the DB engine.

[DKsvejseko]

Page 7 at the bottom:

Aircraft Flight Manual
The fuel tank internal component description in the Flughandbuch (Aircraft Flight Manual) was not in
agreement with the actual aircraft fuel tank configuration. I guess they have copies of the original manuals but have not made the tank accordingly.

 

The extract you mention is a redo of the manual for that specific aircraft in order to uptain airworthiness papers. It is not from a original flight manual.

[DD_bongodriver]

The fuel tank internal component description in the Flughandbuch (Aircraft Flight Manual) was not in

agreement with the actual aircraft fuel tank configuration

 

 

Despite this the manual still states the aircraft is not cleared for inverted flight.

 

Seems unthinkable they'd do a bit of a hackjob rebuilding something like this.

Edited May 9, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[Bladderburst]

They did not rebuild it for combat.

 

Anyhow it's not a BF109 it's a Buchon with a BF109 engine.

[DD_bongodriver]

Not sure what that really means,

 

They rebuilt it using a Buchon airframe to recreate a 109 G-6, I can assure you the procedure will have been much less crude than simply nailing a DB 605 to a Buchon.

 

Their (original) manuals stated it's not cleared for inverted, they rebuilt it in a way that didn't allow inverted and then they flew it inverted.

 

Combat has nothing to do with this.

[II./JG27_Rich]

Fixed yet? Hardly damaged at all. Shouldn't worry because now they can build one from scratch.

 

http://www.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/geschichte/exklusiv-perfekte-reproduktionen-der-bf-109/495575

Edited May 9, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[Bladderburst]

Not sure what that really means,

 

They rebuilt it using a Buchon airframe to recreate a 109 G-6, I can assure you the procedure will have been much less crude than simply nailing a DB 605 to a Buchon.

 

Their (original) manuals stated it's not cleared for inverted, they rebuilt it in a way that didn't allow inverted and then they flew it inverted.

 

Combat has nothing to do with this.

 

An airworthy museum airplane doesn't necessary have the same capabilities as the original. The fuel line is maybe not the same as the BF109 of 1942. Several components differ and this airplane will never need to fly in a combat environment.

 

109s had no problem at all flying with any attitude. Their engines did not cut off for reasons like that. Erich Hartman did inverted G manoeuvers way more aggressive than just flying upside down for 10 seconds. 

 

Anyway if you read the report, on page 10 it is written that:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normally the electrical fuel pump was only “ON” during take-off and landing. 

 

With the electrical fuel pump “OF” the engine driven fuel injection pump supplied fuel to the engine 

by motive flow. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the pump should have been working for such manoeuvers. 

[DD_bongodriver]

the pump should have been on for take off and landing as a backup, most aircraft have this configuration of mech pump and electric pump, the electric pump is used simply to protect from fuel starvation if the mech pump fails and take off and landing are critical, traditionally take offs and landings are not done inverted.

[DD_bongodriver]

Damn this 15 min edit limit.

 

it still doesn't explain why the original 109 G-6 manual states that the aircraft 'engine' is not cleared for inverted flight.

[DKsvejseko]

Its a Buchon with a DB engine, nothing wrong with that.

The problem lies with the fueltank itself. It is not made for combat flying as Boussourir said. I dont know how the fueltank is made up on the D-FWME but it is not made according to the manuals (copies of originals). There can be many reasons for that, but most proberbly because a bladdertank like that is very expensive, and there is alot of money saved on having it made to standard flying only (it is allowed to roll and loop though=positive G stuff.) and not to combat standards.

But they could have made the fuel system with a air separator, but that would require a new authorisation, inspection and a hell of alot of paperwork from EASA. And that is not cheap either.
So the pilot is all to blame in this case, he did not follow his own dash 1 manual that specificly says: Motor nicht für rückenflug geeignet.

[DD_bongodriver]

What does combat flying have to do with the fuel tank? it's clearly been built with the intention of flying aerobatics.

[DD_Arthur]

What does combat flying have to do with the fuel tank? it's clearly been built with the intention of flying aerobatics.

 

The accident report says of the fuel tank that the fuel feeds were 5mm and 7mm above the floor of the tank.  Isn't that an arrangement just asking for trouble? 

[DD_bongodriver]

The accident report says of the fuel tank that the fuel feeds were 5mm and 7mm above the floor of the tank.  Isn't that an arrangement just asking for trouble? 

 

No, it's common practice to have a quantity of unuseable fuel in a tank, this is so any sediments and crud that fuel tanks collect will reside in that last slosh of unuseable fuel and not get put into the engine.

Red 7's fuel tank

 

 

 

http://shop.me-air-company.de/product_info.php?products_id=82

[DKsvejseko]

Damn this 15 min edit limit.

 

it still doesn't explain why the original 109 G-6 manual states that the aircraft 'engine' is not cleared for inverted flight.

 

That manual on the last page is D-FWME flight manual (dash 1) and is made specificly for that aircraft, because they have not made the aircraft as described in the original flight manuals.

 

 

What does combat flying have to do with the fuel tank? it's clearly been built with the intention of flying aerobatics.

 

Not in the case of D-FWME and i will give you and example from a plane i know very well. The Saab T-17 we have in the Danish airforce as a trainer is an areobatic approved aircraft, it can do all sorts of areobatic stuff, but it cannot fly inverted for more than.. can remember how long, 3 or 5 secs, because then the engine oil flows away from the oilpump and oilsump and the engine gets no lubrication. added--> And if D-FWME does not have the fueltank/fuel system like the original, it cant maneuver like the original.

 

The accident report says of the fuel tank that the fuel feeds were 5mm and 7mm above the floor of the tank.  Isn't that an arrangement just asking for trouble? 

 

It sound foolish but its not, try measure 5-7mm. I bet your cars fueltank has more than that. And it is normal in aircrafts to have unusable fuel, it is actually calculated in written in the manuals.

Edited May 9, 2014 by DKsvejseko

[DD_bongodriver]

 

Not in the case of D-FWME and i will give you and example from a plane i know very well. The Saab T-17 we have in the Danish airforce as a trainer is an areobatic approved aircraft, it can do all sorts of areobatic stuff, but it cannot fly inverted for more than.. can remember how long, 3 or 5 secs, because then the engine oil flows away from the oilpump and oilsump and the engine gets no lubrication.

 

 

Engine oil was not the issue here, the DB engine is dry sump with a scavenge pump and will have an allowable inverted limit.

[DD_bongodriver]

I just can't see how if you can build a 109 G-6 with an original DB605 you could possibly not be able to build an authentic and correct fuel system.

[MiloMorai]

The accident report says of the fuel tank that the fuel feeds were 5mm and 7mm above the floor of the tank.  Isn't that an arrangement just asking for trouble? 

 

6.35mm is 1/4" or the thickness of a lead pencil.

[DKsvejseko]

It was just and example on how gravity has an effect on fluids during inverted flight.. And both oil and fuel is fluids, soo..

[DD_bongodriver]

So you are really maintaining they simply felt around in the dark when they built the fuel system? just how much of a departure from the original fuel system do you think it is?

[DKsvejseko]

I just can't see how if you can build a 109 G-6 with an original DB605 you could possibly not be able to build an authentic and correct fuel system.

 

I know, but sometimes in my job as an aircraft technician in the Danish Airforce, if a system like eg. anti ice valves fail, it is added in the logbook (Aircraft must not enter icing conditions) until it is fixed and its kind of the same with D-FWME. The fuel system is just not made like the real deal,and that ok. We just need the sounds and the looks right

[DKsvejseko]

So you are really maintaining they simply felt around in the dark when they built the fuel system? just how much of a departure from the original fuel system do you think it is?

 

I dont believe they didnt know what they were doing, because they added "not suited for inverted flight" in the flight manual.

I cant say what has been made diffrent, i dont have the copies of the originals here, im stationed in Africa right now and my library aint in my bags If you have a PDF of the G-6 Triebwerksversorgung, Kraft-, Kühl- und Schmierstoffanlage i will happily look into it

[MiloMorai]

Bf109 fuel tanks were not 'solid' like in the photo shown above.

 

Edited May 9, 2014 by MiloMorai

[DD_bongodriver]

Well that certainly is a difference, although a bag tank does not automatically mean inverted system nor a rigid tank not an inverted system.

[DKsvejseko]

No its 8mm rubber, can be folded so it can get through a smalll hatch(original).

 

I reckon that the maintenance manuals they use are copies of originals, because thier manuals does not corrospond the actual fuel system. Flight manual is all new and made for D-FWME because of the "inverted flight note" . What has been made diffrent from an original fueltank i dont know. But some components are missing for making it able to do inverted flight. Everything can be made if you have the funding, and if I had a 109 and just needed A fueltank to get airborne but couldnt afford a replica of the original, i would buy the one with limitations anyways just to get it flying and maybe buy the real deal later on.

[DD_bongodriver]

When you 'copy' an original what changes?

[Bladderburst]

Damn this 15 min edit limit.

 

it still doesn't explain why the original 109 G-6 manual states that the aircraft 'engine' is not cleared for inverted flight.

 

Where is it mentionned that in the original G6 manual (anyway it is not even a G6) it is written that the aircraft should not be flying upside down? It is written that in this particular aircraft (in the manual of a bastard buchon/109 cannibalized aircraft) upside down flight is not possible. This aircraft is not a messerschmitt 109, it's a Buchon with the 109 engine retrofitted on it. Flugwerk FW109 are not like original 190s either. The differences are more numerous than just the engine.

 

There are a lot of instances where 109s are said to be able to do extreme inverted Gs manoeuvers without the engine cutting off. In fact 109s could do this before many other fighters including hurricanes and spits. 

[DKsvejseko]

Maybe some of the fuel feeds in the fuel tank have not been made as the original. The fewer "holes" you make in the rubber, the less expensive it will be. But i cant say when i dont have the maintenance manual. The tubing from the electrical fuel pump runs up through the tank, and perhaps there should be a feed on the top of the tank as well.

But anyway, they were aware of it, but just not the pilot.

[DD_bongodriver]

The report says the aircraft is a G-6 and it has a page of the flight manual, therefore I simply said G-6 manual because it is a manual for a G-6, I didn't read bastardfrankenstein buchon/109 anywhere.

 

the aircrfaft has been trashed so many times that it doesn't matter that the original was riveted together by Spaniards instead of eastern European slaves, all the aluminium has been replaced, it's like the same broom that has had the handle and head replaced several times.

 

anyway how different was a buchon? it literally was a 109 with a Merlin engine, replace the merlin with a 605 and what do you have.........

Maybe some of the fuel feeds in the fuel tank have not been made as the original. The fewer "holes" you make in the rubber, the less expensive it will be. But i cant say when i dont have the maintenance manual. The tubing from the electrical fuel pump runs up through the tank, and perhaps there should be a feed on the top of the tank as well.

But anyway, they were aware of it, but just not the pilot.

 

Bloody pilots.....I don't trust them

[DKsvejseko]

There are a lot of instances where 109s are said to be able to do extreme inverted Gs manoeuvers without the engine cutting off. In fact 109s could do this before many other fighters including hurricanes and spits. 

 

Maybe if low on fuel and doing wrong stuff with "mixture" or... i dunno, early spit and hurricane pilots didnt like the 109 because of thier neg G ability.

anyway how different was a buchon? it literally was a 109 with a Merlin engine, replace the merlin with a 605 and what do you have.........

 

A crash

Edited May 9, 2014 by DKsvejseko

[DD_bongodriver]

LOL

[DD_Arthur]

No, it's common practice to have a quantity of unuseable fuel in a tank, this is so any sediments and crud that fuel tanks collect will reside in that last slosh of unuseable fuel and not get put into the engine.

 

 

Its common practice to have a quantity of unuseable fuel in a tank because to fit junctions into steel or aluminium requires brazing or welding.  That's why they're not flush with the floor of the tank.  A 5mm depth of fuel slushing around the floor of a tank will not collect accumulated crud.  That's what filters are for. 

 

What I mean is surely for an aircraft that must be rated as aerobatic the feed arrangement from the tank must be able to cope with some degree of inverted flight.  The arrangement fitted in this case obviously was not.

 

Was the pilot not aware of this?  Shouldn't something like this be picked up when it undergoes certification of airworthiness?

Edited May 9, 2014 by arthursmedley

[DD_bongodriver]

No, unuseable fuel is deliberate for the reason I said, nothing to do with the material fuel tanks are made of, they can be rubber bags or composites, and metal tanks don't have to have any welded/brazed joints for the lines, they can be threaded and screwed in.

 

if you ever saw the crud in a fuel tank you'd realise that if the whole lot went into the tubes the filter would block immediately, sometimes the contaminant in fuel is water and that won't be filtered out.

 

An aircraft does not have to have an inverted fuel or oil system to be aerobatic, if it has none of those systems then you avoid sustained inverted flight or in some cases accept a momentary loss of power.

 

it sounds like in this case the pilot ignored the limitation, that limitation was part of the certificate of airworthiness.

[Bladderburst]

The report says the aircraft is a G-6 and it has a page of the flight manual, therefore I simply said G-6 manual because it is a manual for a G-6, I didn't read bastardfrankenstein buchon/109 anywhere.

 

the aircrfaft has been trashed so many times that it doesn't matter that the original was riveted together by Spaniards instead of eastern European slaves, all the aluminium has been replaced, it's like the same broom that has had the handle and head replaced several times.

 

anyway how different was a buchon? it literally was a 109 with a Merlin engine, replace the merlin with a 605 and what do you have.........

 

Bloody pilots.....I don't trust them

 

Foreign copies are not entirely the same thing. Details may vary. Pretty sure that some equipment is replaced by a spanish equivalent. Whatever the case anyhow I am pretty sure that Buchons and mezeks don't have any problem flying upside down too.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Buchon is like a mutated 109. Has fuselage of the G-series, wings of E-series and the sewing machine Merlin in front. URGH!