PDA

View Full Version : Red 7 bellylands



Bremspropeller
04-16-2008, 05:50 AM
Due to gear-related problems, the Red 7 was to belly-land yesterday.

Appearantly, the left gear wouldn't come down and the right onw didn't lock.
The a/c then landed wheels-up on a foam-carpet.

Pics:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3548/me109azp0.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4093/me109hz4.jpg

Bremspropeller
04-16-2008, 05:50 AM
Due to gear-related problems, the Red 7 was to belly-land yesterday.

Appearantly, the left gear wouldn't come down and the right onw didn't lock.
The a/c then landed wheels-up on a foam-carpet.

Pics:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3548/me109azp0.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4093/me109hz4.jpg

stathem
04-16-2008, 05:55 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Bad News. Glad to see it doesn't seem too badly damaged.

Seems ill-starred that plane. Maybe time to put it in a museum before someone gets killed.

M2morris
04-16-2008, 06:42 AM
Ouch.
Glad to see she is still okay and the pilot too.

JG52Uther
04-16-2008, 06:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Wurkeri
04-16-2008, 06:47 AM
This plane appears to be rather unlucky http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

F0_Dark_P
04-16-2008, 06:52 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Talk about bad luck..

But i hope this wont scare them from flying, she should be up there in the great blue

Xiolablu3
04-16-2008, 06:56 AM
Goddam it, we just get another flying and it seeems to have a landing accident just months later.

TinyTim
04-16-2008, 07:11 AM
Although not planned, it's not as bad as may seem. Good to see noone got hurt tho and that bird is more or less intact.

I read somewhere once that when the first three Me109E-3s were flown to Yugoslavia from Germany in 1939, one of them landed with wheels up on purpose, just to demonstrate an emergency belly landing.

Feathered_IV
04-16-2008, 07:30 AM
Not sure if it is bad luck, or just bad mechanics. Looks to have been a good pilot though.

F0_Dark_P
04-16-2008, 08:33 AM
Bet it is a lot of work fixing her.. the radiators and underside of the wing are totally shredded by the looks of it..

But good no one was hurt.. that would take longer to fix

cawimmer430
04-16-2008, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
I read somewhere once that when the first three Me109E-3s were flown to Yugoslavia from Germany in 1939, one of them landed with wheels up on purpose, just to demonstrate an emergency belly landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Was this a non-stop flight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*Range* *Range*

gates123
04-16-2008, 11:08 AM
the last thing these planes need is higher insurance rates. Bad sight to see but thx for posting.

TinyTim
04-16-2008, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
I read somewhere once that when the first three Me109E-3s were flown to Yugoslavia from Germany in 1939, one of them landed with wheels up on purpose, just to demonstrate an emergency belly landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Was this a non-stop flight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*Range* *Range* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, it was only about 200km of Austria inbetween (and after anschluss of Austria in 1939 we can also say Yugoslavia and Germany bordered to each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). If they were flown from somewhere south of Germany, like Munchen or their factory at Augsburg, they could reach pretty far into Yugoslavia, although surely not to their later base Zemun near Belgrade. Air distance between Munchen and Belgrade is comparable to one between Munchen and Hamburg.

cawimmer430
04-16-2008, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
I read somewhere once that when the first three Me109E-3s were flown to Yugoslavia from Germany in 1939, one of them landed with wheels up on purpose, just to demonstrate an emergency belly landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Was this a non-stop flight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*Range* *Range* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, it was only about 200km of Austria inbetween (and after anschluss of Austria in 1939 we can also say Yugoslavia and Germany bordered to each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). If they were flown from somewhere south of Germany, like Munchen or their factory at Augsburg, they could reach pretty far into Yugoslavia, although surely not to their later base Zemun near Belgrade. Air distance between Munchen and Belgrade is comparable to one between Munchen and Hamburg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it. Thanks. A walk in the park then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gibbage1
04-16-2008, 02:28 PM
Man. This 109 has had a LOT of landing problems! Didnt it JUST return to the air after having a bad landing a few years ago? Sorta makes people think the 109 has issues with landing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Schwarz.13
04-16-2008, 02:36 PM
A mixed blessing perhaps? - the 109 is not too badly damaged (compared to last time) and nobody was killed or seriously hurt! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

BTW, is that a wooden prop i see?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Jaws2002
04-16-2008, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Man. This 109 has had a LOT of landing problems! Didnt it JUST return to the air after having a bad landing a few years ago? Sorta makes people think the 109 has issues with landing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Some people never change. Never grow up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Schwarz.13
04-16-2008, 03:35 PM
I didn't know the history of this plane until now, very interesting (copied from here (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1239755)):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The airframe certainly seems to have used up a number of its cats nine lives.

Bf 109 G-4 "red 7" (Me Air Company/Germany)
Behind costly restoration projects, as the restoration of an Oldtimer to airworthy condition, mostly stands a big company, holding these planes as traditional planes. Not in case of this Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-4. The restoration works were financed and done totally private. This is much more astonishing, when you remember the huge costs of such an project.
Actually this plane is not a real "genuine original", because the restoration is based on the Ha 1112 M-1L (WNr. 139), used for the movie "Battle of Britain". It was produced in 1950 at Hispano in Spain. Nevertheless it took eight years, until it entered service with the Spanish airforce code C.4K-75. There is nothing known about its "life" at "Ejercito del Aire", but maybe this "Buchon" was used during the Ifni-Conflict in North Africa. In 1965 the plane was withdrawn from service and parked at the airbase in Tablada, where it stood for three years, until it was purchased for the "Battle of Britain" movie and optically converted into a Bf 109 E-4. In the movie the plane carried the markings of "yellow 11" and "red 14". Still during 1968 the plane was intended to play a role in another movie and so was reconverted into a P-51 "Mustang". Therefore a fake belly-cooler was attached. But the plane crashed during a take-off and was severely damaged. Later, the "Buchon" went to England, before it was shipped to the USA, where it was reviewed and fixed until 1986. During the first test-flight, the plane again crashed and was again heavily damaged. Afterwards it was poorly fixed and converted into a Bf 109 near shape for static display. 1994/95 the plane was again shipped to France and later to Augsburg (Germany), where it was planned to make it airworthy again. The French owner gave up this plan, because of the costs and made the wreck up for sale.
In October 1997 the actual owners got knowledge about this plane and made the spontaneous decision to buy it. The initiator already got a functional DB 605 engine. During the further examinations, it became obvious, that the fuselage was not useable anymore and a new would have been to construct. Only the cockpit section, the spar bridge and some other small parts could be used. Of course the team needed help from specialists, to construct parts and components for the plane. Parts of the aft fuselage were produced in England and the tail fin was made by AERA in Italy, who already restored the Bf 109 G-4 "Nesthńkchen". The wings got a new covering and the stabilizer of a bellylanded "Gustav" was attached. The engine hood was that of a G-4, although the team initially wanted to construct a G-6. The lack of the "Beulen" (bulbs) in the hood and the resulting better view, were in favour of the G-4. The cooler is not genuine too, because the bigger variant - used with G-10 - was attached, to improve flight security.
In January 2004, the DB 605 was attached to the plane and worked without any problems. During June the ground testing begun and ended with the preliminary traffic licence. The flight testing was done by Walter Eichhorn, who also flies the Bf 109 G-6 and G-10 of the Messerschmitt Foundation. He took off for the maiden flight at August 23┬┤rd 2004.
Being done under top secret conditions, the officially presentation of this restoration project at October 8┬┤th in Albstadt-Degerfeld was like a thunderbolt. Prideful the owners presented their Bf 109, marked as "red seven", that took off to its presentation flight into the blue skies.
At 07/16/2005 Siggi Knoll came in to touch down after a short flight. It was flight number 105 of this Bf 109. This landing failed and the plane touched down with only one wheel, than touched the ground with the opposite wing. The undercarriage broke, the engine was torn out and came to rest some meters beside the crashed plane. The pilot was not injured. After some days of shock, the owners decided, to repair their plane and bring it back to the skies again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems as though its last, more serious, accident wasn't caused by a car 'racing' on the runway as someone here (i can't remember who) had claimed...

ElAurens
04-16-2008, 04:57 PM
The big problem with belly landing any aircraft is damage to the propeller reduction gear box (if so equipped) and the engine crankshaft.

This type of damage is even more frightening for a DB series engine, as essentially there are no replacement crankshafts of any kind (new or used) available.

Treetop64
04-16-2008, 10:39 PM
A similar incident grounded Black 6 not too long ago, and she's been in a museum ever since... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

HayateAce
04-17-2008, 12:52 AM
Not TOO similar.

Black 6 had far fewer choices of places to set down, and far less time to work with. Skidded through a plowed field, flipped and broke her back.

trumper
04-17-2008, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
A similar incident grounded Black 6 not too long ago, and she's been in a museum ever since... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nowhere near the same situation
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501760.pdf

Jasko76
04-17-2008, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The big problem with belly landing any aircraft is damage to the propeller reduction gear box (if so equipped) and the engine crankshaft.

This type of damage is even more frightening for a DB series engine, as essentially there are no replacement crankshafts of any kind (new or used) available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely in this day and age we can remanufacture any crankshaft from scratch?

Bewolf
04-17-2008, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The big problem with belly landing any aircraft is damage to the propeller reduction gear box (if so equipped) and the engine crankshaft.

This type of damage is even more frightening for a DB series engine, as essentially there are no replacement crankshafts of any kind (new or used) available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely in this day and age we can remanufacture any crankshaft from scratch? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can, but it's expensive. Like, really expensive. DB crankshafts had such small tolerances that even for todays standarts its not easy to reproduce.

tom19073
04-17-2008, 05:59 AM
One of my friends who has passed away due to a crash in a vintage F-86 tried to restore a bf-109 with an original DB 601. He had to sell the plane after several failed attempts machining a new crankshaft. They could not reproduce the tolerances.

I always wondered why modern machinists can't easily make this part.

HayateAce
04-17-2008, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tom19073:
They could not reproduce the tolerances.

I always wondered why modern machinists can't easily make this part. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"They" couldn't reproduce crankshaft due to money. The technology is there. Honestly, some folks carry on like DB engines were constructed of pure Unobtanium, and blessed by holy water as they left the assembly line.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

No company in their right mind wants to tool up and make DB crankshafts by the 1,000s. Now, if they want to make repro parts for Mustangs....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://www.warbirds-online.org/images/rk/GatheringofMustangsLegends2007ThisWeeken_FB02/GML119.jpg

tom19073
04-17-2008, 08:10 AM
Yep, you are right. When I said "they" I was refering to his orginization. Which, went on to develop remote controlled parachute delevery systems for the military and the F-86 restoration.

ElAurens
04-17-2008, 10:58 AM
What HayateAce said +10000000000.

The DB series engines used roller bearings, not the shell type bearings we are all familiar with from automotive applications. This neccesitates a disassembleable, segmented crankshaft in order to install the roller bearing assemblys. In essence the cranks come apart at each bearing journal. The breaks are not flat either, they are like intertwining fingers that have to match perfectly to give the crank the strength to take the BMEP loads of the engine. These segments are what are so hard to make.

Any current aircraft engine manufacturer, or major racing engine builder, or auto manufacturer, could build this type of crankshaft. the question is who is going to pony up what would be about a million dollars in tooling, to make spare cranks for the 3 or 4 aircraft that still use this engine.

HayateAce
04-17-2008, 11:33 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


Thanks for the terrific mechanical description.


This is the only reason I still enjoy this forum.

PS: Wonder why they can't swap in a different bearing system utilizing a solid crank.

Kettenhunde
04-17-2008, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This neccesitates a disassembleable, segmented crankshaft in order to install the roller bearing assemblys. In essence the cranks come apart at each bearing journal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The DB crankshaft is one solid piece. The "roller" bearings refer to the fact the bearing has rollers instead of round balls inside the bearing.

http://www.timken.com/en-us/products/bearings/productlist/Pages/default.aspx

The "tolerances" on the DB engine being so exact we cannot produce them today is baloney too. We can make them all day. In fact, if you put down your money, I will have one made for you.

Those unfamiliar with airplanes have completely misunderstood that statement. The crank tolerances are tight.

Crank tolerances are a range. The Overhaul Manual will list both the new limit and service limit tolerances.

In the new tolerances, the motor can be listed as zero timed on the overhaul and the TBO resets. Service limits means the part does not have to be replaced but TBO time accumulates as per the original or last overhaul to new limits.

That means on the DB engine our tolerance range is narrow and we will be rejecting more crankshafts than a motor with a wider tolerance range. Hence we have the use of roller bearings which afford a reduction in crankshaft wear.

You are correct in the money part. It is a niche market and very very expensive. If you have the money, we would be more than happy to make you a crankshaft or for that matter any of the DB600 thru DB605 series engines you wish to install on your airplane.

We are the North American distributor for Motobende.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That opens a lot of new possibilities. Now we are allowed by the &gt;Lufftfahrtbundesamt &lt; (LBA) to repair the following motors:

Argus AS10 und AS 410/411
Siemens/Halske SH14
Mercedes Benz DB600 bis DB605
Mercedes DIIIa
Junkers 211/213
Renault PO5
ENMA Tigre
Clerget Umlaufmotore
Le Rhone/ Oberursel Umlaufmotore
Walter Mikron/ Minor
De Haviland Gipsy 1-10
Hispano Suiza 8V
Hirth HM500 und HM504
Hirth F10
Salmson AD9

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.motobende.de/

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-17-2008, 03:17 PM
Its strange how Spitfires and Mustangs seem to fly on and on, Spit mkIX MH434 has been flying for years and years. But everytime Bf109 gets airworthy it crashes a few months later, usually on landing, or landing related such as undercarriage problems.

The bad landing characteristics seem to be present even in careful 'show' flying too, not just in Military service. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


Maybe they could perhaps find a way to make the Bf109 a bit safer to fly without ruining its looks. They have a very high accident rate even today, and as a result we have so few flying.

Even restored Spitfires, which were apparantly only a little better in ground/landing characteristics have far less accidents than restored Bf109's. It happens to often to be coincidence. Mark Hanna thrashed Spitfires and Mustangs all his life but was killed in a Bf109, maybe they are just destined to crash eventually. Perhaps they are just a bit TOO dangerous/unreliable.

DKoor
04-17-2008, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
What HayateAce said +10000000000.

The DB series engines used roller bearings, not the shell type bearings we are all familiar with from automotive applications. This neccesitates a disassembleable, segmented crankshaft in order to install the roller bearing assemblys. In essence the cranks come apart at each bearing journal. The breaks are not flat either, they are like intertwining fingers that have to match perfectly to give the crank the strength to take the BMEP loads of the engine. These segments are what are so hard to make.

Any current aircraft engine manufacturer, or major racing engine builder, or auto manufacturer, could build this type of crankshaft. the question is who is going to pony up what would be about a million dollars in tooling, to make spare cranks for the 3 or 4 aircraft that still use this engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

It's illusionary to think that Bf-109 or any other ww2 aircraft for that matter is not 100% re-produce-able.

Vast majority of those types came out from mid-XX century assembly lines in a times of war where time mattered a lot.

Speaks volumes.

The only issue is money.

Kettenhunde
04-17-2008, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. But everytime Bf109 gets airworthy it crashes a few months later, usually on landing, or landing related such as undercarriage problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most dangerous airplane in aviation is the brand new one or the one just out of repair.

When you combine that with the experience level of the mechanics and pilots on the aircraft it is no wonder we see so many crashes. There simply are not very many people with the experience to maintain and fly a Bf-109.

The most recent one with Red 7 is the most common reason complex aircraft have accidents. Look at all the Johnson Bar Mooney's that land wheels up. No case can be made that the Mooney is a bad design. Now throw in an electric or hydraulic gear and your instance of gear failure goes up accordingly. It happens with complex aircraft.

Heck, tail wheel experience is getting hard to find today much less Bf-109 piloting experiencing.

Look at Black 6, it might have crashed because the cooling system did what it was supposed to do. Being unfamiliar with what it was supposed to do and common sense telling the pilot the wrong thing, an accident resulted.

Want to smell burning oil? Turn on the heater in my airplane. It's a quirk of the design. There is a lot of experience still around though to tell me that. Without that to draw upon I might have embarked on a very expensive attempt to fix a non-issue.

Spitfires and Mustangs are all over the place. I can restore 5 Mustangs for the cost of one FW190 or Bf-109. There are hundreds of P51 pilots to draw experience from and just as many mechanics still working on the design too. The Spitfire is close behind as the most common WWII Fighter to restore.

All the best,

Crumpp

ElAurens
04-17-2008, 03:53 PM
Crump, I always thought that the crank on the DB was like the Hirth segmented cranks on early Porsche 356 (Pre-A models). I've never seen a roller crank that was not done in this manner.

And it should be possible to convert to a non-roller crank. The Porsche 356 folks do it regularly, as the cost of doing a roller crank, is prohibitive. Of course the 356 guys use the already available standard cranks from later series Porsche 356 models. In the case of the DB, not only would you need new cranks, but a new design connecting rod as well.

Kettenhunde
04-17-2008, 05:29 PM
AFAIK,

DB's are like the Bulgatti. Solid crankshafts but use roller bearings. It's not the Porsche system.