Two-seater Buchon – in the UK….

I have always suspected that those lumps and bumps over the wheel house on a Spitfire wing were required to accommodate and optimise the toe in and camber development changes as the design progressed.

Mark.

Something here on those bumps above the wheel well

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html/3

Agreed. Toe-in is stable. Toe-out is unstable and can generate ‘snaking’.

Increasing the toe-in can be beneficial to stability and fine for grass…but cause excessive tyre wear on tarmac.

As always it is a compromise.

I have always suspected that those lumps and bumps over the wheel house on a Spitfire wing were required to accommodate and optimise the toe in and camber development changes as the design progressed.

Mark

.

The main wheels are “toe-out” (not toe in), which makes perfect sense for stability in cross wind landings. If weight of the aircraft is on one main undercarriage, it’s toe out will cause it to track in the direction of the weighted wheel, which will help put the other main wheel on the ground. Obviously there are other forces in effect here, but the toe out would assist in this.

Let’s knock this one on the head right now.

For taildraggers, toe-in is good, toe-out is bad and excessive toe-in is bad as well. Mark Hannah wrote and article in an modelling mag about the Buchon and I can’t remember which but he said it either had toe-out or a lot of toe-in. Either way it was not the best arrangement. He also pointed out that as the tail rose and fell there was a significant change in the u/c gometry, and said that the Buchon has a lockable tail wheel so that three pointing was the only way to go!

Cheers

Steve

I think everybody within this forum knows that the RR is turning the same way as the DB. The problem is that the first 65 fuselages were prepared for the HS engine. The last 175 for the RR engine. So the chance is not too small to create a beast if you install the wrong engine. For example the converted 2-seater were originally built as Nr.40 and 199.So one of them should have been a little bit “uncomfortable”. Even the G12 replica which is actually under construction had the wrong profile, which is now corrected.

Which always makes me wonder why the fin offset was never corrected on those first 65 airframes when the Merlin was installed, and then why the owners/operators of Buchons that had the offset wrong, didn’t correct them!

So, with that said, all of the reports I’ve read on flying the Buchon (or one fitted with a DB engine), never mentioned this issue, or it being a problem with the handling (assuming of course the aircraft in the report had the offset the wrong way).

Anyway, good to see the two seat example being taken care of by Air Leasing.

Cheers

Paul

The Merlin turns the same direction as a DB601 and 605. It turns the opposite way to the Hispano-Suiza engine, which turned the opposite way to the DB it had to initially replace…

I think everybody within this forum knows that the RR is turning the same way as the DB. The problem is that the first 65 fuselages were prepared for the HS engine. The last 175 for the RR engine. So the chance is not too small to create a beast if you install the wrong engine. For example the converted 2-seater were originally built as Nr.40 and 199.So one of them should have been a little bit “uncomfortable”. Even the G12 replica which is actually under construction had the wrong profile, which is now corrected.

Nice shot of an original aircraft here –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviación_HA-1112#/media/File:Hispano_Aviación_HA-1112_K._1._L_Tripala.jpeg

The Spanish machine has substantial aerodynamic wing ‘fences’, clearly seen in the image. These were obviously deemed necessary at the time but we never see them these days.

HP

Your pic shows the “Tripala”, with Hispano-Suiza engine. The Buchons had those fences too. My pic of D-FEHD, later to become D-FDME (Black 2, now Yellow 3):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243339[/ATTACH]

Two-seater Buchon

The Merlin turns the same direction as a DB601 and 605. It turns the opposite way to the Hispano-Suiza engine, which turned the opposite way to the DB it had to initially replace…

Interesting, considering the Bf109 has an asymmetrical airfoil on the vertical fin/rudder ….

I was about to say that….

What do you expect if you have a very critical aircraft and you install an engine which is turning in the wrong direction!

The Merlin turns the same direction as a DB601 and 605. It turns the opposite way to the Hispano-Suiza engine, which turned the opposite way to the DB it had to initially replace…

The main wheels are “toe-out” (not toe in), which makes perfect sense for stability in cross wind landings. If weight of the aircraft is on one main undercarriage, it’s toe out will cause it to track in the direction of the weighted wheel, which will help put the other main wheel on the ground. Obviously there are other forces in effect here, but the toe out would assist in this.

Oh dear no. Please No. Its a unique aeroplane and should not be altered in any way.

I fully support this statement.
It is anyway not easy to understand why all the Buchons are restored most accurately but then always painted in Luftwaffe colors… no problems with that if the engine would be hidden under the original “Messerschmitt” shape of the aircraft – but a four blade propeller and the obvious appearance of the Merlin makes them looking not only strange…

Unfortunately the Buchon has had a fairly poor history of incidents in civil hands. The thought of it being used for experience flying is distinctly nerve tingling!

What do you expect if you have a very critical aircraft and you install an engine which is turning in the wrong direction!

They aren’t necessary as we don’t fire the guns these days. The original Spanish armament configuration 20mm Hispano cannon created a shock wave that could cause an unhealthy deployment of the wing leading edge slats and an undesirable aerodynamic configuration as a result. The wing fence was a modification to counter this from spoiling your day…

Nice shot of an original aircraft here –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviación_HA-1112#/media/File:Hispano_Aviación_HA-1112_K._1._L_Tripala.jpeg

The Spanish machine has substantial aerodynamic wing ‘fences’, clearly seen in the image. These were obviously deemed necessary at the time but we never see them these days.

HP

I would imagine the passenger would stand as much chance of opening the 2 seat Buchon canopy as they would opening a Mustang canopy if it were inverted on the ground.

Or an RV-4 canopy. My abiding thought when it all went quiet.

Moggy

Torn on which scheme I want to see her in. Personally would prefer for it to keep it’s BoB markings, although I would not be disappointed to see the Spanish Airforce markings adorn her.

Not very 109-ish for the punters paying to take a ride in it.

Maybe the answer would be to re-equip it with a G-12 style canopy, possibly without the side-bulges to give the passenger a real 109-feel.

Oh dear no. Please No. Its a unique aeroplane and should not be altered in any way.

I wonder if they need these: [ATTACH=CONFIG]243293[/ATTACH]

I would imagine the passenger would stand as much chance of opening the 2 seat Buchon canopy as they would opening a Mustang canopy if it were inverted on the ground.
Personally I am looking forward to seeing the aircraft fly and I wish those involved the very best of luck.

I think for any long-term HA 1112 joy riding operation the question is not ‘will there be a damaging loss-of control incident ?’ but ‘HOW SOON will there be a damaging loss-of of control incident? ”

Needing ideally a grass surface, and minimal crosswind it is trickier prospect than, say, a Spit.

Also , if the aircraft inverts on the ground, has the passenger any chance of getting that canopy open ? Needs a bit of thinking about.