From Lorraine Martinelli on FBook.. “does it have an Allison? Yes it does. The 109 type airframe, during production have several engines. The RR Kestrel and Merlin, The Jumo 210 and 211, The DB 601,603 and 605 and the Hispano. So why not put an Allison. The Allison allowed us to put the prop shaft in the same location as the DB 605 on the G/K 109’s, The cowling is not newly fabricated. It is in fact real Messerschmit cowling that we located in Europe. The top and foward (oil tank cowl) are “Type 100” and the lower cowl is “late G/K Type 110″. We made no modifications to cowling or how it mounts to the airframe, we did however have to make some internal mods to cowling to fit in places. The spinner is real 109 G/K style. The exhaust as you can see is modified from original Allison, to drop down and fit into 109/DB 605 stacks. The oil cooler is in the stock location and is a custom package. The lower cowl hinges open as do the top (same as original 109).”

So once again people jump to be critical without bothering to discover the background as above…

Very small correction: Bf 109 never had DB 603`s fitted due to the size. DB 603`s were so called “bomber engines”, mainly used on multi engine aircraft, though Ta 152 C and Fw 190 C used the DB 603. (Fw 190 C and Ta 152 C never made it to production run. BTW both had a much larger firewall crosssection than the Bf 109.)

Michael

Volvo-powered (built under-license DB605). What a sweet looking machine – I love the color scheme and the unique/rare and period-authentic two seat configuration. Amazing to consider that this was once the US-based/flown (for many years) Harold Kindsvater Buchon.

I should imagine that in addition to the G-12, Hangar 10’s G-6 “Black 8”, also at MeierMotors, should be flying this year.

John, AFAIK the owner wanted the G-12 to be finished first, put the G-6 not really on the back burner, but one step behind. Maybe it has to do with thorough training of (new) 109 pilots? (just my thoughts, but of course I could be totally wrong). BTW they have the Flugwerk 190 finished quite far too (ex.French one).

Michael

“I am curious to know what is “red 14″ in the background..”

Looks like a Pilatus P2 to me…..

Magnificent photos, yet again.

A pic I took nearly 2 years ago, July 2014:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]245531[/ATTACH]

My opinion is, that it was merely a prototype stage development, that could have made operational in about 2 years, which would have been in 1947. So wonder weapon? No. But a nice project that might have proved it´s worth or lack of it in the very late 1940s. Was it worth the effort? At that time, I do not think so. Were there any other wonder weapons waiting around the corner? No. Design studies or just plain initial drawings? Lots of them. But, all in all, quite useless. The only real fighter worth of any effort was -at that time- Focke-Wulf (Kurt Tank)´s Ta 152. Regarding the jet engines: BMW 003 was very weak, Jumo 004 was better in thrust, but both lacked reliability. And the one wanted for the second series of jetfighters, the HeS 011 did only prototype test stand runs. So all for nothing? You might think so, but there is a big but. Start thinking about it on the more personal level. The war was definitely lost by the time we are talking about, any non fanatical Nazi could see it. Those who had the power were desperately searching for any means to turn the tide, how unlikely it might be. So the designing offices of every marginally weapon related company said: We have the revolutionary wonder weapon, to be operational in …….. years, or months, or weeks. So they could do their work, producing paper tigers. What would have been the alternative? Grab a Mauser K 98, march to the next front, and (most likely) get killed at the first opportunity. Honestly, what would you have done under those circumstances? P.S.: The only project that might have had chances to be produced in the late 1940´s as it had several good ideas, was the Ta 183 design III. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183#/media/File:Ta183_Endversion_Modell_kl1.png

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]

I’m not sure its history was any better in military service?

I guess it suffers from the same issues as the Bf109, the usual taildragger issues, but with the added factors of “toed-in” mainwheels, and a narrow u/c track (compared to Spitfire, Hurricane or P51 etc) both factors that make it an “interesting” proposition in any crosswind take off or landing?

As you say, it would seem to carry a higher “risk”, especially during the take-off and landing runs. Presumably any granting of a commercial operators licence by CAA would consider this.

I read an interesting interview a long time ago with Walter Eichhorn in a German Aviation magazine. At that time he was regularly flying D-FMBB of Flugmuseum Messerschmitt and D-FEHD of Hans Dittes, the last one with a Merlin. Asked about take-off and landing in crosswinds, he answered (IIRC) like this: 1. Always prefer a grass runway to a concrete or asphalt runway, if available. 2. On grass you can handle higher crosswinds. 3. Crosswinds of any strength on any hard surface runway are fishy (my words) 4. If crosswinds are too high, don´t even try to take-off, for landing use another suitable airfield with a different runway direction (less or no crosswinds).
BTW standard requirements for airfields for the Luftwaffe in the 1930´s were: Either 1000 x 1000 m or 1000 m diameter, later to be changed to 1200 x 1200 m, or 1200 m diameter, of course grass. So you always could choose a runway direction without or at least minimal crosswind. But those airfields don´t exist nowadays, when even every GA pilot with nose wheel plane wants a paved runway. And those large grass airfields are expensive to maintain in good shape.

Michael

Hmmm, it looks more like a Funkpeilanzeigegerät Fl.23470-2 to me. Have a look here: http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/instrumente/katalog/Katalogmenue/web/new%20site/frames2/KatalogMenue.htm

Scroll down to this number. the left upper pic looks exactly like yours. In the text it states, that this unit was from a nightfighter of NJG 101, equipped with Bf 110, Ju 88 and Do 217.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242391[/ATTACH]

Michael