Archer – it was built by Hispano, in Spain, and was built to have a Merlin, or Hispano engine hung off it.
Allright, but I’m guessing that the drawings that they used to construct it were almost pure Messerschmidt, apart from the changes needed to fit the different engines. So does laying out the drawings in a factory in Spain instead of in Germany make it a different aircraft? For argument’s sake – let’s view the hypothetical case where Germany would’ve won the war but for some strange reason Daimler-Benz engine development would’ve been discontinued as the now available Merlin was much more reliable. Messerschmidt now sets up a production line of Me109G’s in Spain which produces Merlin engined aircraft. This would then have been called a Messerschmidt 109, but wing rib for wing rib, cylinder for cylinder it would be the same thing as what we now know as a Hispano Buchon. So what governs the name? Pure politics in this case since Germany lost!
Now I’m not argueing for an all-out ‘let’s convert all Buchons’ movement, I’m just playing advocate of the devil here and trying to give some perspective to this issue, stating that there’s more Messerschmidt in a Buchon than meets the eye at first glance.
My point of view is that when you can put the ‘109G-2’ that has just flown in Germany next to the original drawings for this subtype and find a significant percentage of structure and systems that completely conforms to the drawing, then I have no problems with calling it a Messerschmidt. You just cannot call it a restoration! It would be more like a rebuilt, or remanufactured aircraft (perhaps re-engineered would fit better). It is a bit like the TP-51C that was in the latest Flypast, is this a Mustang? Everyone seems to think so, even if there are probably very few original Mustang parts in its structure!
Tin hat on, awaiting incoming. :rolleyes:
Sign In
