Me-109C

[Glenn]

As seen before, in flight, the Me-109C proved to be a far superior fighter to it's earlier marks. The 'C' had better ground handling and a higher wing loading than the 'A and B's'. Seen here, somewhere in France, Commander Bruno Stachel prepares for take-off.
With 'The Battle of France' at an end, and the new Me-109'D' model coming out, the Englanders wouldn't stand a chance!

Model: Hobbycraft 1/48th Me-109C (modified)

[NARSES2]

I must admit I do like the early Me109's - oh, ok I'll go to my room !

[Tophe]

Me-109C (modified)

Could you explain what is modified, Glenn ? It would be good to appreciate plainly your creation, and avoiding us to look in our book for the 'real' C...

[Swamphen]

Finally, a 109 with real landing gear!

[Davey B]

Top model! Why did no-one at Supermarine or 'schmitt ever think to do that with the undercar?    

[matrixone]

Great photo! Very realistic looking.

Where did you get that starter cart? I have been looking to buy one of those for my photobase.

Matrixone

[elmayerle]

Me-109C (modified)

Could you explain what is modified, Glenn ? It would be good to appreciate plainly your creation, and avoiding us to look in our book for the 'real' C...

The main landing gear is now inwardly retracting instead of outwardly retracting.  This results, as has been commented any number of places, in much improved ground handling, especially in rough surfaces.

[Captain Canada]

Sweet !

It does look rather robust with that wide legged stance !

 

[Glenn]

Matrixone,
      The unit beside the 109 is a fuel cart and comes from the 'Pro Modeler'
Ground Support Equipment set, in 1/48th.
The cat # is   85-5930 and comes with a RAF fuel cart and starter cart/ a Luftwaffe Fuel cart and bomb trolly and a USAAC tractor and bomb cart.
Pity other companies don't come to the party with this type of equipment!
I think if memory serves me, Me-109's used a starter crank handle?
                                                           Glenn

[Mairfrog]

Both Messerschmitt and Mitchell used outward retracting gear in order to keep the structural bits close to the fuselage. This meant they could use a thinner, lighter wing. Camm went the other way for his Hurricane which made it great on the ground but limited in the air. The Mustang got the best of both worlds.

The Bf109 was originally designed to be the smallest possible airframe built around the most powerful engine, in those days a RR Kestrel! This gave about 650 hp so keeping the weight down was imperative. Mitchell had the luxury of a 1000 hp Merlin when designing the Spitfire so he could afford a larger airframe.

What made the 109 worse was the angle of the U/C legs to the ground, in order to give a slightly wider track. This led the Luftwaffe to describe its landing characteristics as 'malicious'.

So yes, a sensible mod and nice to see a model of it.    

[Tophe]

The main landing gear is now inwardly retracting instead of outwardly retracting.

I feel ashamed not to have noticed that on the photograph, and not read well enough Glenn's "better ground handling" words... Thanks a lot! And dear Mairfrog's explanations add a lot to understand the subject. Great!

[matrixone]

Glenn,

Thanks for the info about the starter cart, I will attempt to get one of those kits but it will not be easy since it is OOP.

It is true the Bf 109 used a hand crank for starting the engine, but my plans for the starter cart are for it to appear in photos of Fw 190s and other aircraft.

I think kits of ground equipment would sell, it would go well with the Tamiya 1/48 Kubelwagon and Eduard Luftwaffe figure set.

Matrixone  

[Ollie]

Matrix, you can get the Pro Modeler equipment set in 1/48, you have stuff for the Yanks, the Germans and the Brits.

B)  

[elmayerle]

The main landing gear is now inwardly retracting instead of outwardly retracting.

I feel ashamed not to have noticed that on the photograph, and not read well enough Glenn's "better ground handling" words... Thanks a lot! And dear Mairfrog's explanations add a lot to understand the subject. Great!

*chuckle* No need to be ashamed, my eyes went right over that the first time.  I do agree with Mairfrog, the outwardly retracting gear makes for a much simpler structure, but the tradeoff is one that has to be repaired more often due to ground handling accidents.  It's a question of design decisions and what you consider the priorities to be.

[Tophe]

the outwardly retracting gear makes for a much simpler structure, but the tradeoff is one that has to be repaired more often due to ground handling accidents.  It's a question of design decisions and what you consider the priorities to be.

Now with engineer expert approval, all is clear! Thanks Evan!