STOP PRESS: Barn finds for sale, license built Messerschmitt Me-109G

History: In 1942 the Spanish government arranged a manufacturing licence with Messerschmitt AG to build the Bf 109G-2, with DB605A engines, propellers, instruments, and weapons to be supplied from Germany. This proved impossible, as Germany was incapable of meeting her own needs, let alone Spain’s. Only twenty-five airframes (minus their tails) and not even half the necessary drawings were delivered.

Post World War II, production resumed on the Buchón’s and the final variant was the HA-1112-M1L Buchón. It first flew 29 March 1954. The 1112-M1L was equipped with the 1,600 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 500-45 engine and Rotol propeller, both purchased as surplus from the UK. This engine had a chin intake, that altered the lines of the Bf 109′s airframe visually. Its armament consisted of two 20 mm Hispano-Suiza 404/408 cannons and two Oerlikon or Pilatus eight-packs of 80 mm rockets. It remained in service until 27 December 1965.

The HA-1112-M1L’s remained in flying condition until the mid-1960s. This made them available for theatrical use, masquerading as Bf 109′s in movies like The Battle of Britain. $800,000 – $1,100,000 and for sale here platinumfighters.com

These examples are HIspano Aviacion HA-1112 M1L’s. [SIZE=11.666666030883789px]These aircraft were last flown in the Battle Of Britain film in 1968.[/SIZE]

Upon completion of the filming of the Battle Of Britain they were disassembled and shipped to Texas where they have been in storage for 45 years.

Read More: http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/stop-press-barn-finds-sale-license-built-messerschmitt-109g.html

 

These are the aircraft which were purchased before the Battle of Britain movie for the Confederate Air Force. A deal was done for them to be flown in the film by five CAF pilots including Wilson 'Connie' Edwards who shipped them to the USA when it was all over.

 

I was wondering about that Martin since the article mentioned that they were immediately shipped to Texas. I am surprised that the CAF didn't keep up with restoration. I mean really, why let them sit. Thanks for the info Martin. :S!

 

I'm not 100% sure of the story - I've probably got it in a book somewhere - but I think the CAF kept one or two flying, with the rest for spares/eventual restoration which for some reason never happened.......

 

For static display "true" Me 109 make more sense, the interest of the Buchon was they could actually fly. So I understand keeping them for spares.

 

That is a compelling photograph. Both sad and beautiful all at once.

The longitudinal "blisters" that cover the Merlins' overhead cam covers almost look as if the might cover a pair of machine guns but are a dead giveaway that an upright engine has been installed, more so to me that the lower nose scoop. I have read of Spitfire and Hurricane pilots complaining about the high nose while taxing and even in combat. Perhaps that is the reason for the inverted V-12 of the ME 109. Or it could be for armament reasons or center of gravity issues. any one here know ?

The 109's fuel injection must have made the inverted engine possible. Were Merlins and their cousins all carbureted throughout the war? Could a carburetor be pressurized to work inverted ? Did anyone else besides Mercedes Benz use injection ? I assume it to be port injected as I do not think direct injection was in use then but I am never surprised at how innovative the Germans were, sometimes to their own detriment.

Sorry about all the questions but this has aroused my curiosity. Putting a 27 liter V 12 vertically into a fuselage designed for a inverted engine took some serious thinking. Oh, I am using the English spelling instead the colony's version for carburetor. I think we stick an "a" in their somewhere.
There is nothing more English that a Rolls Royce Merlin !

 

I'll start the ball rolling on what is a very complex subject......there's a lot of 'I think' in this because I don't have time to dig my books out.

Firstly, I'm just not sure about the 'inverted Vee' question. There's a lot of myth about this, and I'm not sure of the full story.

Basically, Germany was just 'way ahead of the game with fuel injection, thanks mainly to Bosch and their development of direct injection for Diesel engines in the inter-war period. The Rolls Royce Merlin was developed around carburetion, partly due to fuel density issues but mainly because Britain just didn't have a credible fuel injection system at the time.

During the War, experiments were made to upgrade the Merli nto injection but this was with the rather unsatisfactory 'single-point' system. The Bosch system was multi-point and direct. I'm quite certain that fuel injection gave the Luftwaffe a definite advantage.

( As an aside, back in the early 80s I had a BMW 2002Tii with mechanical direct injection. The injectors were very close to the ports, well below the air plenum chamber. To this day, it's the most instantly responsive car I've driven ).

 

Thanks Martin, I should have known Bosch was involved . I think Winston made a deal with the devil to win the war by accepting Lucas electrics and SU carburetors . Though to this day a Jaguar XK 120M makes the most beautiful sound I have ever heard coming out of an internal combustion car engine. The Merlin wins for airplanes.
I admit to having lusted after a 2002Tii in my younger years .

I will investigate the upside down MB 600 series but am limited to E books so little chance. Still I like challenges..

Cheers,
Gaines

 

To be fair to the British designers and engineers, they pursued a different method of 'upgrading' the Merlin by doing a lot of pioneering work on superchargers ( which resulted in the excellent two-stage and 'cabin' supercharged Merlins as used on Spitfire Mk IX and later Mosquitoes ). The British ended the War with World-leading supercharger technology ( which was one of the things which led to the disastrous BRM V-16 Grand Prix car), but fuel injection was arguably more beneficial in peacetime.......

 

Kind of like the differences in jet engine design.