Read the forum code of contact
By: - 13th February 2018 at 03:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When we did an article on Air Academy last year they said both the Bf109 and Fw 190D-9 replica were sold into the US. The D-9 has surfaced at Cavanaugh, but as yet not the 109.
By: - 13th February 2018 at 07:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.....and another Buchon has (potentially, anyway) bitten the dust! :apologetic:
By: - 13th February 2018 at 08:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A Buchon being rebuilt, modified and marketed as a real 109. Who would have thought we'd see the day... :rolleyes:
T J
By: - 13th February 2018 at 08:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We'd call that a VIN swop in the car business.......................
By: - 13th February 2018 at 09:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wonder what the cost difference is between an original Buchon and a new build fuselage?
By: - 13th February 2018 at 21:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mods, can we correct the title of this thread please? G-AWHK aka "Yellow 10/ Black 2" is alive and well and on a boat heading south on holiday at the present time. G-AWHE was the former Spitfire Ltd/Richard Lake aeroplane that went to the air academy not AWHK.
By: - 14th February 2018 at 10:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tis done !
By: - 14th February 2018 at 12:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As much as I'd like to see 109's return to the air, rather sad to see the desert Buchon go.
Question for those in the know; Is it legal to take a Buchon and re-register it as a 109? It is effectively a VIN swap, something that is illegal over here in the car world. Or does it remain a Buchon on paper? I assume it can't be as it no longer confirms to the Buchon type certificate? How do these things work with warbirds?
By: - 14th February 2018 at 19:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Question for those in the know; Is it legal to take a Buchon and re-register it as a 109? It is effectively a VIN swap, something that is illegal over here in the car world. Or does it remain a Buchon on paper? I assume it can't be as it no longer confirms to the Buchon type certificate? How do these things work with warbirds?
Well, first of all, there is no confirmation of if, exactly how much, and how, any Buchon has been "incorporated" in this "new" Bf109. In any case, the German authorities (the Luftfahrtbundesamt) don't seem to have too much of an issue with these kinds of "restorations", cf. the BF 109 G-10 D-FDME and the C-47 being rebuilt in Germany with the identity of a recently written-off German example but being for all intents and purposes a former G-registered C-47. Moreover, there is no such thing as "type certificate" for a Buchon, the type never had civilian type approval and has presumably always been operated in civilian hands as an experimental, permit-to-fly or EASA Annex II aircraft.
VIN swap may be illegal in the (vintage) car world, but as they say in German: "Wo kein Kläger, kein Richter" (essentially "no plaintiff, no judge"). As a Caterham Seven owner, I've lost count of the Lotus Sevens I've seen which are essentially Caterhams but which claim a date of manufacture somewhere in the Sixties. The same goes for many Cobras, Shelby Mustangs or "road-legal" Bugattis being essentially Argentinian Pur Sang replicas with a few original Bugatti parts.
Having said that, and if that is what really happened, butchering yet again a Buchon to forcefully "create" another "Bf 109" makes me cringe. Oh, for an airworthy Buchon in silver and light blue paint with Spanish markings...
By: - 14th February 2018 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Question for those in the know; Is it legal to take a Buchon and re-register it as a 109? It is effectively a VIN swap, something that is illegal over here in the car world. Or does it remain a Buchon on paper? I assume it can't be as it no longer confirms to the Buchon type certificate? How do these things work with warbirds?
Let's compare it to a Basler BT-67. Going into the shop it's a DC-3 or C-47, during the process it is extensively rebuilt/reconfigured/restored and it emerges as a different aircraft. As it conforms to the BT-67 type certificate at that point, it will be registered as such. The same thing happens with the Buchon/Bf109 conversions I guess, although the G-12 is an example where this theory falls down again as they will continue to fly that airframe with the Merlin as well as the DB605. As you won't be able to recertify and reregister the aircraft for every engine swap, I guess it is still a Buchon on paper, or a Buchon/Bf109 hybrid. As these aircraft are all registered as historics and/or experimentals (or the German equivalent) there is some leeway.
By: - 14th February 2018 at 19:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Basler BT-67 is in legal form a DC-3 modified according to Basler's supplementary type certificate (STC). A certification as a "Basler BT-67" would have been a completely new type approval from scratch, which that aircraft at that time would very likely not have passed (or it would at least have been prohibitively expensive). The Merlin/DB-swap G-12 is flying with a German limited/test approval ("vorläufige Verkehrszulassung"), as far as I know, so it remains to be seen how that will end up. "Historics" only exist as a certification category in France, certainly not in Germany.
As a comparable example, Jaguar is building a batch of brand-new Jaguar D-Types. They will however be confined to track use, as they are cars built in 2018 which will never pass 2018 car type approval requirements (emissions, crash tests, seat belts, lighting and many, many other things).
By: - 15th February 2018 at 19:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the addition Kenneth. I figured I could use the BT-67 as a useful example here but I should have picked another one. Also, I figured I'd stay away from STCs. Should've done more research... Anyway, the gist of the story is still that you can modify and/or restore one airframe to a different configuration and then register the result as a different (sub)type, as long as the aircraft conforms to the (S)TC at the end. Had it been a civil type, you could argue that the Buchon is a Bf109 modified with a different engine under a STC. So in a sense, it has been de-modified.... ;) Standing by for incoming flak now...
In The Netherlands there is a 'NL-Special' category for historics, which has been used to register a Catalina, B-25, Spitfire and some other interesting types that hadn't been on the civil register before, or wouldn't be able to reach current requirements. It makes sense that the G-12 is still on a temporary certificate. Is that comparable to a Permit to Fly, such as the UK has?
By: - 15th February 2018 at 19:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My personal opinion, but from a fairly reasonable position to have that opinion, is that the G-12 is closer to the FAA experimental category than to a Permit to Fly. I don’t think you’d ever see the G-12 on a U.K. reg, or not at least without a lot of money being spent with a design authority and much correspondence with a patient CAA surveyor.
Just my opinion though...
By: - 15th February 2018 at 20:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that comparable to a Permit to Fly, such as the UK has?
As far as I know, yes. Whereby, having thought about it, I seem to recall that the G-12 didn't even have that, only a permission for test flights. The thing about PtF and other, national and limited registrations (except EASA Annex II within Europe) is that they are not ICAO-conforming. So any aircraft with such a registration actually has to have a permission to enter the airspace of another country in Europe in one form or the other (I think Germany has issued a blanket approval for all European aircraft with a PtF to fly in Germany). This is why the CAA has been able (probably on reasonable grounds too) to refuse some Europan exotics flying in the UK. May all sound very boring and very academic, however that's what's governs aircraft operations in Europa in these days. If I for example would want to fly from Germany to Denmark in German microlight (which falls under national German legislation and is not ICAO-conforming), I need to apply for a Danish permission one month in advance and there's a limit as to how long I can stay in Denmark....
By: - 15th February 2018 at 20:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My personal opinion, but from a fairly reasonable position to have that opinion, is that the G-12 is closer to the FAA experimental category than to a Permit to Fly. I don’t think you’d ever see the G-12 on a U.K. reg, or not at least without a lot of money being spent with a design authority and much correspondence with a patient CAA surveyor.
Where it is technically doesn't really matter, I'm afraid, it's the paperwork that counts. It's registered in Germany, so it seems the owners are going for a German vVZ (PtF). I see no reason why it shouldn't be able to be registered in the UK; this is after all the country in which PPL's can (or rather could) fly Hunters and a civilian organization could operate an Avro Vulcan. It all bottoms down to how and at which stage the authorities are involved, I think. The German LBA generally has a very poor reputation in German general aviation circles, yet they enabled FlugWerk to carry on with their project because (and I remember FlugWerk mentioning this) they were involved and informed about the project in a very complete form right from the beginning.
By: - 15th February 2018 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I just had a thought and looked up the two-seater Buchon that's at Sywell. It is registered on a Permit to Fly as a HISPANO HA-1112 M4L. As that was already a two-seater it makes sense to stay with the Spanish type. The G-12 in Germany is an interesting case in this respect as, having been restored to a Bf109G-12 configuration, it is now more like a two-seater Buchon than anything else, with the Merlin up front. I really wonder what type is listed on the certificate.
Fournier Boy, why would the G-12 have a problem coming to the UK? In a sense, G-AWHC at Sywell isn't all that different from a distance.
By: - 15th February 2018 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only the owners and the LBA know what the G-12 is registered as. The data-protection paranoid Germans have ensured that the German register is not accessible to the public..
By: - 16th February 2018 at 00:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My opinion is based on CAP562 Leaflets C-120 and C-140 - in short to obtain a U.K. PtF the owner/operator would need to satisfy all the points in those two leaflets. Again in my opinion, this machine in this configuration was never factory produced, it’s part one model, part another model. Therefore you’d have to satisfy the authority what model it actually is, and then have mods (and they would be major mods) issued for everything that is different to what would have been produced in the factory. There hasn’t been another example created previously with an quick ECU with two different engine manufacturers, so proof of in service reliability with regards to the effects of carrying out such regular changes is going to be difficult to prove. The paperwork generation labour costs for modification alone would be seriously significant. The grounds to satisfy an AAN would be a long time coming - the Flugwerk 190s never made it and I would have said they were a lot more viable to the register than this.
The Sywell Bouchon two seater is exactly that, with probably only minor mods such as oil priming pumps, revised canopy and different leg seals (i’m only presuming such things) and therefore hardly any variationto the original design standard and much easier to get an AAN for the issue of a Permit to Fly.
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP562_Issue%204Amendment2_15%20December%202017.pdf
Have a read of the relevant leaflets - the guidance material is there published by the Authority. If you can find a part 21 design authority willing to take responsibility for the mods then there’s room to move, but it would be a long haul to get there.
Remember too before someone says SSA&C - it’s simple types only. Not sure the CAA would categorise anything with such variation from the original design as “simple”. You as the operator don’t get a choice on how they classify it, that’s purely on the shoulders of the powers that be.
The fact it wasn’t allowed to fly at headcorn when it came here would tend to suggest the initial CAA reaction to the machine.
However, it’s just my opinion - read the rules and make up your own minds...
By: - 16th February 2018 at 20:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks, I'll go and have a read!
I had heard that the LBA is a bit difficult about sharing information. A shame, as I'm now also wondering how the other Buchon to Bf109 conversions are registered. Oh well, let's get back to enjoying the fact that there will be another interesting warbird around.
Posts: 409
By: JohnTerrell - 13th February 2018 at 02:36
The Hangar10 flying museum in Germany has posted some photos to their Facebook page and website of their newly arrived, airworthy, Bf-109G-14 WkNr.462707, registered as D-FMGV. The description on their Facebook page claims that the restoration work took place in 2017, by Rare Bird Aviation.
Now, for some background, Hangar10 did have a static-only Bf-109G-14, said to be WkNr.462707 as well, that was on display at the museum up until a year or so ago - until it went away. That non-flying aircraft had been largely made of new parts and original non-airworthy parts for display purpose only - it is my understanding that it couldn't have formed the basis for any flying airframe. Then, in early 2017, the former Richard Lake Buchon/G-AWHE was sold to Hangar10, with reports at the time claiming it was going to be re-engined with a DB605.
Jump forward to now, with the unveiling of this newly arrived aircraft said to be WkNr.462707, it appears to be an entirely different aircraft than the static one they had displayed before (going beyond just the difference in paint scheme) - the quality/state of the airframe, over all, is leaps and bounds better than the static "462707" they had before, so much so that it is clearly an entirely different airframe (which couldn't have been all made new just within a year). The forward fuselage and engine cowl section, especially, is completely different from the static example they had before, as is the overall condition and details of the wings, etc. What this new "462707" clearly points to being, but without confirmation, is the former G-AWHE Buchon, now re-engined and re-configured with a DB605 engine and with the late G-14 era canopy and tail added. What seems to confirm this further is the description given by Rare Bird Aviation, the company that performed the work over the last year, on their website - a "full restoration and engine conversion".
http://www.hangar10.de/en/news/382-neuer-warbird-messerschmitt-bf-109-g-14-im-hangar-11
Hangar10 Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Hangar10-274625062665594/
http://www.rarebird.eu/projects_Me-109.html
Here is a photo of the static "462707" that Hangar10 did have on display up until a few years ago, for comparison:
http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/images/museums/hangar10/messerschmitt_bf109g-14_luftwaffe_462707_02_hangar1014.jpg
If this is all as it really has gone, it's an interesting case of swapsies. Where the static airframe that had been claimed as 462707 went, or what ever will become of it, will be interesting to see (perhaps parted out, if not already?).