Messerschmitt "Me 110"

[Tophe]

The little size of the lateral engines is surprising, but... see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109?

[Jemiba]

I agree with OBB. A flying testbed with dumy nacelles could be plausible, BUT
the drawing shows a modified landing gear, retracting into the nacelles, too.
Too much modifications, I think, for just a quick test.

[robunos]

I agree with OBB. A flying testbed with dumy nacelles could be plausible, BUT
the drawing shows a modified landing gear, retracting into the nacelles, too.
Too much modifications, I think, for just a quick test.

Fair point, also, I wouldn't have thought that the wing roots could take the loads
imposed on an outboard mounted undercarriage. In my scenario, the testbed would
use it's original undercarriage.

see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109?

then what's in the nose, that requires a 'spinner', and why the Bf110 style tail?
Put another way, why build a Bf110, with a giant-sized Bf109 fuselage?


cheers,
         Robin.

[Orionblamblam]

Put another way, why build a Bf110, with a giant-sized Bf109 fuselage?

The drawings are of a *wind* *tunnel* *model.* Looks like they took a Bf 109 model and modified it to resemble a Bf 110 configuration, because that would be cheaper than building a whole new Bf 110 model. Note that while there is a "spinner," there are no indications of a propellor. Because the Bf 109 model probably already had a spinner.

UPDATE: The book "Willy Messerschmitt - Pionier der Luftfahrt un des Leichtbaues" has this same three-view drawing on page 151. The caption:

Die ursprungliche Form der Bf 110, wie sie im Januar 1936 in der AVA Gottingen modellmassig vermessen wurde, war eine vergrosserte und zweimotorige Bf 109, wobie ein Doppelleitwerk alternativ vergegeben wurde.

Which according to Google translation works out to roughly:
The original form of the Bf 110 as it was scale model measured in January 1936 at the AVA Gottingen, was a Enlarges and twin-engined Bf 109, a twin rudder was WOBI aka vergegeben.

I don't think the translation quite got it.

[robunos]

I understand that the drawing in question _is_ of a wind tunnel model.
But we had two theories as to why it was constructed.
One, it was a money saving conversion of a existing model, which would
be sufficiently representative for the purpose required, or
Two, it represented a previously unknown iteration of the Bf110, or,
a completely new type.
I was merely trying to ascertain which is correct.
Regarding your quote, above, other than establishing that a wind tunnel
model of this form was actually constructed, it doesn't really help in
determining which hypothesis is the right one.


cheers,
         Robin.

[Orionblamblam]

I understand that the drawing in question _is_ of a wind tunnel model.
But we had two theories as to why it was constructed.
One, it was a money saving conversion of a existing model, which would
be sufficiently representative for the purpose required, or
Two, it represented a previously unknown iteration of the Bf110, or,
a completely new type.
I was merely trying to ascertain which is correct.
Regarding your quote, above, other than establishing that a wind tunnel
model of this form was actually constructed, it doesn't really help in
determining which hypothesis is the right one.

It is extremely unlikely to be the latter. As shown, the model *is* a Bf 109 with modifications. Including a nose profile that does not make sense except as a modification of the Bf 109. Nobody would simply scale up a single-engined fighter and make it twin engined, and keep the outer mold lines of the original nose engine.

[Jemiba]

As Robunos pointed out, the drawing shows a twin fin tail, too. So I would
guess, that just the interaction of the nacelles and a conventional tail versus
a twin tail should be tested. The actual shape of the fuselage probably was
regarded as not important for these tests.

[robunos]

Nobody would simply scale up a single-engined fighter and make it twin engined, and keep the outer mold lines of the original nose engine.

That's what I thought, which is why I replied

"then what's in the nose, that requires a 'spinner',"

to Tophe's quote, below,

see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109?

This is what led to surmise if it was to be a test-bed aircraft,
instead of, as we now know, just a tunnel model.


cheers,
         Robin.

[Tophe]

to Tophe's quote, below,

see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109?

This is what led to surmise if it was to be a test-bed aircraft,
instead of, as we now know, just a tunnel model.

I understand your point of view, but please understand mine (and Unicraft's): we are scale modellers, and if we want to make it 1/72, we refer to some scale 1 plane, so... huge fuselage or tiny lateral engines? Maybe we are close to the limit of scale modelling there I agree. But if there is no scale 1 equivalent, why drawing a canopy? as a little wind-tunnel (plain-wooden?) model has no pilot nor glassware...

[Orionblamblam]

But if there is no scale 1 equivalent, why drawing a canopy? as a little wind-tunnel (plain-wooden?) model has no pilot nor glassware...

Look at the drawing again. There *isn't* a canopy. There are, however, lines indicating the flat planes that *represent* the canopy frames. Take this wind tunnel model for an example:

Notice how there are sharp edges aroung the cockpit? Do you think that ina  three view drawing of this wind tunnel model, those sharp edges wouldn't be drawn?

Now... do you see any actual *glass* there? No. There's not.

Just as there's no "glassware" depicted int he 3-view of the "Me 110."

[Jemiba]

"see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a
single-seater..."

Tophe, not quite sure, that I understood you correctly, but the lateral cockpit windows
(or better, their panels areas) of the Bf 109 should be visible in any correct top view. Well,
I remember seeing several "scale models" were the canopy had a nearly rectangular cross
section, but in fact it should be a trapezoidal one. Photos can be especially misleading with
regards to this point.


(cutout from a drawing on http://www.airshowwings.com/Flugzeugdoku.htm)

[Tophe]

Thanks both of you: you (half) convinced me. I just explain on the picture below (on the right) what lines would have been clearer for a simple Bf109 basis. Having different ones may have a different meaning, or not...

[joncarrfarrelly]

Speaking of reusing (or re-purposing in 21st century biz speak   ) wind-tunnel models:




From a series of Langley Field photos in the LIFE archive.


An XB-15 model becoming so much more.  

Now class apply this lesson to the subject of the thread and the "Me 110" drawing becomes clear.

[Tophe]

Now class apply this lesson to the subject of the thread and the "Me 110" drawing becomes clear.

Thanks for the lesson, all becomes clear, now, almost. (I still wonder which scale Unicraft will use for the model, referring either to Bf109 fuselage or else to DB lateral engines... )

[Orionblamblam]

An XB-15 model becoming so much more. 

Looks like nacelle aerodynamic testing. In which case a specific fuselage probably wasn't needed... just a *consistent* fuselage.