PDA

View Full Version : Replicating warbirds: your thoughts?



Estocade85
10-30-2005, 05:01 PM
Considering that real WW2 warbirds are an endangered species, and that eventually less and less will be able to fly, some are viewing replicas as the way to go to keep em in the air.

Now, we can all imagine that replicating a flyable, almost 100% accurate warbird (engine, design, FM) would cost a fortune and take a lot of time, but for the sake of the debate, suppose it can be done in an affordable and commercial way. What would your thoughts be towards affordable warbird replicas?

Do you think it would help the spirits of those aircrafts to live on forever? Or do you think it would kill their uniqueness by having them commercialy produced? What do YOU think?

Estocade85
10-30-2005, 05:01 PM
Considering that real WW2 warbirds are an endangered species, and that eventually less and less will be able to fly, some are viewing replicas as the way to go to keep em in the air.

Now, we can all imagine that replicating a flyable, almost 100% accurate warbird (engine, design, FM) would cost a fortune and take a lot of time, but for the sake of the debate, suppose it can be done in an affordable and commercial way. What would your thoughts be towards affordable warbird replicas?

Do you think it would help the spirits of those aircrafts to live on forever? Or do you think it would kill their uniqueness by having them commercialy produced? What do YOU think?

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-30-2005, 05:07 PM
It would be like a tribute band - they might look like Led Zep, they might sound like Led Zep, but in your heart of hearts you'd just know it wasn't Led Zep...or Abba, or The Who, or whoever....

my 2 bob's worth.

Chuck_Older
10-30-2005, 05:14 PM
Actually, very few, say, P-51s that are Warbirds really saw combat in WWII


The "He-111s" you may see are in reality license built by CASA, after the war

A few "Me 109s" are actually Buchons, some have been re-engined with DB engines to closely resemble Bf 109s

The F8Fs and F7Fs never saw combat in WWII, but are warbirds

A lot of planes, particularly Axis aircraft, have been so extensively rebuilt, that they should really be considered new aircraft

So really, it's just the perception of what they are versus what they really are

For instance: new Me 262s are being built, and new Fw 190s. Some A6Ms were recently built as well

The Me 262s and the Fw 190s are brand new; the A6Ms were re-built using new components, made to Mitsubishi's spec, and built to what should be considered 'new' given the fact that major, serious re-work was done- but it was done using the correct techniques and the correct materials, and made from real A6M plans and drawings, using as much of the original equipment was safe to use


It's a tough call. Combat veteran WWII aircraft are rare, although they are out there. Strictly speaking, I suppose there are categories now- Warbirds, which includes combat veteran aircraft, rebuilt to new wrecks, and aircraft that saw duty (not combat duty) during war, and Combat veterans, which is just what it sounds like, and Replicas

of course, they will all be called "Warbirds" so it's moot. But considering how much new components the average 'Warbird' has, the idea of correctly built replicas is not only a good one, it's time has come

Kuna15
10-30-2005, 06:15 PM
I think there should be no problems in replicating these aircraft. Where some sort of lacking info is encountered that should be easily solved. The only real issue here was/is money.

My opinion is that it would not kill their uniquess if they are serial produced. Yak-9 was (is?) still produced in '90s with some modifications, I think there are some machines available for purchase (I saw it somewhere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Taylortony
10-30-2005, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Estocade85:
Considering that real WW2 warbirds are an endangered species, and that eventually less and less will be able to fly, some are viewing replicas as the way to go to keep em in the air.

Now, we can all imagine that replicating a flyable, almost 100% accurate warbird (engine, design, FM) would cost a fortune and take a lot of time, but for the sake of the debate, suppose it can be done in an affordable and commercial way. What would your thoughts be towards affordable warbird replicas?

Do you think it would help the spirits of those aircrafts to live on forever? Or do you think it would kill their uniqueness by having them commercialy produced? What do YOU think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol you seem to be working under the dellusion that the stuff you see flying at airshows are genuine warbirds, K I am an Aircraft Engineer and have worked on Spits in real life.... Ok let me let you down Gently....... If you go to Flugwerks site you will see Brand new FW190's for sale see http://www.flying-wings.com/special/04_fw190/04_fw190.htm

ok and they are building doras too...........

Again if you go to http://www.stormbirds.com/project/

you will see brand new ME262's for sale

Again you will find new Mig 3's available Yak 11's to amongst others...

Now back to the real deal, well those spits you see flying are 99% rebuilds and a rebuild can often consist of the Data Plate.... Sad but true, Charles Church brought it to a head by building a new Spit and having it numbered as the next one off the Line.. One I KNOW for a FACT that is flying today and was an Ex RAF gate guardian consists of no more than one leading edge skin and the data plate.... now you might say is it a real warbird? well define warbird, during the course of a fighters career it will have many engines, props, instruments, radios, tyres,undercarraiges, canopies, even wings changed bacause of damage and wear, as well as a lot of reskinning. That is not the item that rolled out of Castle Bromwich in any shape or form, but is still a genuine warbird, so At what point do you say its a new plane? some say its the data plate, but myself I like to think it is a bit more than that... I have seen a Puma in the RAF that spent its first 20 years in store and was robbed till all that remained was the bare fuselage with nothing inside it, no boom, no engines, gearboxes, fuel tanks or system, doors, rotors undercarriage, windows ,hatches,floor, need i go on? that flies now, is that a less of a warbird?. That was rebuilt and flies today, has even served in a combat enviroment... As a plane ages as an Engineer I have to think safety, and if safety is replace everything, then that happens. Dont get me wrong there are a few out there that have hardly been touched, but they are as rare as the proverbial rocking horse sh*t

Arm_slinger
10-30-2005, 06:25 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing replica's in the air, in fact i reckon alot of people would go for it, i know i would if it gave me a posibility of being able to own my own "spitfire" some day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wouldnt say warbirds are endangered though, they are VERY well looked after by the ground crews, and arn't flown all that much really. The problem lies in the person who climbs into it. If they are compotent then all is fine. But the sad true is everyone makes mistakes.

EDIT: Tony has it right slap bang on centre.

Feathered_IV
10-30-2005, 06:44 PM
Tony, you forgot the new-build Ki-43II's as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

horseback
10-30-2005, 07:01 PM
Frankly, I'd love to have one. I'd also like to be Winona' Ryder's lover...

cheers

horseback

Chuck_Older
10-30-2005, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I'd also like to be Winona' Ryder's lover...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Take a number, buddy!

Estocade85
10-30-2005, 07:36 PM
Yup TaylorTony I agree, those concepts are very vague. And no I didn't think those were all actual "untouched" WW2 combat vets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Very nice links! How much do they cost? Cheching!

Chuck_Older
10-30-2005, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Estocade85:
Considering that real WW2 warbirds are an endangered species, and that eventually less and less will be able to fly, some are viewing replicas as the way to go to keep em in the air.

Now, we can all imagine that replicating a flyable, almost 100% accurate warbird (engine, design, FM) would cost a fortune and take a lot of time, but for the sake of the debate, suppose it can be done in an affordable and commercial way. What would your thoughts be towards affordable warbird replicas?

Do you think it would help the spirits of those aircrafts to live on forever? Or do you think it would kill their uniqueness by having them commercialy produced? What do YOU think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol you seem to be working under the dellusion that the stuff you see flying at airshows are genuine warbirds, K I am an Aircraft Engineer and have worked on Spits in real life.... Ok let me let you down Gently....... If you go to Flugwerks site you will see Brand new FW190's for sale see http://www.flying-wings.com/special/04_fw190/04_fw190.htm

ok and they are building doras too...........

Again if you go to http://www.stormbirds.com/project/

you will see brand new ME262's for sale

Again you will find new Mig 3's available Yak 11's to amongst others...

Now back to the real deal, well those spits you see flying are 99% rebuilds and a rebuild can often consist of the Data Plate.... Sad but true, Charles Church brought it to a head by building a new Spit and having it numbered as the next one off the Line.. One I KNOW for a FACT that is flying today and was an Ex RAF gate guardian consists of no more than one leading edge skin and the data plate.... now you might say is it a real warbird? well define warbird, during the course of a fighters career it will have many engines, props, instruments, radios, tyres,undercarraiges, canopies, even wings changed bacause of damage and wear, as well as a lot of reskinning. That is not the item that rolled out of Castle Bromwich in any shape or form, but is still a genuine warbird, so At what point do you say its a new plane? some say its the data plate, but myself I like to think it is a bit more than that... I have seen a Puma in the RAF that spent its first 20 years in store and was robbed till all that remained was the bare fuselage with nothing inside it, no boom, no engines, gearboxes, fuel tanks or system, doors, rotors undercarriage, windows ,hatches,floor, need i go on? that flies now, is that a less of a warbird?. That was rebuilt and flies today, has even served in a combat enviroment... As a plane ages as an Engineer I have to think safety, and if safety is replace everything, then that happens. Dont get me wrong there are a few out there that have hardly been touched, but they are as rare as the proverbial rocking horse sh*t </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm in the old car hobby, and it's the same story. It's "fraud" if you swap VINs, but if you take a car that has a good cowl (which includes the dash and the VIN) but everything else needs replacing, and build a car around it, suddenly all those parts make up a car that can be a very rare old automobile, even if it's all patch panels and body parts grafted on from twenty different cars! Lunacy. Some people do this stuff for the desire to save an old car, others do it for the money, but the bottom line is the hobby always gets hurt. We are putting ourselves out of 'business' because of the shady practices of a small minority who misrepresnted cars fro big cash returns- and now a guy like me can't do what's logical, and practical, which is take a body shell, put a VIN in it, and have a car to enjoy- even though all the body shells were identical at the factory, before specific models and options were chosen by the original owner....so I have to cut up TWO cars by Law, to save ONE car, because some greedy f* back in the '80s scammed folks with his fraudulent "LS6 Chevelle convertibles" and "COPO Camaros" and "Hemi 'Cudas"

makes me want to cry. I'll be doing major surgery on a car- my own- next Spring I think. I have no inclination to sell the car. I've owned it for 17 years, I'm not into it for a quick cash turnaround. But I will have to do everythig the hard way- so instead of grafting in a new cowl, which is easy, I'll have to cut out rust and repair a cowl- which is hard

Much easier to put in a good cowl top, replace my VIN in the car- which hasn't been changed or misrepresented in any way! and then have fun driving it. But oh no, that is "Illegal" because the VIN can't be "removed"

fordfan25
10-30-2005, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Estocade85:
Considering that real WW2 warbirds are an endangered species, and that eventually less and less will be able to fly, some are viewing replicas as the way to go to keep em in the air.

Now, we can all imagine that replicating a flyable, almost 100% accurate warbird (engine, design, FM) would cost a fortune and take a lot of time, but for the sake of the debate, suppose it can be done in an affordable and commercial way. What would your thoughts be towards affordable warbird replicas?

Do you think it would help the spirits of those aircrafts to live on forever? Or do you think it would kill their uniqueness by having them commercialy produced? What do YOU think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes. no sense killn the last few warbirds of each disghn in air shows ect. if thay can disghn them close to specs then go for it, i would imagien the engiens to be the hardist to replocate.

Loco-S
10-30-2005, 09:20 PM
Under the FAA rules you can "restore" a plane up to "new standards" by replacing everything but the data plate...you can change spars, skin, landing gear, windshiels, engine/s etc....and of course have a form 337 and have an FAA inspector check your work at specified intervals on the process....as far as I know less than 2% of the flyable aircraft built in ww2 are originals ( see..museums) the rest have been extensively restored/rebuilt as no to be originals anymore.

Jungmann
10-30-2005, 09:33 PM
I'm into hotrods. Steel pre-34 Fords are getting hard to find, so for the last twenty years or so, people have been making fiberglass bodies and repo chassis and all the repo parts you need to make an identical--to the eye--'32 Hi-boy, say. But they're not real--all you have to do is rap your knuckle (lightly, if you don't own it) on a quarter-panel.

My point is, when there are enough war-bird replicas (and yes, there'll be more, a lot more), people will start making a distinction--the announcer at an air show will say, "here's a real P-51, USAF, sold to Canada, sold to Honduras, restored in 1883, 1996, 2009." The owners will insist on it--for bragging rights--when they agree to appear at the show.

And the replicas may even start to have composite parts. A popped-out Spit V? A plastic Dora?

Cheers,

irR4tiOn4L
10-30-2005, 09:47 PM
Do you guys think that, for the purpose of more accurate FM's, data from tests taken on accurate replicas should be considered? I guess theyd have to be very accurate replicas, but at least you could check the authenticity of the FMs a bit.

VF-17_DWolf
10-30-2005, 10:05 PM
It would probably cost a person about 5 million or so to make a perfect copy of let's say a F4U-1 early Corsair, with the bird-cage canopy.("Corsair I" in the game.)

Here's a question:


Do you call a perfect copy of a 1943 F4U-1 Corsair a replica or a 2005 F4U-1 Corsair?


I'm talking every detail, to the ninth, just like the factory.

Pretty interesting discussion.

VF-17_DWolf.

Dew-Claw
10-30-2005, 10:57 PM
You guys are forgetting one important thing.
Unless that bird was less than 3 months old and never saw combat by the end of the war....
There was a pretty good chance very little of the original plane rested on that frame.

Engines would be replaced.
Gear swapped out, Instruments in the office that were canabalized out of a different aircraft..aka a P47 with a p51 altimeter jammed in a hastly cut hole in the dash and held in place with duct tape, bubblegum and a couple of paperclips.

Your left wing may be original, but your right might be from a buddy who didn't walk away from his last landing.

So as you see, in wartime, in aircraft with a very small margin for error, nobody cared if the rudder pedals in your Spit were welded in by your machanic this morning, from the bf109 that was brought down in yesterdays air raid.
All you cared, "is it going to get me up and back alive."


I like reading up on restores in progress.
How the long needed part, was found on a downed plane found in the Aardannes or something.

I just can't put Classic cars in the same catagory as Classic Warbirds.
Different uses, different needs.

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 11:10 PM
replica stuff that doesnt currently fly would be cool.

carbon fibre mossie, tempest, typhoon.

u could save alot of weight, which could be used for useful things like cameras, and u could bulid them to last, and be very strong.

HotelBushranger
10-31-2005, 02:21 AM
As long as the engines are/sound the same. No matter how accurately they are built, I would never accept a replica that has a different sounding engine- unfortunately that would be hard to accomplish.

Feathered_IV
10-31-2005, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly, I'd love to have one. I'd also like to be Winona' Ryder's lover...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If you are smart, you'll become Winona Ryder's lover first. Then just get her to nick one for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

bazzaah2
10-31-2005, 02:33 AM
replicas are the way to go and you could have some thrilling low level combat displays at airshows and what have you. (as long as we all wear safety glasses, lol).

nakamura_kenji
10-31-2005, 02:53 AM
real wish kawasaki make ki-61 or 100 one day only ki-61 know Chiran Museum Kagoshima one ki-100-II in duxford p_q

Friendly_flyer
10-31-2005, 03:11 AM
I do Napoleonic and Roman re-enactment in my spare time (yes, I'm a geek, I know), and I'm well used to replicas. I have an original 1815 flintlock gun, a very nice piece. It very rarely misfires or breaks the flint. On the other hand, I know I'm wearing it out every time I take it into the field, and it eats my heart. As for Roman equipment, there are no original pieces to be had (except for the occasional coin or arrow-head). At some point one will have to do make do with replicas, it's a matter of remoteness in time. I'd rather have good (min you!) replicas flying and some real war-birds in museums for posterity, than being the last to see an original plane fly.

Anyhow, as TaylorTony pointed out, we're really in the "replica age" already.

WOLFMondo
10-31-2005, 03:42 AM
Allot of warbirds which are flown today don't have many of there original parts left because of metal fatigue.

I don't see a problem with 100% replicas. I would prefer it for some of the extremely rare or important planes to be put in museums for future generations to see.

At the same time, having seen 20+ Spitfires in formation at airshows theres nothing that will compare with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

It's a tough call. Combat veteran WWII aircraft are rare, although they are out there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A large number of the remaining Spitfire V's and IX's are combat veterans, even some of the XIV's and VIII's out there are too.

Feathered_IV
10-31-2005, 05:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">real wish kawasaki make ki-61 or 100 one day only ki-61 know Chiran Museum Kagoshima one ki-100-II in duxford p_q </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Three Ki-61's are being restored in Australia right now (Precision Aerospace Productions in Wangaratta, Victoria). Two are static examples, the third will be flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I love bearing good news!

nakamura_kenji
10-31-2005, 05:45 AM
yaya ^_^ wonder fit ha-40 or db-601 guess db-601 be easier more wide know engine

Feathered_IV
10-31-2005, 06:05 AM
http://community.webshots.com/album/446443090ltwEaI/1

(Bottom of the page)

Still trying to find out what the engine will be. I'll post back when I find out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Edit: I havent found out what the powerplant will be yet. However I just dug out a copy of Classic Wings journal Vol.11 No5. It has an article on the Hein restoration. It turns out I was wrong. Its not two static restorations with one flyable. It is actually only one static example and three flyable Heins!

Yatta! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VonKlugermon
10-31-2005, 06:30 AM
As we all know, it's already happening, and in all (that's right, all) instances, it's a good thing. All the rare birds should be copyed and the originals tucked away for viewing only. Most folks, unless they are airplane nuts like me (and everyone here), will not know the difference unless they look really close. The sights, sounds, and feelings these warbirds generate can be re-created quite accurately, with more modern materials and methods. This means we get all the thrill while the original mold remains unbroken. A carbon-fiber Mossie? Yea, I'd take one, who wouldn't? Complete with "new" Merlins and everything! To me, it's a no-brainer to save what we have and only fly copies/replicas. Heck, I nearly freaked-out when I saw them destroying all of those "real" P-40s in "Tora, Tora, Tora", only to breathe a sigh of relief after finding out they were very clever fiber-glass copies! Keep the originals safe, fly copies!

Just my two-cents!

Willy

1.JaVA_Razer
10-31-2005, 08:06 AM
I agree with VOnKlugermon here.

I'd kill for a warbird, replica or not. Hell it'd feel a lot better in a replica, why? Because there are parts for it, people with the technical expertise so they'll cost less then the originals and be easier to maintain.

everything could be made lighter, so a longer range etc. The only plane I'd never want to be touched by carbon or whatever is the P47 it's a jug and a flying tank and it needs to remain like that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pirschjaeger
10-31-2005, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Estocade85:
Considering that real WW2 warbirds are an endangered species, and that eventually less and less will be able to fly, some are viewing replicas as the way to go to keep em in the air.

Now, we can all imagine that replicating a flyable, almost 100% accurate warbird (engine, design, FM) would cost a fortune and take a lot of time, but for the sake of the debate, suppose it can be done in an affordable and commercial way. What would your thoughts be towards affordable warbird replicas?

Do you think it would help the spirits of those aircrafts to live on forever? Or do you think it would kill their uniqueness by having them commercialy produced? What do YOU think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol you seem to be working under the dellusion that the stuff you see flying at airshows are genuine warbirds, K I am an Aircraft Engineer and have worked on Spits in real life.... Ok let me let you down Gently....... If you go to Flugwerks site you will see Brand new FW190's for sale see http://www.flying-wings.com/special/04_fw190/04_fw190.htm

ok and they are building doras too...........

Again if you go to http://www.stormbirds.com/project/

you will see brand new ME262's for sale

Again you will find new Mig 3's available Yak 11's to amongst others...

Now back to the real deal, well those spits you see flying are 99% rebuilds and a rebuild can often consist of the Data Plate.... Sad but true, Charles Church brought it to a head by building a new Spit and having it numbered as the next one off the Line.. One I KNOW for a FACT that is flying today and was an Ex RAF gate guardian consists of no more than one leading edge skin and the data plate.... now you might say is it a real warbird? well define warbird, during the course of a fighters career it will have many engines, props, instruments, radios, tyres,undercarraiges, canopies, even wings changed bacause of damage and wear, as well as a lot of reskinning. That is not the item that rolled out of Castle Bromwich in any shape or form, but is still a genuine warbird, so At what point do you say its a new plane? some say its the data plate, but myself I like to think it is a bit more than that... I have seen a Puma in the RAF that spent its first 20 years in store and was robbed till all that remained was the bare fuselage with nothing inside it, no boom, no engines, gearboxes, fuel tanks or system, doors, rotors undercarriage, windows ,hatches,floor, need i go on? that flies now, is that a less of a warbird?. That was rebuilt and flies today, has even served in a combat enviroment... As a plane ages as an Engineer I have to think safety, and if safety is replace everything, then that happens. Dont get me wrong there are a few out there that have hardly been touched, but they are as rare as the proverbial rocking horse sh*t </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi TT, I remember you explained this to me before. It changed my ideas on the issue. Let them fly as long as they don't kill the pilot. If they do crash, we can hope they save the few original parts and put them under glass where they belong. IMHO, there's little point in throwing an original number plate and calling the plane anything near original.

Fritz

danjama
10-31-2005, 01:54 PM
Ill be honest i wouldnt know the difference unless you told me! Plus, to me it makes no difference if it has THE instrument panel from the actual WW2 version, or a replica made by someone else, as long as it LOOKS authentic. As long as it has the right engine, (doesnt have to be 60 yrs old). It could be made yesterday for all i care. Its the plane that im lookin at and listening to, not the period that it flew in. Mayb im sounding dumb, im not sure im writin what i mean. To me a warbird is a warbird, made yesterday or 60 years ago.

Skycat_2
10-31-2005, 02:36 PM
Kind of reminds me of a comic I saw in Guitar Player magazine several years ago. The character, Guitar Sam (IIRC) goes into a pawn shop and sees a vintage guitar he likes. However, as soon as he plays it he realizes he needs to replace the pickups, the frets, the tuning pegs ... soon he is replacing the neck, the bridge, even the pickguard. In the end the only thing "vintage" about it is the volume knob ...

Anyway, it's already been well established here that what we "see" at airshows aren't fully original aircraft and in many cases are modified post-war aircraft. Admit it, aren't you just a little disappointed when you see a plane painted up to look like an ace's and then you learn that the actual plane underneath is what's left of a trainer?

Different question on same topic: How do you feel about "vintage" warbirds with modern avionics in the cockpit?

Chuck_Older
10-31-2005, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Do you guys think that, for the purpose of more accurate FM's, data from tests taken on accurate replicas should be considered? I guess theyd have to be very accurate replicas, but at least you could check the authenticity of the FMs a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the surface, this seems practical

When you start really looking into it, though, it won't work.

take for example an Allison inline engine. They were famous for fairly good blow-by (which depletes power). Today, this problem has been solved by things like strides in piston ring technology

Now, who would restore or build new a P-40 with an engine, correct to war time spec in all appearances and in ever way internally, that had a blow-by issue, just because that's how the engine would have been in the '40s?

Nobody would do it. It's not smart and it's not cost effective. Nobody could tell the difference by looking at the plane that the engine was improved. All systems could be approached this way

then too, you have to have the equivelant weight of arms and armament on these planes, with corresponding feed shoots, ammo feed assist, compressed air tanks to charge the guns, ect.

Heat treating, metallurgy, even fabrication techniques have improved in 60 years. Consider how much more accurately a CNC milling machine is now than Rosie the Riveter was then. Rosie was good and competent; the CNC machine is more so.

Higher quality parts, higher quality lubricants, higher quality fuel, better fab techniques. Heck, brazing has had 60 years to improve; why would you use a brazed part that was done with yesterday's tech (if you could find somebody to do it) when you can have a better part, today?

Replicas built today might not even meet FAA standard if all the techniques, parts and equipment used then were to be used today

I feel confident in saying that this seems like a really good idea, but in the end you can't recreate the era the way it really was. You'd need a perfect time capsule of 1945 to do it, and you can't have it. Good idea, but not a realistic goal

russ.nl
10-31-2005, 03:34 PM
I say replicate the warbirds (almost) accurate. It would disrespect the men who fought and died in those planes, if we would commercialy produce them. Then it's like a yoke. These planes are not just toys. They are/were instruments that were used to fight for our freedom. They shouldend be commercialy exploided.
When some one is accurately making a replica he must be very dedicated to it. This means he knows about the plane and who flu them and why. This brings a sort of respect to the plane. Not only for the bilder but also for viewers.

Estocade85
10-31-2005, 04:20 PM
Interesting! Lots of different point of views, keep it up! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Feathered_IV
10-31-2005, 07:48 PM
One thing I'm sure we can all agree on,
A 5/8 scale flying replica warbird is just not right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Images/Pics/Ground/home.jpg


http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Images/Pics/Ground/feb%202004.JPG

Pirschjaeger
10-31-2005, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Different question on same topic: How do you feel about "vintage" warbirds with modern avionics in the cockpit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eeeeewwwwww!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Next question. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

wayno7777
10-31-2005, 09:08 PM
Even Glacier Girl has many new parts. I think the whole hydralic system had to be new built cause the seals couldn't handle todays fluid.
But she is probably the most orginal warbird flyable....


ps. I could be wrong....

LEBillfish
10-31-2005, 10:53 PM
Replica war birds are great when used in 2 manners IMLTHO.

1. Static Museum pieces. Naturally at that point it takes little to make a skin and what most of the public is allowed to view.
2. For people who have more dollars then sense.

It sounds romantic, "this is what it was like to actually fly one of these (X) planes"....Now I'm no pilot, really have no desire to be one r/l, in kind have no first hand knowledge of WWII aircraft. However, it's my understanding they are in many cases quite the handful.

Ever hear of a "Doctor Killer"?.......It's a term given to I believe Beechcraft Bonanza's(sp?) or whatever the twin engined 5-9 seaters are that the general public can buy easily....Nick named that for the fact that Doctors are known to get their license, so they drop the big bucks on one of these planes, and the first bit of trouble in one engine, boom down they go.

Warbirds if the accounts I've read are true sound like even more of a handful. So, besides the fact that you CANNOT build an exact replica cheaply even in any number, you'll most likely have a pilot ill equipped to fly it doing so.

Ever notice these shows? "Here's Bob Blowhards P47 "flown by"...Joe Schmo"....Why? because 9x out of 10 if you can afford to buy it you don't have the time to learn how to fly it. Besides the fact it's doubtful the FAA would let you even fly a pure stock warbird, there is probably a reason many don't....Compared to the available technology today they s*****.

Just like driving a car....Loud engines, screeching blowers, stiff suspension and hard to shift gears are great on rare occasions......But when you really want to enjoy the ride you get the silent motor, soft suspension automatic and wish you had a chauffer.

Frankly, there just isn't the great demand to make old fighter replicas cost effective.....and if you can afford one who would want to deal with the pain of flying one.

If they were so great they'd still be in production. Nice romantic day dreaming, but simply not practical to justify the expense.

Dew-Claw
10-31-2005, 11:07 PM
Any exactly original replicas would prob be limited by the FAA, under what conditions the aircraft could be flown.

To be used for regular pleasure/personal use, I'm betting the FAA will require updated avionics.

Not really a replica now that it has computer assisted navigation aids and control surfaces.

VonKlugermon
11-01-2005, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Replica war birds are great when used in 2 manners IMLTHO.

1. Static Museum pieces. Naturally at that point it takes little to make a skin and what most of the public is allowed to view.
2. For people who have more dollars then sense.

It sounds romantic, "this is what it was like to actually fly one of these (X) planes"....Now I'm no pilot, really have no desire to be one r/l, in kind have no first hand knowledge of WWII aircraft. However, it's my understanding they are in many cases quite the handful.

Ever hear of a "Doctor Killer"?.......It's a term given to I believe Beechcraft Bonanza's(sp?) or whatever the twin engined 5-9 seaters are that the general public can buy easily....Nick named that for the fact that Doctors are known to get their license, so they drop the big bucks on one of these planes, and the first bit of trouble in one engine, boom down they go.

Warbirds if the accounts I've read are true sound like even more of a handful. So, besides the fact that you CANNOT build an exact replica cheaply even in any number, you'll most likely have a pilot ill equipped to fly it doing so.

Ever notice these shows? "Here's Bob Blowhards P47 "flown by"...Joe Schmo"....Why? because 9x out of 10 if you can afford to buy it you don't have the time to learn how to fly it. Besides the fact it's doubtful the FAA would let you even fly a pure stock warbird, there is probably a reason many don't....Compared to the available technology today they s*****.

Just like driving a car....Loud engines, screeching blowers, stiff suspension and hard to shift gears are great on rare occasions......But when you really want to enjoy the ride you get the silent motor, soft suspension automatic and wish you had a chauffer.

Frankly, there just isn't the great demand to make old fighter replicas cost effective.....and if you can afford one who would want to deal with the pain of flying one.

If they were so great they'd still be in production. Nice romantic day dreaming, but simply not practical to justify the expense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The dreaded "Fork-Tailed Doctor Killer": Beech Bonanza.

Willy

jimDG
11-01-2005, 08:31 AM
I think its up to the millionairs among us to decide http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Some replicas are just plain impossible, as there are no original engines left. The only engines left are the some PW radials (that go on replica Zeros), ASh radials (on the An-2) that power the FW190 replicas, and lots of merlins and alisons. That leaves most German in-line engine fighters irreplicable. There was a recent discovery of some db601 engines in a warehouse somewhere in Germany, but thats all.

I'd rather see new single-engined fast a/c designs, with carbon fiber bodies and F1 car engines. Burt Rutan, I think, did one ten years ago - to break some speed record but couldnt quite get it right (it was a twin boom swept forward canard design with 2 racing engines)

LilHorse
11-01-2005, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
As long as the engines are/sound the same. No matter how accurately they are built, I would never accept a replica that has a different sounding engine- unfortunately that would be hard to accomplish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that hard. Believe it or not there are a lot of these old engines (for American planes anyway) still out there. Plenty of Packard Merlins, Allisons, and a variety of radials including R-1820s, R-1830s, and R-2800s. All just sitting in crates waiting to be used.

In most restoration projects (again, American) getting the engine is the easy part.

BaldieJr
11-01-2005, 02:18 PM
I live in the present and look forward to the future. Antiques mean nothing to me. They are tokens of hangers-on.

I say we should recycle as much aluminum as we may.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
11-01-2005, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I live in the present and look forward to the future. Antiques mean nothing to me. They are tokens of hangers-on.

I say we should recycle as much aluminum as we may. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif