Identifying This Wreck

Is anybody currently pursuing acquiring these (possibly) Siskin wings?

Hi Maxim,
His name was Geoffrey Roskrow Quick ( The middle name is Cornish). The full sets of drawings covered all the structures. Look to the RAF Museum( donated in the early 80’s ) and to the Shuttleworth Collection ( donated c.2007) as to where you might find more of them – if they haven’t also been disposed of as being of no recognizable interest.

David Burke, your PM mailbox is full.

Neema, interesting about the background of that informative GA+ created by your father. I have a copy of that drawing with an inscription signed ‘Geoff’ 1994.

Nice to see continued enthusiasm for this aircraft.

Regards
John

Neema,
Wow ! It makes sense, if your father was capable of calculating the stress on structures, that the drawings were detailed, technically adept and authentic. What did he do for a living ? I came across mine by accident, but they reward repeat browsing. I would dearly love to see the others. I wonder if your family would support a print run, because I would definitely want to buy something like that. It is Christmas, after all !

I can understand the reservation with the plans being relied upon for airworthy structures. But : In this case they are not original equipment manufacturer plans so would doubt that any engineer could rely upon them without independently re-engineering the structures. Again, the great problem is material substitution – it is not possible to buy the original specifications of materials detailed on the plans, so they cannot be directly used, even if they were OEM plans. There is no detail for wings in the ones I have, so nothing will fly as a consequence of them in any case. I wonder if the simple addition of a disclaimer would settle any fears. This work is far too good to be hidden away and is on par with the Aeroplane cutaway drawings that were and continue to be combined into stand alone publications over the years. Something to be proud of.

Well printed, on 6 x 4, I would pay 100 quid each for a Bulldog, Fury etc, stick it in a postal tube and there would be quite a few sales around the world to folk like me !

G R Quick was my father. He resisted the Gamecock drawings going towards the then planned creation of a flying replica for a number of reasons. Fears regarding flight safety being uppermost. Some of his drawings he donated to the RAF Museum( Jack Bruce and Bill Sayer being long term friends). Others after his death were donated to such as Shuttleworths, whom I suspect might well have subsequently disposed of them.
He covered many between wars British Fighters over the years,including Fury,Grebe and Bulldog. His technical knowledge of airframe ( and engine) construction and techniques allowed him to fill in gaps based upon such data as materials lists and specific aircraft company practices, even checking the stressing of the structures he had drawn. Other works included the Delanne Lysander ,Hiram Maxim’s Aeroplane, Moshaiski’s Aeroplane, a range of British First War fighters and some airships. He worked closely supporting, for example, Harald Penrose on his “History of British Aviation” among other serious aviation authors with all of his contributions ,at his request, being uncredited.
I thank you for rescuing the drawings in your possession and for appreciating their technical value

Neema,
Attachments updated. I have Siskin and Gamecock, both brilliant, 6 x 4 feet plan views, came via Ebay, looked like someone was clearing out a house. I did bump into one of the restoring team for the Gamecock who stated that they never had access to this resource during their restoration until it was late in the piece, which would be frustrating, as they are remarkably detailed and researched. Recently I found some cockpit photos of Siskin and they match the Quick drawings most accurately.
Was there some ‘hiding the lamp under the bush’ about this work in the early 90’s? What other drawings were done in this series?

Does anybody else have any other G.A.s and structural drawings of tween wars British fighters by Mr .G R Quick? I gather that they were remarkable.

Siskin GA

powerandpassion
Unfortunately I cannot open the attachment,
Out of interest how did you come by it?

What can we do to help insure these wings are preserved?

Bill,
A great forensic analysis. Here is a picture of a flying Siskin III from 1927 :

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242619[/ATTACH]

These wings are certainly a remarkable engineering dataset. Maybe, unless the structure that houses them is imperilled, they are safe where they are, in the hands of sympathetic, aviation minded folk. The spars are made of corrodible nickel chromium alloy steel, that would unlikely be safe for any future flying. They have lasted eighty odd years, shielded from the scrap man, sleet and snow. The most simple thing to do to preserve them is to attach a sacrificial aluminium or magnesium anode to the continuous steel structure, which would act in the same way as if the steel was sprayed with a zinc primer; a concept easier to grasp but less effective and undesirable from a preservation point of view. Sacrificial zinc anodes are used to preserve the hulls of century old steel ships in floating museums : this is a simple, cheap, effective way to make sure the roof structure will last.

Generally asbestos cement sheet absorbs some moisture and you would expect that the corrodible steel would be in poorer condition from being pressed against this. I wonder if there is some strange circumstance where the galvanic potential of asbestos cement and steel makes the cladding act as a sacrificial anode ? There also seems to be some furnace flue in the building : generally combustion puts a lot of moisture in the air but has the heat of this discouraged condensation on the underside of the roof? Whatever the reason it is amazing to find bits of Siskin III. It is amazing what is still out there.

This roof contains some secrets that could be gleaned without any needing to remove them :

1) Confirmation via metallurgical testing that the spars are DTD54a Nickel Chromium alloy and the bracing struts are 3% Nickel alloy T5 tube and the ribs are DTD98 or DTD99 Nickel Chromium alloy.
2) Confirmation of the gauge of these materials.
3) CAD drafting of the wing assemblies, showing details of assembly/riveting/support structures that may be missing for remnant drawings or be production improvements not detailed in remnant drawings.

A flying Siskin would have to be made from new materials – the fuselage was made from pin jointed T5 tube? At first glance these structures seem complex to an eye more used to monocoque structures, but they lend themselves to simple tools and a patience. Canadians are used to shovelling snow from driveways, so have the mindset! I understand there are a few AS Jaguars floating around – it seems that the plethora of AS Cheetahs can allow a far more simple step into this type than if a Bristol Jupiter were required.

The Canadian Siskin seems to occupy the same place in the history of the RCAF as the Hawker Australian Demon in the RAAF. Both are largely missing in their respective skies and both caught the imagination of their respective populations in prewar air displays. In a time of Depression they were an extravagant spend. By 1940, they were an embarrassment, which is perhaps why they were so readily scrapped by those who had progressed to Mosquitos and Spitfires. A flying Siskin in the UK would be good, but a flying Siskin in Canada would be a profound achievement for Canadian aviation history. So if anybody is going to do it, it might have to be a Canadian.

What’s stopping it is the lost art of strip steel construction : the DTD54a spars, the pin jointed T5 tubes of the fuselage which make it such a different proposition to a timber or monocoque aluminium restoration. When you look at a snow covered driveway it is disheartening. The only way to get to the finish is to just start shovelling ! So here is a hint : the T5 tube of the late 20’s and 30’s has the same characteristics as T45. Ostensibly it was a 50T tube but it never seemed to make this spec and was always regarded by the stressmen as a 45T tube. In order to get a real 50 T tube 3% Nickel alloy tube was developed in the 30’s with a true 50T strength. You can get T45 today so there is enough historical literature to get the concept of a T45 fuselage frame together without controversy. Its all tube with machined joint fittings. Then stick one of your Jaguars on the front and you are on your way ! It seems that there are wing remnants around which, if the custodians were sympathetic, you could survey to start building an understanding of what is required to build the wings. Really you need to find somebody with a coil of DTD54a Nickel Chrome spar material of the correct gauge – so what is the gauge? The coil might be available but a shame if a 1,000 m coil is run and the opportunity to output 100m in a gauge suitable for Siskin is lost, because I doubt it will ever be done again.

Have you seen GR Quick’s superb GA of the Siskin III :

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242618[/ATTACH]

John -if you wish PM me regards Siskins.

Thanks Maxim for reminding us – I think I looked for the thread a couple of times but, without “Siskin” in the title, !!!! The thread is now 7 1/2 years old.

OyYou last posted in July so, thankfully, he’s still around.

Roger Smith.

Many years since this thread was started or last posted to. Has there been any additional action taken regarding these wing remnants?

Like ‘Brisfitworks’ I too am Canadian have a deep interest in the Siskin. I have started drawing with the intent of building at least a good static display of an RCAF variant. While I have 70+ drawings and a reasonable amount of engineering data, enough to get into trouble it seems, I am eagerly searching for any other drawings and engineering information that may exist. Most critical would be definitive upper wing spar and lower wing detail information.

If you or anyone you know can be of assistance it will be much appreciated.

Regards
John

Anyone got an update on this??

Roger Smith.

Hi Brisfitworks

PM sent with contact details

Regards

Barn of Siskin!

Everyone:

By pure chance I came across this forum and this thread!

I immediately joined for the Siskin in very near and dear to my heart. It is one of my pet projects (F2b then Siskin).

This is a very exciting thread!

This poor little known fighter is a very important step in the evolution of the all metal airframes. Barnwell kicked of the process in 1917 with the MR.1, then Armstrong-Whitworth took up the torch, and in many ways, passed it back to Bristol when they subcontracted Siskin IIIa’s to be built by them. You can see Siskin parts in the Bulldog blueprints!

As a Canuck the Siskin’s importance in the history of the RCAF is key to my interests. (though I much prefer RAF’s squadron markings over the plain RCAF ones 😉 )

I have been gathering information for a long time so that this aircraft can once again be represented in museums and in the air! Lots of details are missing and I have been reverse engineering what I have not yet found.

I have about 80 dwg’s of the Siskins, Starling and AW16 and Manual AP1317 for the aircraft. Plus many other related reports and studies. But there is never enough information.

I have a fairly extensive collection of Bulldog, Gladiator and other blueprints and copies of manuals and other information.

Here are some specific observations that all this documentation provides to help verify that this truely is Siskin IIIa

From a comparison of the Siskin and the Bulldog blueprints, it is clear these are not Bulldog wings. As stated, a key distinguishing feature is the Warren trussing of the rib. To confirm with details, between the spars, these images show Warren trusses having four attachments to the U-channel outline exactly as on the Siskin IIIa wheras the Bulldog has only three. My Gadiator blueprints clearly say this is not a Glad rib – it didn’t use Warren truss bracing. Presumably, Guanlet is the same. From the manuals for the A-W Atlas I can say the airfoil section is wrong, Atlas did not use an undercambered airfoil as seen in the segments of root ribs.

The compression strut configuration is dbl-tubes canted at an angle with sheet spreader plates with a flanged hole. This is identical to the Siskin compression strut, especially at the aileron pulley station (as exampled in DSCF0538.JPG), whereas the famous Bristol all metal wing is single tubes. The Siskin has two dbl-tube compression struts alternating with two single tube compression struts, just as in these images. Although my Hawker wing blueprints for aircraft such as the Hart, Hind, Hector, Fury and Nimod all show a canted dbl-tube compression strut outboard, all the other wing details are far too different than what is seen in these images for these to be Hawker bits.

The Siskin spar is quite complicated to describe but call it a “butterfly section”. It features the side panels being rolled to a section at the center to grip a round tube. The early Bristol all metal wing spar section is very similar to the Siskin. But, the Bristol spar has the rib attachment flanges coming out of the spar flat and perpendicular to the spar and a simple fold up (or down for lower rib attachment). In comparison, the Siskin rib attachment flanges curve away from the spar center-line and have the edges almost rolled over as clearly seen in these photos. These are A-W parts not Bristol. On the A-W Atlas, I do know that the typical version of the Atlas spar is very different in section to the the Siskin and thus may be proof that these are not A-W Atlas parts. Atlas spars are two, facetted tubes in a “dumb-bell” configuration separated by a sheet metal web with span-wise corrugations (since we have referenced Haddon’s structures book, this spar design appears in several places in this book). Galdiator spars are very similar to Atlas spars, thus more proof not Gladiator or Guantlet

In BARNROOF2.JPG one can see, in the upper middle, the root attachment fitting still with the attachment bolt hanging in the hole. Since this is a single attachment eye, this is a stbd upper panel (the port panel has a fork arrangement for this tab to fit between). These details of wing attachment are very different than the same attachments of other types were are considering.

In the center of this same image is two wing tip bows attached to the spars. Comparing this to A-W dwg SP2899 for the Siskin III’s Port Wing panel, the construction is identical.

DSCF0556.JPG is consistent with the tip end of the front spar of the Siskin IIIa. Note how a tube is fitted in the center of the spar as described as a distiguishing feature of the Siskin IIIa spar section. This tube extends out a short distance for attachment of the wings tip bow clip. The light grey box is the electrical connection for the tip nav lights. This is an upper wing panel. All are! (the lower wing has a tube monospar). We are looking at a multitude of upper wing panels stripped of ribs! Nothing in any of these photos looks likes fuselage panels from a Siskin or any other aircraft I know. Are these likely to have coame from a disposal sale – wings stacked like firewood?

There is a gold mine of missing details in this barn!

I plan to see Siskins fly again and am excited to see so much suddenly appear in one page that can make that a reality!

Other threads in this forum make it clear that more bits are extant. It is remarkable how the internet has made it so much easier to discover such treasures. Twenty and thirty years ago, months of snail mail was the source of plodding progess!

Maybe one day, all of the bits could be found and brought together to make a static diplay restoration. It is sounding like such could be started in two years. Then a flying “restoration”?!

What can we do to help insure these wings are preserved?

Sincerely,

Bill Batter
Dir. Great War Flying Museum
www.greatwarflyingmuseum.com

Yep, she’s great, even stomached a day at Old Warden a few weeks ago and is going to Bruntingthorpe on the 25th with me. The reason the blue prints were at hers is I plan to take them down to OW next time we go, thought the chaps down there may want a look at them, its only an hour away from her house in Corby. I’ve blueprints for the Grasshopper, Siskin IIIA and the Sopwith Gnu. Iv’e also got an erecting and rigging diagram from Glosters for the Gauntlet and an erecting ‘in the field’ diagram for the Gamecock (both very big sheets).

I’ll post the pics asap.

Dean

Does he keep blueprints of his girlfriend in his aircraft though… ? :diablo:

If I have some of the original blue prints which may shed some light. They are currently at my girlfriends,

You keep aircrfat blueprints at your Girlfriends?

You have a VERY understanding Girlfriend

The big problem is disturbing that asbestos roof. I am in close contact with them so will keep them informed.

Best wishes Ali

As someone with a fair knowledge of Health and safety and asbestos removal, the roof is quite safe, as long as very simple precautions are followed. Corrugate sheet like that is made of 90% cement and 10% asbestos.

The asbestos used is Chrysotile and as long as lots of dust is not produced its relatively harmless. The main health risk with this type of material was mainly related to builders who were cutting it regularly breathing in the dust, over a long period of time.

You could pay a licencsed contractor many thousands to remove it, or as in many cases you can do it yourself.

Firstly spray the roof with a PVA/water mix and allow it to dry, this seals in any loose fibres. Always use a mask and gloves and disposable overalls, and remove the sheets as complete as possible. Then wrap the sheets in plastic, and they can be disposed of usually at your local tip !

If you are really bothered paint it first with old gloss paint that really seals it in, but the pro’s use PVA, really it is not a problem, but there is a real unecessary paranoia surrounding this type of material, I wish I could put it back on my garage roof nothing lasts as long as it.

Siskin! – that’s great news – lots of interwar aircraft used complex steel channel section – the Wallace also being one of them. There seem to be a few Siskin parts around – I do hope someone will have a stab at rebuilding one one day.