de Havilland 88

Just wanted to add:

The above stories told me something about building an aircraft. Learning to fly has forever put me off dodgy designs with tricky flying qualities. If I were to pilot an aircraft for travelling from A to B at a predetermined date and time then I wouldn’t want anything which doesn’t have full IFR instrumentation, full deicing capabilities, at least one turboprop engine and a pressurised cabin….

I think Atomic deserves praise for having taken into account the advice given in this thread. Something which sets this thread apart from others asking advice for similarly impossible “projects”….

One can’t blame youth for having such aspirations. I wasn’t any different, thinking at the age of 15 that it wasn’t a question if I would once own by own airworthy Harvard, rather than when.

I joined the Danish equivalent of the EAA a couple of years later and started learning:

I got to know someone who build a LongEz. During the building process his wife left him. Then his partner crashed it and he bought the partner out and repaired it.

Then I met someone who at the time (about 20 years ago) had been working for more than 10 years on another LongEz. It still hasn’t flown. The same applies to a Lancair 360 that an acquaintance of mine has been working on for 15 years now.

The other people I knew built an RV-4 in a reasonably short time scale, only for one of the partners to crash it a couple of months after its first flight. That happened at about the same time as I watched two people give up a Jodel project which they had purchased with the major component (the wing) already finished. The latter is a pretty impressive (read: daunting) structure…

All of the above aircraft are well known designs for which complete plans or even kits exist….

I now fly a rented 3-axis microlights (FK9) after having started out with a PPL (Bölkow Monsun, C172, C152, PA28). Lack of space, family and work commitments and many other issues probably mean that I will never build or restore an aircraft, as I had hoped for. But I can fly and I do fly, and what I fly is something which is not unfeasible for an individual to purchase. Much more so than a Harvard, a replica SE5a, a Grinsvald Orion or whatever else I had on my mind those many years ago. I learned something.

You can get all sorts of pukka blueprints from a guy in NZ called Peter Ewbank – just poke his name into Google.

Here’s what he says about his P-38 Lightning blueprints:

Lockheed P-38 Lightning scale plan with detailed dimensions. 2 sheets. Full size. Superb quality – produces excellent large posters (each 1 metre x 750mm). Scale is 1:16 and uses a scale bar. Produced from original 1959 blueprint (as drafted by Lee Roy Weber) using a very large format scanner. Starting price reflects cost of scanning using this kind of expensive equipment. Detail shot below shows excellent line quality. This is the only way to capture detail. This level of graphic detail and engineering information is seldom seen on modern plans (which is why we collect them – the old ones are the best ones). Can also be imported into CAD applications. Is scaleable to any size or scale prefered. CD is Mac and PC friendly. Can also print from home PC or at a plan printing bureau. If you decide to print in colour, you will be delighted with the result. Wing, Boom and Fuselage cross sections included as are very good drawings of the undercarriage in extended and retracted positions. Very good wiring, armament and cockpit detail drawings are presented as well. Please browse my eBay store where you will find many other scale plans and also a very good selection of factory engineering drawings (blueprints).

I’ve had dealings with him and can recommend him.

cheers
Alan

It’s a worthwhile project…but a word of caution….

A friend recently rebuilt a large steel tube/wood winged, fabic covered bi-plane.
Fairly simple stuff compared with a wooden de Havilland.
Even with factory blue-prints it took 8 years, a team of volunteers, 18 thousand man hours, and a paid expert to fabricate the thousands of wing pieces.
The total cost was hundreds of thousands of dollars. You would not believe the cost of the special Canadian-grown wood needed for the wing spars…not to mention specialist items like the custom made fuel tanks and exhaust systems.
This is long before thinking about avionics, control cables, landing gear, wheels, brakes, tyres.

And my friend already had many of the parts, a large workshop hangar full of tools (themselves worth a small fortune) and 30+ years experience in restoring aircraft ranging from several Stearmans, to an award-winning Beech Staggerwing, to a Super Cub to a T-6/Harvard.
BTW: he is an aeronautical engineer by trade.

If you build it, you’ll reap great rewards, but your commitment will be huge in terms of time, money and effort.

Good luck with whatever you decide to build.

Bear in mind going for looks (like in life) is often expensive, stressful, and in aviation can get you killed. Let a specification lead you to an aircraft you can manage.

OK, Atomic. Give us a bit more background as to what you are up to, your experience and interest with aircraft, models and woodwork, and what your current plans are, and I might be able to show you some interesting aircraft builds – but I can’t waste other people’s time and prefer not to waste mine – no offence, but I’m talking about people who’d rather work on the aircraft than waste time with a tyre kicker. That said, you’re obviously keen, which counts for a lot. Persistence will be as critical! 😉

Either post here or drop me a PM if you’d rather do it off board.

Propstrike’s suggestion about talking to the SAAA is a good one, the other organisation would be the Antiquers – the AAAA.

www.saaa.com/

http://www.antique-aeroplane.com.au/

Hope that helps!

Thunder Inc, who built the amazing (seriously!) Thunder Mustang, had their prototype crash, killing the test pilot. Don’t think they’re in business any longer, either.

There were kits sold of those two, but they’re like gold dust!

At least one Thunder Mustang currently for sale.
http://www.kiwithunder.com/news_&_events.htm

Asking USD650,000

Found a 100% scale spitfire http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/ but if you go in, they are only offering 80 and 90% scale versions so a bit strange. And pricey.

And these crashes arent sounding too promising :eek:.

Supermarine don’t make, and have never made, 100% scale kits. They began with 2/3rds scale ultralights, then the 75% scale Mk.25, followed by the 80% Mk.26 (and, latterly, the 90% Mk.26b).

I imagine the thing you found on that website states why they don’t make a kit to 100% scale!

The reason for the high cost of the kit is that they do a large amount of the work for you – something like 700hrs build time goes into each kit before it leave the factory, so that the builder can get the thing into the air quicker. Most take about another 1000-1500hrs to complete.

Plus, Supermarine don’t sell plans for the Spitfire. The reason being is that they take their quality control very seriously, and don’t want to risk someone building an aircraft from their plans, only for the thing to crash and the builder (or builder’s family) to sue.

I was lucky enough to get some CAD drawings from them when I planned building a model some years ago (which I never got around to doing in the end). Not enough detail in those by a long way to enable anyone to build something other than a model!

Found a 100% scale spitfire http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/ but if you go in, they are only offering 80 and 90% scale versions so a bit strange. And pricey.

And these crashes arent sounding too promising :eek:.

No, I mean that for every two kits that surface from a new manufacturer, another goes out of business for one reason or another.

TimeWarp Aircraft produced a 60% Spitfire V (and it was nice), but the designer was killed in his MkIX version.

The Stewart S-51 Mustang, I think became embroiled in monetary issues and the company ceased trading. (Shame, really, as their 80% P-51D was gorgeous – and about the closest the homebuilder could get to a Mustang for a lower budget).

Thunder Inc, who built the amazing (seriously!) Thunder Mustang, had their prototype crash, killing the test pilot. Don’t think they’re in business any longer, either.

There were kits sold of those two, but they’re like gold dust!

Loehle Ultralights in the States have been marketing a successful (single-seat) Mustang for years, but their Spitfire has been in development hell since the mid-90s. From what I hear, the one or two customers who bought kits of it so far have been less than enthusiastic about the company’s response.

I think there is a company offering a kit of the Mustang in 75% scale, but I can’t think who they are.

There are plans – the Jurca group offers plans for the Spitfire and Mustang, but only a handful of either have been built, and their details aren’t complete enough for anyone attempting one for their first build. (One builder in the UK had several problems getting undercarriage details for his Spitfire.)

As I say, there is really only the Spitfire 26 and Titan T-51 that are of any serious competition to each other. There are companies offering full-scale Spitfire/Mustang kits (I believe there is a composite, full-scale Musty built with a turbine in mind!), but none of the former, and only one or two of the latter have flown.

By going down do you mean crash? Is that because of poor design? or lack of skill or bit of both?

Stuka? Yep, been done. No kits, but certainly some flying scaled-down replicas around.

There aren’t many Spitfire/Mustang kits around these days – for every two that spring up, one goes down (or so it seems). The Spitfire 26 and Titan T-51 are the main ones these days. The Hurricane replica is a relatively new one.

How so?

Hold on… sorry I made a mistake… the ju88 is not what I meant. I just looked it up to make sure it was what I thought it was. I meant the twin seater dive bomber with the rear seat facing backwards. ju87. Sorry lol

Twin seater mustangs, spitfires and hurricanes are certainly news to me. Never seen either.

WW2 planes are awesome, I’d personally get a Bf109 but they are too expensive if you buy original or kit. And building one from metal, well, thats a whole different story. And as crampt as the Comets rear seat was, at least it had one. I would prefer a twin seater.

The Spit 26 has two; so does a recently-built Bf109 (can’t recall where, though), and many Mustangs do, too. I also believe there is a two-seat Hurricane replica kicking about.

A ju88 would fit that description for me.

Now you are being unrealistic! 😉

WW2 planes are awesome, I’d personally get a Bf109 but they are too expensive if you buy original or kit. And building one from metal, well, thats a whole different story. And as crampt as the Comets rear seat was, at least it had one. I would prefer a twin seater. A ju88 would fit that description for me.

As for RV, I don’t really like the newer types of planes and since they are aluminium, well I don’t like that either. I’ve got more experience with wood and metal I understand is a whole different skill and mind set and I just don’t want to go that path simply because I never liked it.

For the time being I’m just going to look around and see what I like but I doubt I’ll end up going performance. If I can’t get my “ideal” performance I’m gonna go for another ideal. I’ve got lots 😀 so like I said, something along the lines of a piper I think would suffice for the time being (I was going to learn to fly in something small and slow anyway). The Pietenpol Aircamper looks to be a pain to get in or out as nice as it is.

If you want to build somthing, and want it to be practicle, fast and with a good range i suggest looking at the RV range of kits. Lots of help and support for the first time builder.
I admire your ambition to build somthing but im afftaid all the coments re building a DH 88 are spot on. The reality is you would never reach your dream and probably end up getting very disheartened with the whole thing.

Start small, listen to those that know, and build somthing that you will be able to actually complete and enjoy.

Who know one day you might just be able to build that DH88, but understand and accept what you are trying to do first. And dont try and make somthing that was very chalanging to fly at the best of times into somthing it isnt.

I wish you well in what you decide to build.:)

If you want a good, reliable, aircraft with decent performance and rather a long range, you could do a lot worse than the Spitfire 26.

THE Mk 26b SPITFIRE
Top Speed (VNE) 230 Knots / 264 mph / 425 km
Max Cruise 170 Knots (V6) / 240Knots (V8)
Cruise (Economical) 160Knots
Stall 45 Knots (Dirty 42 Knots) / 48 mph / 67 kph
Range 4 hrs (approx. at economical cruise speed) with 1hr reserve
Rate Of Climb (fpm) 2500 + (V6) / 3500 + (v8)
Takeoff Distance 207m / 226 yds
Landing Distance (m) 445 m / 487yds
Service Ceiling (ft) 18000 ft +approx.
Engine Used V6 GM N/A / V6 Supercharged and V8 GM N/A (Chevy)
Power 220 hp / 430 hp
Empty Weight 992 lbs (450kg) (Aust- RAA405Kg)
Gross Weight 1785 lbs (810 kg) (Aust- RAA 560Kg)
Height (ft) 6’ 9” (at Spinner)
Length (ft) 23’ 9” / 7.24 m
Wingspan (ft) 27’ 8” / 8.43 m
Wing Area (sq ft) 122 sq ft
Fuel Capacity 150 litres / 32.9 UK gal / 39.6 US gal
No. Of Seats 2 (1Seater RAA- Aust only) awaiting 750kg rule
Bldg. Material Aluminium (2024t3)
Build Time (beginners) 1200 hours (approx)
No. Built (60 flying) and 96 being built
Info Pack $30.00 US
Plans not available
Rating Limited Aerobatic +6 -4 g

Granted, the kit ain’t cheap, but it comes with a heck of a lot of work already done for you. There’s the option of “wet” wings (fuel tanks fitted in the wing leading edges, similar in a sense to what some full-scale Spits have these days) to increase your range.

Believe me, if I had the money (oh yeah, and a PPL :o), I’d have one in a heartbeat.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dBdF7UcrYdI

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fXX3gcT2okI

I’ve wanted to fly since I was about 5 years old when I had my first flight in a small passenger propeller plane. Probably some kind of antonov. Since that time I was hooked. I’ve never gotten over it. Over time I’ve formed my ideals about what an ultimate plane would be for me. Living in Australia, means that I need a plane with great range. Closest major city to Melbourne is 750 km (by car this is, so closer by air I would imagine) so for Australia I’d want something fast and have a long range in order to be able to fly around and see everything. Whenever I saw the comet I would get the same sensation of awe from its beauty. So recently I decided why not build my own plane and why not the Comet? Fired up the comp and decided to check out the specs. It fit these requirements perfectly. Fast, long range, and twin engined meant that I could quite comfortably go over water to Tasmania for example. So at first glance it seemed like a fantastic idea and a perfect plane. Now that I’ve looked into it and have been enlightened by people who have been there done that, I now realise that yes reality is a bit different. I’m dissapointed but my will to fly has certainly not evaporated. I still want to build my own plane as I know I’d enjoy that part, plus its probably cheaper (well probably not considering all the additional tools that I’d need), but either way, I’m gonna take the first step and learn to fly. And see where I go from there. I don’t really have a particular love towards airplanes of a particular era or of a particular type. Looks are certainly an emportant factor though. It can be a ww1 biplane and I’d want it if it looks right. The last question is whether its specs meet my expectations. I’ve actually been put off by planes for quite some time for the simple fact that if I want to see Australia in one swoop i.e. fly from one end to the other in a single day, it would require an airplane that is either too expensive (jet) or dangerous (comet). So the question is what I end up with in the end. But in the mean time I’ll certainly be working towards a more short term goal i.e. get a licence, and get a plane in the air that I would be able to fly and learn in.

And thanks Propstrike… thats good advice. I’ll look into the SAAA, and that Aircamper is certainly a nice looking bird. A piper cub I’m guessing would be a realistic project also which is another plane that I’ve liked for quite some time. Obviously none of them have the speed or the range of the comet, so i guess ill have to fly around in baby steps.

But like DaMan said, maybe some day I’ll pull out all the info I have gathered over the past couple of days and go out and build a flyable version.

As a one-time wannabe replica builder, I cannot argue with anything these guys have said – seriously.

I had my own idea once, of building a miniature Spitfire in a fashion akin to the WAR replicas and Rand KR series of aircraft (wooden load-bearing structure, composite wing panels, fuselage contours etc). I was brought back down to earth with a serious bump – not by anyone being a nay-sayer (strictly speaking, nobody said it couldn’t be done – and even the then-PFA said to try another route to achieve my goal), but by realising that, as it stands, I simply don’t have the knowledge, the money, the space nor the resources to build a 60% scale Spit – for the time being. I have the plans in my possession still, and so maybe it won’t remain a pipe dream? I’ll maybe build my Spit, but only when I have time to commit to putting the thing into motion. Who knows?

I admire your determination to build a Comet, but really the historical and contemporary evidence regarding the flying characteristics of the beast seems to be somewhat scary. Simply getting a tailwheel rating won’t be your answer. Hundreds of hours in tailwheel aeroplanes might get you somewhere.

(Also, I wouldn’t rely on two engines being any safer than one if you have one of them flame out. What was the Comet like to fly on one engine? Anyone?)

If you’re still serious, can I recommend a book to you? It’s not what you want to build, sure, but it will give you some idea as to what’s involved in the design and construction processes of a complicated replica aircraft. Birth of a Spitfire by Clive DuCros. He wanted to build a full-scale replica of the prototype Spitfire, K5054, but out of wood, and using a modified high-powered car engine to get the thing airborne.

Good luck with whatever route you choose to go, but to be honest, a Comet isn’t something to be taken at all lightly…!

Reality bites !

If you are serious about pursuing this interest, get amongst people who know of what they speak, and probably your best angle is to join the Melbourne SAAA ( Sports Aircraft Association of Australia).

With a model building background you could comfortably start on a Pietenpol Aircamper, which could also be used for part of your flying training. This is a do-able route to becoming a qualified pilot, aircraft owner, and getting experience of the handling qualities of vintage light aircraft.

This is the sort of information that I wanted to hear. When you hear… “it can’t be done” you just go… well I’ll prove them wrong. I don’t know how other people work but I work very simply. If someone says it can’t be done, I do it anyway. If someone says it can’t be done and explains why… thats when I listen. It can’t be done only when I understand why it can’t be done not simply because people say so. I want reasons otherwise I will be a stubborn headed fool as obviously generic statements of “it can’t be done” don’t teach me anything. Finding information about this plane was difficult going as I pointed out in the first post. This is why I came to this site. Not to hear what I should do, but assessments and information that can be analysed and interpreted. I never said I’ve got a stack of wood in my shed that I’m trying to stick together, I’m here to find information and as Joglo said, to “cross all the Ts and dot all the Is before starting”. This is a problem of forums I find. You get some new person appear who you know nothing about and you tell him that he’s dreaming. Fact is, you don’t know the state of mind of that person and all you could be doing is sending him off a cliff. The fact that building a life sized plane from wood requires knowledge selecting wood, selective adhesives, understanding how to work with the materials… all that as far as I’m concerned is a given and can be learned, just takes time.

As for getting what I want from the end result is a different question. I know what I want from my plane and there was only one part that scared me in this project… and that is… its flight characteristics. I’ve searched the internet far and wide and this is why I turned to people who I thought knew what they were talking about (and turns out they do), because the internet has very little usable information. The fact that it was hell to land was first presented to me by a person on another forum. Until JDK told me the extent of this problem, I genuinely felt that this plane was for me. So thank you and I have now realised that its not something I wish to persue any further and certainly not for the reason of building the thing.

Side note: The reasons why I picked this plane as a project:
Safety (derived from it having 2 engines)
Speed (obviusly has the ability)
Cheap (obviously cheaper to run than a turboprop or a jet engined plane)
and finally downright gorgeous.

The fact that it has turned out to be a “death box” has definately killed the idea of safety and hence the idea of owning one.