I believe that this particular airframe never actually flew and has been preserved indoors for most of her years. Her engine, a RR Eagle, probably was only bench run. In theory a zero timed engine in an airframe with full fatigue life left(you can see where this is going !).
This is a very beautiful aeroplane which I’m sure was a great site and sound airborne.Again in theory, could she be flown ?
Incidentally, the RR Eagle I assume was not really developed due to the advent of the jet engine ?.
Phil
By: stringbag - 24th August 2002 at 22:04
RE: FAAM Wyvern
The CAA look at the accident statistics of aircraft types before deciding whether to allow them to fly. This would probably rule out the Wyvern, or at the least make it very difficult, for the aircraft to ever get clearance to fly.
M
By: Ant.H - 24th August 2002 at 19:29
RE: FAAM Wyvern
Evenin Merlin,
In response to your quote about the GeeBee,it should be pointed out that there has never been a UK registered GeeBee.The only ones I know of are registered in the US in the FAA’s Experimental category. Correct me if I’m wrong…
So far as I’m aware,the RR Eagle had quite a few teething troubles that were never fully solved,so I think it would be a bit dicey to operate the FAAM’s machine even if the authorities did give it clearance to fly.I have to admit it would be great to see and hear that 24 cylinder monster bursting into life,but it seems rather unlikely.
Does anybody know of any Wyvern substantial components or sunken wrecks that could be rebuilt into a complete example?The Python powered models were quite different to thier piston powered forebears and I can’t help but feel that there should be atleast one example of these later machines displayed.
By: Bob - 24th August 2002 at 12:56
RE: FAAM Wyvern
Now I would love to see one of these fly – I had a model of one as a kid and it still appeals to me even now. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are some damn ugly planes out there – I don’t think the Wyvern is one of them.
How about a fast taxi run?
Chocks away…
By: Merlin3945 - 24th August 2002 at 11:58
RE: FAAM Wyvern
You said- However with view of the aircraft’s safety record the CAA wouldn’t allow it to fly-
well why do they fly the Gee Bee. as its record isnt that good and is really dodgy to fly. have heard a lot from the pilot of the replica.
also this aircraft killed the first pilot of the type and just about killed another
so why do they fly it.
By: stringbag - 20th August 2002 at 21:17
RE: FAAM Wyvern
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-08-02 AT 09:18Â PM (GMT)]It has just been restored back to display condition and the airframe was apparently in good shape before that, but whether it was built to airworthy standards in the first place, even though it didn’t actaully fly, I’m not sure of.
However with view of the aircraft’s safety record the CAA wouldn’t allow it to fly. Have heard some stories about the Wyvern, including a very very nasty one including a girl on a tricycle (I don’t think I need to say anymore)
M
By: philo - 20th August 2002 at 20:17
RE: FAAM Wyvern
The question was a purely hypothetical one.
What I was getting at was, given its ‘virgin’ condition would it be possible to fly this aircraft, forgeting its uniqueness and the CAA, purely from an engineering angle.
By: philo - 20th August 2002 at 15:49
RE: FAAM Wyvern
Long sleek nose, blown canopy, wolloping great RR eagle,contra-props all metal finish – does it for me !.
But sorry Moggy, I forgot that you are now a TV commentator and aviation guru (only joking,each to their own).
However, could it fly ?
By: Moggy C - 20th August 2002 at 14:03
RE: FAAM Wyvern
“This is a very beautiful aeroplane which I’m sure was a
>great sight and sound airborne.”
Beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholder here 😉
It doesn’t do much for me.
Moggy
Sign In
August 20, 2002 at 1:36 pm