New Mosquito bomber in Oz?

I know he has the nacelles and undercarriage so I assume he will do the same as what he has done with the Anson ie no outer wings.

Lincoln has an original wing “centre-section”/narcelle structure from Narromine (possibly from a RAF 618 Sqn DZ652? B mk IV “Highball” airframe?) which he has built into a full size replica fuselage as an FBVI with a flat screen canopy?, seperately he has built a full size mockup “bomber” (B-mark IV) cockpit with V windscreen, both FSM’s have original canopies fitted, I understand from past discussions that Lincoln does not intend to progress either past their current configurations.

http://www.freewebs.com/greenockaviationmuseum/mosquito.htm

The Mosquito fuselage and Cockpit section in the museum are both replicas constructed out of spare Mosquito parts, sourced from a farm in Parkes, New South Wales.

In April 1943, a secret RAF squadron (618) was formed to develop a special weapon code named ‘Highball’ to sink the German battleship Tirpitz in Fiord. The Mosquito’s were fitted for aircraft carrier service and sent to Melbourne then Narromine on two aircraft carriers, ready for testing the weapon before deployment. However, the United States of America, (who had authority over the Pacific region) feared the ‘Highball’ weapon would fall into enemy hands and be used against their forces massed in the Pacific, and so the British decided to disband 618 Squadron.

On the 18th of July 1947, Mosquito’s were advertised in the local press at Narromine as for sale for 35 pounds with engines, or 15 pounds without. Parkes farmer Frank Hatter was the purchaser of one of these “Mossies” (also known as Balsa Bombers due to their wooden construction). Most of the parts used on the cockpit section were from this aircraft (DZ-652), with original parts including the nose cone, windows, canopy, rudder pedals, instrument panel, and seat armour plate. The cockpit section was built using scale model aircraft plans enlarged to full size, and constructed using formers, stringers and a thin plywood skin.

Alongside the cockpit section is a full replica of a Mosquito fuselage that encompasses some original parts such as the wing ribs. Originally, Mosquito’s were constructed from joining two half fuselage moulds together, but as these were all destroyed after World War 2, a nother construction method had to be found, which is detailed in photos on a display board located next to the replica. Worthy to note on the replica fuselage is a chip out of the wood on the lower right starboard wing rib (an original part from DZ-652), which is where a 20mm cannon shell lodged approximately 3 inches from a fuel tank. It is believed the shell was fired from a German fighter,

and pierced through the fuselage before lodging in the wing rib, and the shell can be seen in a display in between the Anson and the Vampire.

Also located in the museum section dedicated to the Mosquito is an engine block that powered the “Mossie” – a 27-litre Vee-12 Rolls Royce Merlin engine, tonnes of Mosquito models, and many photos and paintings.

Lincolns museum is a great little collection and effort of one person to preserve and display some unique items.

regards

Mark Pilkington

I know he has the nacelles and undercarriage so I assume he will do the same as what he has done with the Anson ie no outer wings.

Not sure if it was mentioned, but Lincoln Nitschke in Greenock, Sth Australia, is building a 1:1 scale Replica. But seeing as he has been doing it for well over 15 years, it is not a new project.

Not mentioned so far, but good to point out. Lincoln’s is a partial recreation using a number of original parts – I’m not sure he’s aiming for a complete aircraft, and certainly not for a flyer.

As well as those mentioned, the AWM have a static restored Mosquito, as does the museum at Camden NSW. Neither of those, either are going to fly.

So because I replied to your statement with a perfectly reasonable, polite and informative reply you thought it would be a good idea, since I’m from New Zealand, to take a swipe at New Zealanders with a what can only be perceived as a bordering on racist poor attempt at humour? Not impressive.

Smiles, thats the problem with you kiwi’s Dave, just not satisfied making scale replica’s you lot have to be different and go make full size mossies, and to rub salt into the wound, make lots of them! lol.

Next you will want to run around making full size replica BE2, Gunbus and WW1 engines, or a whole squadron of Fokker Triplanes too!

No wonder people take swipes at you lot!

Smiles

Mark Pilkington

Thunder Mustang 80% scale powered by a Falconer V12

The guys who own one here always say it has a 3/4 scale fuselage and 5/8 scale wing. The difference in scales is not notced in the air or on the ground, it still looks ‘right’ and its a very impressive aircraft in its own right and compared with the genuine P-51D.

Not sure if it was mentioned, but Lincoln Nitschke in Greenock, Sth Australia, is building a 1:1 scale Replica. But seeing as he has been doing it for well over 15 years, it is not a new project.

You replied and from New Zealand.

So because I replied to your statement with a perfectly reasonable, polite and informative reply you thought it would be a good idea, since I’m from New Zealand, to take a swipe at New Zealanders with a what can only be perceived as a bordering on racist poor attempt at humour? Not impressive.

It,s getting the proportions right of an airframe that is the key in replicas..A human pilot doesn,t scale too well..No Hobbit jokes 🙂

I am gunuinely baffled why any body would build and 80-90% size flying replica rather than going the extra 10-20% for the full size article?

When talking about scaled objects, we are talking about 3 dimensional objects.

An 8m straight line is fairly close to a 10m line. (80% vs 100%)

8m x 8m square = 64m2 –> 10m x 10m = 100m2. (“80% scale” turns into 64% of the area)

8m x 8m x 8m cube = 512m3 –> 10m x 10m x 10m = 1000m3. (“80% scale” now turns into about 1/2 the volume)

SO. An 80% scale airplane is decided to be fairly close to the real thing, and only at 1/2 the actual size, requiring a far smaller engine and far less materials.

Applying this to 90% scale = about 73% of actual size.

Hope that makes sense!

Din,t this thread take a nose dive.
For the record most scale replicas are made due to cost of obtaining and running original parts and engines.In the Spitfires case an all alloy 350 chev small block is cheaper to run that rebuilding a Merlin.The Mozzi is about 80% as far as I know and has two Ranger V12,s going in.Terry,s planes are all hand designed and built for the experimental class.They are traditional build semi monocoque design using aircraft grade aluminium.
In the air they look spectacular and fun to fly in with plenty of power and speed.
Also the Fw190 and Mustang are dual control and I have flown the Fw190 briefly from the back seat.

Not.

Thanks JD!

I kind of agree with AA aswel (perhaps not so vehemently!), there does seem to be some kind of oddly thought out negativity towards scale replicas in general, at the end of the day if someone wants to build something that looks like the original, but is constrained by costs and engineering considerations then good on em – they don’t take detract from the originals that exist.

not wanting to hijack the thread but re; scale replica’s
take for example the Mustang,

Titan Mustang 65/70% scale 2 seats/dual control/alum. construction

Stewart S-51D 80% scale powered by a Chevy V8

Thunder Mustang 80% scale powered by a Falconer V12

I take it you are building a full sized replica then??

And what has New Zealand got to do with this?

You replied and from New Zealand.

No I am not building anything at the moment,oiling my zimmer is the best I can manage now!

JDK – no where did i mix things up nor did i misread it.

Please just re-read what you said here, stating you were relaying the information from ‘another forum’ clearly Invader26 on WIX, where he said ‘scale’ and you said ‘full scale’.

What you personal e-mails contain I obviously don’t know.

If someone wants to build a replica Mosquito, good luck to them. That’s the point, not if someone can see how they got their facts muddled or not.

Regards,

It seems increasingly to be one of the less appealling aspects of this forum – although it may be more widespread, but I don’t have the knowledge to say – that some posters appear to consider themselves omnipotent with regard to the projects of others. They don’t seem to care, or be bothered to ascertain, the reasons why a particular approach has been adopted for a project. It was much the same in the case of the Fontenay-le-Comte Mosquito replica. I would not surprise me to discover that many guilty of this haven’t built a balsa wood model aeroplane, let alone a scale flying replica. By all means express a personal preference to see a full scale replica, but have the manners to praise the efforts of those who have, in some cases completely from scratch, built scale replicas. And when other posters take the trouble to explain, in detail, the reasoning behind the production of a scale replica, don’t offer a response notably lacking in objectivity, evidence and logic and, instead, resort to abuse and subjectivity. Manners and humility cost nothing.

JDK – no where did i mix things up nor did i misread it.

Im merely passing on what i was told.

I clearly said in the first post that SOMEONE else in Australia has said it was a full scale replica.

The information they supplied to me clearly states FULL scale Mosquito in their email.
Either they got it wrong or others have in supplying him or he has forgotten what scale it was which seems more likely as everyone now says its a 80% scale.

Phil

Australia has a replica being built, can’t quite fathom out it is full size or not though?

Not.

“Less material cost to build;
Less cost to run;
Less cost in hangarage;
Some people are smaller than others”

So reading between the lines NewZealand is populated with tight fisted midgets(sorry vertically challenged people)

I think you have misread something, as I see it projects in New Zealand are full scale and based on real examples.

Australia has a replica being built, can’t quite fathom out it is full size or not though?

Going smaller has many advantages as already mentioned, but I would imagine suitable engines would be another major issue on a full size aircraft. The Mossie is a very powerful and heavy beast in comparison to any scale rep.

There’s no full size replica Mosquito project underway in Australia. There’s a static rebuild of the last PR.XVI at the RAAF Museum, and a full scale Mosquito project – in the initial stages a couple of years ago – at Narromine.

Another person on another forum has said it is a full scale Mossie replica.
…
A 80% Mustang also flew first time yesterday in QLD.

The source was here: http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=41344 The mention of ‘scale replica’ by Invader26 has been misread into ‘full scale replica’ by Phil/Daniel/Liberator.

I am gunuinely baffled why any body would build and 80-90% size flying replica rather than going the extra 10-20% for the full size article?

Personally I don’t get excited by scale replicas, but there has been and is a worldwide range of both one off, kits and production aircraft that are to varying degrees of accuracy and size ‘scale’ replicas.

As soon as you are considering the machine as a ‘scale’ replica essentially you are invoking the benefits of the square cube law.

Additionally, for various reasons, most civil aviation authorities have below-weight limits for less rigorously certified aircraft, homebuilts and experimental machines, and if your reduced scale aircraft comes in under that number the costs and viability of operation is much easier.

There are also, in many countries, recreational / sport / ultralight licensing, which means you can qualify at a lower cost, requirement and medical standards to fly these, despite being ruled out of the more standard licence.

The UK has had a perfectly viable scale replica movement for many years; just like most other countries. I can’t see the reason for being rude about the New Zealanders regarding a global aspect of aviation.

Regards,

So reading between the lines NewZealand is populated with tight fisted midgets(sorry vertically challenged people)

Nah, just Hobbits with an interest in aviation……