Plastic Stirling

And that is if they would be prepared to let the section go.
Cees

A few days,a few big sheets of paper and a good tape measure could be the go too?

true Cees

The Dutch example has the frames cut off just short of the floor.
So that would have to be spliced into anew. And that is if they would be prepared to let the section go.
Cees

If the Stirling Project gets the nose done Mark there is a wing centre section and tail section in store at the RAF museum.There are two sections one in France the other Holland that fit between the wing section and tail…theoretically a complete fuselage if the nose is constructed.

I’d like to think that Mr B would be interested, but I don’t think that even £200k would do it. AFIK he’s not shown any interest in any other historical project (Vulcan springs to mind) and he seems to be more involved in trailblazing, not restoration.

I’m sure he’s called upon by lots of Charities/Projects and can’t help all of them

stirling replica

The finance for this project is out there, im sure Mr Branson for one would be interested in this if it was presented to him in a professional manner,drawings costings etc, he is after all an aviation pioneer of his generation who likes an aviation challenge something unique , a remanufactured stirling would i feel present Mr B. with a task he would rise to , being the driving force behind it etc and creating something no other aviation museum worldwide has, 200K to this entrepreneur is a drop in the ocean.

A very succinct reply thankyou Mark. As you say, for the purist it would be fantastic to get a complete original Stirling that could be placed in the Bomber Command Hall at Hendon, but please let’s take a reality pill here. We’ve been working hard to get where we are today and I’ve been at this for ten years now. Personally I’d like to be a lot further ahead with the Project than where we are today. But we’ve virtually exhausted the Russian avenue and unless there’s a new era of Glasnost and pictures come to light I don’t think we’re going anywhere with that side of things.

At the end of the day, we have precious few drawings, original parts are in short supply and unless a well preserved example emerges from a Fjord, we’re unlikely to go beyond a fuselage and what we will have will be a compromise. One thing we’re not that short of is undercarriages but like the Halifax engines will be an issue.

If you want to see a complete Stirling then an FSM is the way forward unless one emerges from somewhere….fingers crossed eh!:)

.
I would have preferred to see at least 2x prinstine examples of every wartime aircraft “conserved” at the end of the war and stored undercover for eventual public display, along with a further 2 kept airworthy indefinately for future generations, – but removing the rose coloured glasses, thats not the real world, and today there is not the ability to easily a deliver complete “restored” example of a Stirling recovered from a lake or even the assembled sections of high ground wrecks or scrap yards.

As I understand it, the current project is building a replica flight deck and later the forward fuselage of a Stirling, and the RAF Museum holds the damaged remains of a rear fuselage, and centre fuselage sections survive in various forms in Europe.

Bringing those parts together into one place and one fuselage display will be a major outcome in itself.

I am not aware of much in the way of centre-section or wing outer panels surviving? other than very damaged portions.

The job of building a new wing centre-section and wing outer panels from scratch, and without drawings, to hold the fuselage and 4 engines up will be a major engineering project itself, and probably more work than the current cockpit /fuselage.

Unless sufficient wing wreckage exists to be reverse engineered any “replica” reconstruction would only be an approximation regardless of the use of similar materials and basic design methods of the HP design.

IE, without drawings, or patterns, much of the internal structure would be of little value to future engineering researchers or historians.

There are at least two static Ansons in Australia built with steel spars concealled inside a “wooden” box spar to form a wooden skinned centre-section, with seperate wooden wing outer panels then mounted, to create the external outcome of a one piece wooden wing. While the internal construction is not airworthy, or based on the original Avro design, the external finish and profile provides the same effective presentation as a single piece, wooden wing to the original design with laminated wooden spars.

While the fuselage and internal components accurately present the design, the wing is clearly a compromise, but these both provide an externally complete to allow the general public to interprete the aircraft in its full form, and certainly better than a fuselage simply presented by itself.

(I have recently acquired a metal Anson XIX wing to eventually sit under a mark I fuselage to provide a display outcome, it is obviously an even further compromise in that the wing surface will consist of rivet heads and rivet lines not present on the original, and that wing will form no true engineering reference for enthusiasts or historians.)

Admittedly, in Australia we have the luxury of two original / complete Anson mark I’s that are effectively conserved, therefore providing for historian/engineering access to the original internal construction and design of the wooden wing.

A composite material wing for the Stirling project, consisting of a steel box-spar frame to form the strength for the fuselage, engine/undercarriage positions, and then clad in aluminium/composite to be externally representative would seem to a reasonable compromise, to provide a recreated Stirling to represent the extinct type, not unlike the Halifax project at Everington.

To have a Hybrid “complete” Stirling of recreated cockpit / forward fuselage fitted out with equipment, mated to restored rear fuselage, and displayed on a composite FSM wing would seem to be reasonable accomplishment to aim for? but equally, a completely furnished fuselage displayed by itself, on the ground, with clear cladding on one side to allow visitor viewing access, might be the more appropriate museum display for the current project and RAFM to collaborate on?, and avoiding the need to proceed with an FSM or mockup wing at all?

I understand the Elvington “Halifax” – “Friday the 13th”, has a new build rear fuselage, an original section of centre fuselage, and a new build forward fuselage with wooden frames but metal rivetted skins, I understand the wings are from a Hastings which while were based on the Halifax design, but have some structural and dimensional differences? The engines, propellors and undercarriage are FSM.

The display is therefore a hybrid of FSM, replica and restored original parts, and certainly not an “original” Halifax, but it does provide a fantastic display of a full size “Halifax” on its gear ready to “fly a mission”, and therefore is preserving and displaying the “heritage” of one of the important british wartime heavy bombers and the squadrons of men who flew and died in them, and in my mind is a very worthwhile outcome, even though there are engineering and accuracy compromises.

To eventually have a “plastic” but full size FSM Lancaster and Stirling even without any internal structure, but displayed next to “Friday the 13th”, would also provide a worthwhile and very fitting Bomber Command display, without claiming to be a “conserved” example of each, for serious technical research of the airframes from an engineering point of view.

Its nice for us to sit at our computers and place high expectations on the volunteer efforts of others, but unless we are all going to donate money, parts, drawings and labour to projects such as these, its not fair to place “purist” obligations on such replicas and outcomes to be accurate down to the last unseen rivet and rib hidden inside an enclosed structure, when that not easily achieved or neccessarily the important outcome?

The replication of an “aircraft” display from new materials, without drawings or patterns will always be a compromise rather than an original or true reproduction, and in many cases if unable to fly in compliance with the original design and purpose they are clearly not even “aircraft”.

The presentation of an empty FSM shell can still play a role in telling the historical story, as shown by the “Mustang” hanging in the AAM at Duxford, or the “B-24” shown above.

Unfortunately the opportunity to preserve an “original” Stirling seems lost, anything achieved now will be a “compromise” in some form, and a hybrid or even FSM have their place.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

My personal view is that I would want to see a replica incorporating original parts where possible that would accurately replicate a Stirling both internally and externally. I appreciate that this is a huge undertaking but to me a full scale model is exactly that and it doesn’t matter if it is built from wood, plastic, fibreglass or anything else it just doesn’t do it for me.
I fully accept that others derive a lot of pleasure from owning fibreglass Spitfires etc and I admire them for spending time and money on their projects. I also accept that it is possible to take these replicas to places where a full size Spitfire could never venture (not an option with a 1/1 scale model Stirling) and hopefully this will help raise general interest in vintage aviation among Joe Public.
I think Elvington did a great job with their Halifax but I think I am right is saying that this does incorporate a lot of original structure and I believe that the Hastings wing was very similar to the Halifax wing anyway so this was a good compromise when no original wings were available but a big plastic or wood Stirling just doesn’t seem right as the sole representative of the aircraft.

:D:D

Let’s go the whole ‘James May’ and make it out of platecene and Lego, then we can race it round Brooklands.

DS:diablo:

A GRP construction method, as others have said, would be very heavy and difficult to do for such a large aircraft, you would need some sort of internal structure first. Richard

If you fabricate a frame from plywood and a similar item from aluminium you will see that the ply one is substantially heavier (and weaker) also it will be thicker and you then need to compromise on attachments. But not all of us have the skills to manufacture parts identical to the original craftsmen and women.

Er… I’ll take some convincing on this.

Let’s say it happened.. what would you have? A picture of a Lancaster and two big models.

There are zillions of pictures of Lancasters available already and thousands of pictures of real Stirlings and Halifaxes.

What would an image of this modern re-enactment add?

Moggy

I don’t quite agree with you Moggy, yes the other 2 would be facsimiles but what is missing from photos is the sheer scale of the aircraft. At teh end of the day if one of the PJ Lancs, the Elvington Haliax and a FSM Stirling could be put together in one place, that would be a fitting tribute methinks. It’s one thing to see a Lanc in the flesh, but Joe Bloggs for the most part would be hard pressed to identify a Halifax let alone a Stirling. A model even if only an external replica, is probably the only way anyone will ever see a full size Stirling and so long as it doesn’t detract from our cockpit repro (again a facsimile albeit as accurate as possible) I’m all for it.

BTW AFIK, Sunderland and Stirling wings are not compatible, I think the subject has been covered on another thread.

John

…. who here wouldn’t like to see a Stirling made from ‘anything’, parked with the Elvington Halifax and the BBMF Lanc for a photoshoot?

Er… I’ll take some convincing on this.

Let’s say it happened.. what would you have? A picture of a Lancaster and two big models.

There are zillions of pictures of Lancasters available already and thousands of pictures of real Stirlings and Halifaxes.

What would an image of this modern re-enactment add?

Moggy

I was told that the Stirling wings resemble the Sunderland but not quite. Pity as that Chatham Island wreck would have made a nice opportunity to source them.
Cees

Does anyone know any details about Peter Jacksons FSM Lancasters. Are they actual models (on the outside), or are they just good enough for movie work (props)?

I’m definitely leaning towards the “any good representation” side of the discussion and that goes for other aircraft than the Stirling too. If Jacksons team have made decent Lancasters, even if only movie props, then a FSM Stirling does not seem so far-fetched.

It would be a fine addition to the work done by the Stirling project – I can already see the museum layout.

This may surprise some, but I’m not against this approach. At the moment there are a few of us that are reconstructing the first 24′ or so of the fuselage, but with the best will in the world, we will never get to a full size replica unless Russia or China come up trumps:diablo:

If a FSM can be created, which at the end of the day gives Joe public an idea of the immense size of the beast, then I’m all for it, so long as it doesn’t divert resources away from our own efforts.

That B24 looks really nice BTW

John

A realistic Full Scale Mock-up in “any material” is an acceptable way to present an extinct airframe or important type beyond the reach of a particular museum, and I am sure a mockup Stirling could be achieved without the need to make female moulds etc.

However such a project can be undertaken at any time, and is best left to the future, with all efforts focusings on the current project to restore/remanufacture as much as can be achieved.

At some time in the future the current project may choose to build a wing etc in FSM methods rather than in aluminium and replicated structure, and that would be an appropriate compromise to consider when the time comes.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The AAM Liberator has a replica replacement, some where in the US. Were these cast from an original ?

Ben

That full size replica B-24 in Warsaw.

Mark