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:.

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.

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.

1.) I’m aware that I cant just use balsa and balsa cement for this. When you follow a recipe you don’t use fine sand instead of flour because it looks the same. Same with this.

2.) Regarding the flying, ok I didn’t realise you had to be crazy to fly it. I know everyone was saying that its a handful as slow speeds but I would think that with longer runways the higher speeds wouldnt be as much of a problem. Didn’t they have to get them air worthy before the race? And didn’t that include getting them within the margins for shortish runways that they were going to encounter along the way?

As for licences, someone has already outlined what I need to do before I think of getting into one of these things which included all those things you have pointed out and more. Like I already said, this is not going to be the first plane I fly nor is it going to be the plane that I fly in my first hour of flying.

Atomic Sheep
To a large extent the engine choice dictates the rest of the airframe, the american replica uses DH Queens I believe, which have a bulk, weight and perform similar to the original DH Sixes. Lighter/smaller engines will need longer engine mounts to maintain CofG or huge amounts of ballast. Your choice might dictate building it to a reduced scale like 7/8 for example or smaller which then could make it a single seater.
Richard

Yes I understand, but I’ve still got a lot of research to do in the way of the way the airframe was built with diagrams and such. I’m making progress and I’d like to say that I’ve made a lot but the turth is probably closer to “a good start”. But you raised some points that I completely overlooked namely the centre of gravity. None the less I want engines that are more powerful than what the Queens and since I now realise (thanks to you) that the engines have to be of approximately the same weight, my desired power has just gone up a notch.

Hopefully end up going to Oshkosh sometime and hopefully in my own 88.

The reason for glass cockpit is simple, it enables me to put cameras into the nose of the airplane as seen on the G550 and G650. I heard a statistic that 70% of accidents occur on landing. With this aircrafts poor visibility on landing, a nose cam would be a massive bonus. Plus the added benefit of an infra red? or whatever camera they use on the Gulfstreams would increase safety in poor weather conditions. Like I said, i don’t know how much that is going to cost to isntall and how much money I will have to throw at it at the end. But essentially I don’t want to build an aeroplane and let it sit in a shed for 364 days in a year and take it out once a year to some event to show it off. I’d love to fly to Oshkosh in it for example. It may seem crazy to use this plane as a “daily” but I’ve always wanted a plane with enough range and speed to give me some flexibility. The other reason for glass is that the 88 has a rather crampt cockpit so it’s much easier to fit a lot of info on just the one or two screens than it is to stuff the cockpit full of guages, knobs and dials.

Engine wise… I have no clue. That has been a major concern for me as I really don’t know what I’ll be putting into it. Ideally I should do an engineering degree and design my own engines to my specs or take the gipsy design and bring it up to the 21st century to improve fuel efficiency power and reduce weight but I know that that this project is ambitious as it is so engine wise I kind of don’t want to be thinking about it too much at this stage. Especially since I have enough work trying to find info on the airframe alone.

Basically call me a new generation but I prefer the older desings a lot of the time, but their lack of technology is something I don’t want to deal with. Modern mass produced cars are soulless tin cans as far as im concerned but the technology is only welcome. So I basically want to create something that I like from every angle and historical accuracy is the price to pay and I really don’t mind. From the outside it was perfect from day one as it’s form followed function and something like that will always result in a timeless classic, and visually people will enjoy it just as much. From a safety perspective I’ll enjoy it much more knowing that I have equipment to rely on. So everyone wins as far as I’m concerned.

Thanks JDK, some excellent advice.

And thanks for the link Joglo, I’ve been to that site before but didn’t realise it had anything more than photos on it.