Why is it that most of the civilian operated Sea Furies have their armourplate behind the pilot removed? Think srpatterson might know. Reason I ask, is that I consider the armourplate to be a very important safety feature in case of nose over, when it would act as a kind of roll over cage.

I’ve had the misfourtune of watching a fatal accident unfold before my very eyes, when Charlie Hillard was killed in a landing accident at Sun’n’Fun in his Sea Fury. I can not be sure if an armour plate would have made any difference to the final outcome, but it surely would have helped.

I can see no obvious reasons for removing something as important. Can someone enlighten me?

And yes, Sea Fury is not the only one that is very often missing the armourplate.

Have a nice one Snapper.

I know the Belgian is good, but be careful with that stuff:D

Kittyhawk,
I think the Sunderland in question here is supposed to be in a fresh water lake, as opposed to salt-water. It might make all the difference to it’s condition. Generally speaking, it should all be there with out too much corrotion, exept magnezium bit that are long gone.

A Crosair as wheetabix………………..that’s a good one:D 😀 😀 😀

Well, well.

We have another ‘expert’ on the forum. I’ve been reading the postings from Kittyhawk, and I can’t help feeling a bit sorry for him.

Of course old ‘junk’ is expensive, if it can be linked to one particular aircraft via data plate on the remains. All that matters these days is the data plate, the rest of the aircraft has to be built from drawings anyhow! But without the data plate the aircraft will not get registered in some countries, and where it can be registered without a data plate, it will be regarded as replica only even though the work involved in getting it airborne is exactly the same, but the value of a ‘genuine’ warbird is considerably higher than the value of a replica. So, rest assured, there is a reason for the prize tag on the ‘junk’ you mention. If nobody saw a need to buy it for a lot of money, then the prize would be next to nothing. The need is because:

a) data plate is needed to get a project flying
b) data plate is needed to increase the value of the end product.
c) both of the above

If you want to build something like a Spitfire (to name any warbird), without having to buy expensive ‘junk’, it sure can be done. I don’t think it would be too hard to get a set of drawings, as a number of individuals and companies already have a copy. So, start building! The problem is, you can expect to spend approximatly 20.000 hours rebuilding a warbird, because even if you bought some expensive ‘junk’ (and you said so your self) nothing of it is ever going to be up to airworthiness standard. Now let’s think for a minute, 20.000 hours, the average wages for qualified mechanic is about 25 pounds an hour (give or take) and that would make the cost of the rebuild, in wages alone, 500.000 pounds. No materials, no instruments, no engine and no prop. Completed and flying Spitfires sell for about 1.5 million pounds, by the way.

Ok……….you say you are going to do it all your self. If rebuilding it as a hobby project, expect to spend about 500 hours a year on it. That is a very reasonable figure for hobby, two or three hours a day, five days a week. It will take you 40 years to complete the project! If there are four of you working along these lines, it will still take 10 years. And I very much doubt that a group of four will be able to hold out that long, it would have to be one special gang of people. If you are going to do it alone and full time it will take you about 10 years to complete. The whole of that time you would be without income, and if you can do that, you are one of those rich yuppies. And we still have not addressed the question: Are you qualified to do the work? If you are, very good, if not, the end product will never be registered and flying.

Even if you did all the building your self, you would still have to buy expertice. Are you qualified to rebuild a Merlin? I know I would not even think about starting it, and I have been around a lot of things aeronautical since the age of 15 including the rebuild of a couple of normal Lycomings and Continentals. How about the prop? Overhauled one most surely………..let’s say 80.000 pounds, you simply can not carve your own prop for a warbird.

It is does not matter how you look at it Kittyhawk, an original warbird on a shoe-string budged is not going to happen. If you ask me, 1.5 million pounds for a flying warbird is CHEAP! It is less than the cost of rebuilding it. I can not afford it, and juding by your posts here, neither do you. Of course I’m a bit envious of the people who have the means to do this kind of stuff, but unlike you, I’m greatful they are willing to keep history alive for me. If it was not for the people you would like to call ‘rich yuppies’, I’d never seen flying warbirds in my life, and you would probably not know that a Kittyhawk was the RAF service name of one version of the famous P-40.

A very good warbird on your budged would be the L-4. That’s the Piper J3 Cub in Military uniform. If you can not afford a ‘genuine’ L-4 or J3, you can always buy plans from Wagaero and do it your self. It is about 5 years work on hobby basis, and once completed you can paint it to look like the personal mount of Bazooka Charlie, who had, IIRC, seven Panzers to his name flying the Cub over Europe.

I’ve got my own little project, a project it looks like I will be spending at least the next 10 years on. It is a Miles Gemini. It is not a Spitfire, Mustang or B-17. How ever I’m enjoying it immensly, and that is all that matters (when the going is rough, I would like to burn the whole contraption, but don’t tell anybody,will you). A Hurricane would be nice, but I can not afford it.

To get back to Ant’s original question, I think srpatterson has given all the answers above. It is an expensive hobby, no matter what Kittyhawk says.

My hat is off to you srpatterson and all the other warbird operators on the forum, for allowing me to be able to see your aircraft where they belong, in the air! By what can be read through the postings of Kittyhawk, you are a rich yuppie, and thats fine in my book. We need people like you. Without people like you no warbirds would be flying.

STOP IT GALDRI!

You and I are the same person according to Kenny.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Hummmm….. must remember to stop talking to myself. Must remember to stop talking to myself. Must……….:D 😉 😀

Can I fly the CAP now please?

Anytime. Anytime. How about this weekend??:cool:

You have never been to Iceland you fraud Galdri.

I ADMITT, I ADMITT. Never been there, sorry guys, I’ve lied to you all;) 😀 😀 😀

Well, crosswinds can be a lot of fun as well as very challenging. If the wind is clean, that is, not gusty, it is very straight forward. You approach with a crab angle that ensures that the aircraft is tracking down the runway. When starting the flare, push downwind rudder to try and get the nose of the aircraft pointing more or less down the runway. Make a firm arrival, and as soon as the mains are on the runway, apply (more or less) full aileron into the wind to stop the wing lifting and to assist in directional control. Do not be temted to use too much upwind aileron during the flare, as engine strike may happen. On the 737, the engine will be eating the runway in a bank of approximately 15°. The undercarrage of the 737 will take a lot of side load, in the Flight Crew Training Manual for the 737 is a clause stating that landings in the maximum demonstrated crosswind of 35 knots can be made without correcting for the crab. But that will make a very uncomfortable landing for the pax!

Gusty crosswinds are a whole different cattle of fish. The same basic principles still apply, but the workload is significantly increased as you have to ‘ride’ the aircraft all the way down to the runway, making constant corrections for gusts both in direction of the aircraft and it’s speed. Gusty conditions are also known as ‘windshear’, but the line where gusts stops and windshear starts is really blurred. What some pilots report as windshear, others will only call it gusty! In gusty (windshear) conditions the airspeed and glidepath of the aircraft are constantly changing, as a gust coming from behind the aircraft will tend to decrease airspeed make the aircraft undershoot the correct glide path. Usually you can feel this comming before it registers on either the the airspeed indicator or the altimeter. The sensation is like the seat is being snapped away from your behind. Then it is time to make corrections on the thrust levers, by advancing them quite a bit and see what happens. Gusts comming onto the front half of the aircraft, will tend to increase airspeed and make the aircaft overshoot the correct glidepath. This is the felt before it registers on the instruments, as a feeling of being thrust down into the seat. Then it is time to retard the thrust levers quite a bit and wait and see.

In gusty conditions it is essential for the longlivety of the crew and passengers to have a lot of airspeed. On the 737, Boeing recommends an addition of half the steady wind and all the gust, but not more than 20 knots, to the final approach speed (Vref) (for an approach flown with autothrottle off) Individual captains then add even a few knots on top of that for the wife and kiddies!

The ride will be very bumpy if there are any significant gusts, but the execution of a goaround wil only be made ( in my experience) if the speed is falling below the final approach speed (Vref). That is, all the additional corrections for gusts have been eaten away.

Hope this provides some answers. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask, as I was reading this and I’m not sure if you can make any sense of it:D