Its a pity that the work to save the nose were to no avail.
Six months ago it might have been the high value of scrap that influenced the scrap man’s ‘mistake’ but that cannot be said since the price of metal went down the pan.

Richard

I have been keeping an eye on progress, it really seems to be steadily progressing.
They do have a parts wanted page and the only thing listed is a Machine gun and Cannon bay latch, five required. See here http://www.warbirdrestoration.co.nz/mossie_wanted.html
Does anyone out there have any of these parts.

Richard

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.

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

Another favorite, the Beech 34, “Twin-Quad” 20-0s.
Twin engines buried in each wing driving a single prop.
.

Thanks for posting Boyle.
I have never seen this type before and couldnt work out the layout, twin engines driving a single prop, but after a bit of Googling I see it has four engines in pairs driving two props. I seem to remember a tread a while back on this subject.
Richard

http://boeing377.googlepages.com/c133

comments/edits welcome.

Mark
[email]af6im@arrl.net[/email]

Mark
Thanks for that, just amazing.

Richard

Helicopter main leg would account for the long travel and lack of swivell,

Richard

Although I appreciate the part played by the Typhoon and all those connected with it I cannot see why it should be singled out from all the other aircraft of WW2 for special attention..
Surely the government connected museums at Hendon,Lambeth etc should be seen as the collection point for dedication, respect, knowledge, artifacts, memories and attention from the countries point of view.
If a person or organisation thinks a place has special significance then they should organise the funds to mark what happened at that place, if they wish.
Where would a Typhoon memorial be sited, Kingston where they were designed, numerous places where they were built, every airfield they operated from. Cant see the point. Sorry.

Richard

Every has hit several points that all apply, but it hasn’t been hit on the head completely.
The reason the control surfaces are balanced is to save overall weight on the aircraft, but it is not by saving a few ounces in the difference between painted fabric and aluminum sheetmetal.
Yes the reason the flight controls were balanced was to prevent flutter. This is done by adding extra mass to the forward side of the hinge point of the surface and making it balanced on the hinge. This prevents the trailing edge of the surface from sagging when the surface is subjected to g-loads(a turn, a bump in the air, etc,) If the trailing edge sags, the surface will now create more lift (becuase of increase in angle of attack) thus creating lift and rising the trailing edge of the surface, as it rises it looses lift, then the G-load takes over and then of course the cyle of flutter starts.
So what does this have to do with saving weight? (these numbers are not accurate, just off the top of the head) If you can save 10 ounces on the trailing edge of a surface, that may equal a reductions of balance mass of 15 lbs on the leading edge of the surface do to the short arm fwd of hinge line. If say this is an elevator and you have 2 of them, that equals 30 lbs, than add the rudder which has twice the length of the elevator meaning you have to add 25 lbs to leading edge to make balance, you now have added 55lbs to the tail of the airplane. Now that you have added 55lbs to the tail of the airplane you may have to compensate at the front of the airplane with more weight to compensate for the added wieght in the tail.
Point is that a few ounces on the trailing edge of the control surface creates many pounds of extra overall weight on the entire aircraft. Later designs either sacrificed the weight or reduced internal weight of the surface so as to not require the high amount of mass to balance. Other ways they reduced flutter was by creating friction in the control system(like holding on to the stick when the airplane oscilates) to prevent the flutter from starting.

From my direct experience that’s why the control’s were made of fabric.
Erik Hokuf

Eric
I accept that any reduction in structural weight behind a control surfaces point of balance will help reduce the total mass required, but I disagree with your discription of how flutter is instigated. If you read the explanation shown here http://www.cs.wright.edu/~jslater/SDTCOutreachWebsite/aerodynamic_flutter_banner.pdf you will see that it is an aerodynamic function that can effect an aircraft regardless of gravity. Speed is a prime factor. As for adding friction to the control circuit, that I think is a complete no no, it might have been tried but is certainly not the answer, ask a pilot.

Richard