it’s about time someone recovered a few petes and vals and a jill will be nice to see,and last but far from least the world should have a restored betty.
damn good time for us lover of japanese aircraft.
are these going to be restored at wangarrata?
paul

sorry stuart if i miss understood your answeri’d personly like an accrurate whirlwind built it’s been my favorite plane since i was a kid(i remember reading a war comic in the 70’s about it and have been captivated since)i would love to see an accurate replica or even better a real one restored altho i’d prefer the real one to in the raf museum,but i cant see this happening in the near future so an externatly accurate replica flying is the most likely chance i’ve got of seeing one in the flesh.
perfect i’d love to see but like the fw190’s and as someone i read on this site said it looks like a spitfire it must be one id love to see this forgotten fighter(except on the internet)bought back to get it’s time in the sun.
stuart i’m not disageeing with you but seeing thing with different eye’s altho with my luck if it was to happen i’d still be stuck in oz and not get to britain and still not get top see it:mad:
paul

In reality, if a replica isn’t totally accurate, what purpose does it serve?[/QUOTE]
stuart
a number of flying warbirds are a long way from totally accurate(pw powered zero’s the bbmf spitfires wrong merlin versions,the first boomerang to fly in 46 years with alcad covered instead of ply etc)these still serve a strong purpose of both entertainment and education,alot of drawings exist for the whirlwind according various people (i think lindys lad may have some clues)but the biggest problem seems to be engines,the structure inside doesn’t neeed to bee perfectly accurate to fullfil the above ideals alot of people are waitng to see a flugwerk 190 fly at airshows even though it has some different build techniques and engine,so why not a whirwind replica with modern v12’s a real one needs to be rebuilt and preserved in a museum as it would likely be the only one left and shouldn’t be risked(an accurate replica would do)
paul

What’s the problem with the “make it fly” brigade?

Why should any restoration have to fly. Let’s start with a static one first shall we? If there are no drawings to work from, then the result would be a monstrosity, something that it isn’t. A good static replica/reconstruction is what we need first………………

Mark’s bit about a replica being underway (and quietly, very sensible) is very exiting but I think that being very quietly, pics are out of the question? nudge nudge wink wink:o
Here’s to hoping.

Cees

cees
i have no problem with a static replica or even if enough original parts could be found a static original one (i’m a believer that if there’s only one or the particular airframe is of historic importance like the memphis bell or the raaf muesums douglas db7 which was flown by the only victoria cross winner in the pacific then it should NEVER be risked)but after a good static replica is made and the engineering is done then why not a flying one? and if the peregrins or kestrals arent avalible then why not a suitible substitute like the ryan falconer v12 in supercharged form it about the right power and should be compact enough to fit inside the cowls and still look right,from what i’ve heard they even sounf like little merlins:cool:.
there’s no reason that i can see that a good likeness is’nt acheivable.
paul

i got “wings of glory-coming of age”dvd

the ca15 and mb5 sitting in a hangar ready to go:eek: (how did the mb5 get down here:confused: ):D

my witty wings mkv111 bobby gibs spitfire