italian harvardthanks mate 🙂
Alex
italian harvardeheheh I think we’re losing control fellas 😉
I say u r free to spend yr money as u like, but since I am fascinated by the historical side of aviation I’d spend 20.000 quids to restore an Auster (Auster frames are really cheap), or a Piper L4, and not a 3/4 facsimile..
Snapper, the point u r making here is not completely wrong, but u think static airframes will last forever? Aluminium, wood and canvas fade and destroy with time, let alone engines.. Ironically a plane is better preserved when in flying order than when static, ask it to anybody in the biz and u’ll get the same reply. The deal is about not doing crazy aerobatics with them, and u wont prang’em. The final part of the Flying Legends was a real thrill for me: the Bearcat zooming around was really impressive, but I wonder how much safe all of that was..
Bear in mind that I consider a great job the one made by Flugwerk, since it’s rebuilding a plane following original plans (they’ll do the same with mustangs)but still dont understand the wooden spit replica with allison engine..
Alex
italian harvardLOL Benny, if I remember I’ll take u some genuine amaretto in jenuary 😀
Alex
italian harvardGuys, we live in democratic countries, so thanks god we’re free to do what we like, but I consider these nothing more than huge expensive toys, expecially the 3/4 replicas.
Alex
italian harvardthe former 🙂
alex
italian harvardeheeheh they blabbered a lot, but as mmitch said they’re part of the show, and somehow keep everything on the move. I would have been quiet during the displays, but it’s my personal taste.
I made a video too, some 1 hour of footage over the 2 days, I tried importing it from my digicam since august but had no luck. I mean I could import it ok, but the quality is always far from the original digital tape. I wanted to edit it, cutting here and there, adding some fx etc.. but every software I tried was a bummer.. any hints?
cheers
Alex
italian harvardDazDaMan, as I said the Fokker Dr.I case is a particular case, since there’s not a real one in the world, but as long as u build it following the original plans I would define it a rebuild, not a replica. What plans did u use for it? I have a copy of them here at home, I got it from my friend to make him the stencils for the paintscheme. Do u have any pics or website? 🙂
Alex
italian harvardeheheheh usually paintschemes are the last part of the job, so ppl hurry up to get cranking and make mistakes, I think that’s why there are often minor (or major) bugs in paintschemes 😉
Alex
italian harvardmaybe “waste” is pretty strong, but is surely near to what I mean 😉
cheers
Alex
italian harvardI dont know how much u r into the warbird world Jacques, I’m pretty new there and already heard of interesting fuselages that can be bought for 1/10 of the amount u wrote.. I think there are a lot of false myths about warbird restorations: when I started mine several ppl said “oh u r never gonna make it! It’s gonna cost u too much!!” , but that’s not true at all, trust me.
The most serious deal is about the engine usually, but once u have that overhauled u can say 1/3 but more ofter 2/3 of yr expenses are done.
And I dont think that a wooden FW190 with a 1200hp engine will “look, sound, feel and fly almost like the real thing”, and even if so what’s the meaning of it, apart the owner pleasure?
I didnt say I’m against replicas, I say replicas are ok as long as they’re done like the real thing. FlugWerk’s 190 rocks simply because it’s done like the original one, the only concession being the engine, but that’s obvious due to the rarity of the BMW engine, and so do all the replicas done like the real ones, but these compromises between a pilot’s dream and the real plane have not a real value to me. Dont know if u paid attention when I stated that a warbird is first of all an historical and technological treasure..
I guess it’s just a matter of point of view: mine is more concentrated on the authenticity and historical side of the thing, while yours it’s just about the look..
Alex
italian harvardI’ve been reading about these replicas following DazDaMan’s link and maybe someone can help me understanding.
First of all something techical: u buy the plans and then have to provide all the material by yrself?
Now the real question that is puzzling me..
The spitfire that comes with the Allison engine is a real mistery to me… Wouldnt it have been easier to make a real one? It’s not a matter of money I think, because if yr budget allows u to overhaul an Allison u probably have enough cash to restore an existing airframe, instead o f building one from scratch..
Seeing a wooden FW190 with an engine that could fit a genuine Buffalo or another rare warbird is out of my comprehension. Ok, yr dream is to have a FW, but that’s not a FW..
I think a thing most people dont understand is the real value of a warbird restoration: the first role of a warbird pilot/owner is representing a symbol of an era, of a fighting theatre, of men who piloted, worked and died on them.
Ok, a Spit or a Mustang is cool, but if we all had them wouldnt it be boring?
This summer I enjoyed the Mustangs at the Flying Legends(mustang are my beloved ones since my approach to this world), but I found more interesting the flight of the Connie and Airacobra, simply because they’re something u dont see on EVERY airshow.
The “know how” behind an Airacobra mantainance program (or any other real warbird) is something so precious that will not be lost in the oblivion of time because there is still one roaring in the sky. Every mechanic, pilot or historian of a warbird association is part of a precious entourage that keeps alive not only the plane, but the whole universe that orbited around it in the past. This is about history guys, not only about flying a cool plane.
I’d say let’s do replicas, but let’s do them as the originals! I followed (and sometimes helped) a friend of mine during the building of his Fokker Dr.1 replica, and the result was really impressive and interesting, since there aren’t original Fokker Dr.1 in the world and the plane was built over original plans, with the same techniques and small structural improvements, but the idea behind it was to do a rebuild of the original thing. But a wooden spit or fw.. I don’t know guys, maybe it’s just me, but I dont find them so interesting..
Alex
italian harvardYou are living in the 1970’s my friend
I wish I could! I’d buy lots of warbirds for nothing 😀 😀 😀
Well, my observations were about my experiences as well, it mainly depends on what coat u use. I didnt say it’s impossible to clean, but it might take more pain. But still the consumption and visibility things are valuable factors, expecially for high performance planes. About the accuracy of the paintscheme and codes I agree with u, I have a couple of friends who made some mistakes on the paintschemes, but most of the times this happens and can be a real pain in the a$$ to correct.
Alex
italian harvardPearl Harbor???? C’mon guys… I mean, the air scenes are awesome, but we wanted MORE! Anyway there are so many movies about Pearl Harbor, I wonder if someone will ever make a movie about german aces (many of them,like Gunter Rall, have had such an incredible career!), or anyway a movie that is about planes from beginning to end. I personally dont think Leonardo Di Caprio has the proper carisma for the part (how about Colin Farrell, he even looks more like Huges), and I think he’s not a great actor either, but eventually I’ll give it a try..
cheers
Alex
italian harvardthere are several reasons for glossy finish on these planes:
1)They’re easier to clean. Flat or semigloss paint finish usually attracts more dirt and it’s way difficult to clean, if not impossible.
2)Consumptions are sensibly lowered.
3)the plane is easier to spot in the air, as it reflects sunlight better. This is a really important factor, especially when flying at low altitude.
I know that the planes might look like toys with gloss paint, but all in all we have to consider the practical side of the thing. An accurate paintscheme or finish is imperative in a museum exhibit, but concessions like gloss paint or interiors not identical to the original in airworthy warbirds have to be tolerated.
cheers
Alex
italian harvardI dont know much about the sabotages made to the Allies, but I know of sabotages of ANR aircrafts(ANR was the airforce who kept on fighting against the Allies after the 1943 armistice). I met several pilots and techinicians of the time, and I’m currently following the activity of a wreck recovery association and I have two examples that might give u an idea of what the thing was like.
U dont need to stuff a parachute to sabot a plane, sometimes u can just flip a small piece and cause a lot of troubles. A S.79 Sparviero engineer told me about a common way of saboting torpedoes: the torpedo warhead was activated by a small propeller placed in the torpedo body, that was covered by a small L metal plate. When the torpedo hit the water the thin L plate was pulled back and let the water get in and activate the small prop. If u installed the L plate in the opposite way it didnt move from its position and thus the torpedo did not arm.
In the recovery of a Macchi 205 wreck some friends of mine found a creepy thing: one of the bullets of the cowl MGs was placed in the belt upside down. Belts were manually composed by armorers and a mistake like this was nearly impossible to pass unobserved to the armorer’s eyes, since he built and placed the belts in place personally.
There are dozens of stories like these, and many more that we’ll never know, but that’s the way it was..
Fuel contamination was another issue at the time, but that was more often a matter of low quality than sabotage.
cheers
Alex
P.S.
Veltro, did u get my private message?
Sign In
