Absolutely!

There are significant differences between these and production whirlwinds – engine nacelles and tail acorn being the most obvious.The history of design development in these areas is known.

What we have is incomplete lofting information – small grey areas that the drawings that we do have don’t cover. One example is the area of fuselage side just above the wing root aft of the main spar, which seems to display very subtle double curvature.

It’s really a case of measuring these subtleties – but with the caveat that everything ‘around’ these subtleties – the basic lofting lines, so in the case of the area I mentioned the fuselage depth and half-breadth – has to match what we do know or we won’t use it. If that makes sense. This does seem to be a recurring principle of this kind of ‘reverse engineering’.

Sorry, who are you? 🙂

I know, the Sea Hornet and Halifax cockpit projects reported on in this forum are brilliant examples of that. A four-engine flying boat or a twin-engine WWII fighter do not fall into this category though.

Four engined flying boat maybe – it was always meant as a ‘thought experiment’, I wasn’t proposing it just yet.

However, if by ‘twin engined fighter’ you mean the Whirlwind project, you might be surprised. After all, you should take a look at the other project I have a hand in – http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroreg/4950440713/ – very much a ‘flyers and badges’ operation, and absolutely no ‘backer’ money at all. Very little money generally. And, thanks to the project boss’ insistance on an authentic reverse-engineered Hawker tube-and-plate early wing, more complex than a Whirlwind to reproduce accurately – number of engines largely irrelevant.

And if size is your issue, I could point to a certain Halifax repro. Agreed, money is lovely to have if one is ambitious – but enthusiasm and patience count for as much.