A good example of getting the museum viewing public involved is Kermit Weeks “Fantasy of Flight” in Florida. How often does anyone ever get to walk through a b17 fuselage for just the price of admission. I would go back again to just do that again. (That was cool but flying in the 17 at Yankee that was amazing!!!)

You guys are right on the money though – if the exhibits can not establish a connection with the visitor via sight, sound and touch the purpose of the collection is lost. Because if the museum only has value to the staff and an elite group, then it will only be a matter of time before the doors close because the whole point of the collection is lost on the upcoming generations. Why collect spitfires and hurricanes when you can preserve a 1991 honda with 19″ spinners. But if you get the next generations involved and they can connect with the exhibits just in being able to appreciate what was done to preserve their present way of life then the museum has done its job.

I have been hooked on warbirds since I was a little guy and it was growing up listening to the veterans and watching old movies like the flying tigers etc. But I really didn’t appreciate what those veterans did for me and everyone else until I started building my spit. There is something to be said for sitting in the cockpit, seeing how limited the visibility is (not like a video game), and just getting in and out on the ground is a routine in itself (otherlone trying to get out of a damaged aircraft in the air). That said there is another one for your museum Tom – more simulated cockpits to scale to give the visitor a first hand chance to sit in nearly the real thing.

One more item Tom, a good museum needs to be constantly updating its collection or re-arranging its collection in the case of aircraft to tell more than one story. Just changing the props and some new a/v material will basically do that though but it gives the visitor a reason to comeback and visit the same museum another time.

Cheers

Well said Tom. I only hope another Canadian museum gets a crack at it. Mr. Potter could always do with a mossie in his collection and that would make the trip to see one much simpler. Better yet if he had it, it would fly and in Canadian Skies.

The Hurricane issue as someone pointed out would be best rebuilt in the UK is kind of funny being they were built over hear as well. Not to stir the pot or anything but cancar built hurricanes in thunder bay (fort william/ port arthur) as well. The issue that the museum is having a hard time bringing in funds though is a whole other issue I think Tom H. and I discussed a while back. Basically museums now days everywhere have to do a better job of re-telling and making history interesting again. Too many museums have stagnant displays which never change, so after you have seen it once why would you go back a 2nd time – hence many run into problems where gate admission alone can not keep the doors open. And why does every aircraft have to be pristine and behind ropes, it would be interesting to just see aircraft 60years old in original condition.

My only real pet peeve though is this is a publicly funded museum, if it was a private individual I wouldn’t have a problem with it. As for having to have an original to rebuild to fly that isn’t our problem get on your damn civil aviation authorities case to change their regulations to be like that of the FAA and Transport Canada with the Experimental classes. The real issue is there are very few of these in good condition and why risk one flying when the technology is already available to build good replicas at a reasonable price. Now don’t get all pissy saying it is going to cost 3million + or something because if that bothers you for a twin engine new build you obviously don’t have a clue. Perhaps you should go price a new lancair with retract and turbo prop in kit form and then you will see a new build mossie for the deal it is. Airplanes are not cheap that is just the truth.

Yes that is fine to say gov’t should not get involved with blocking exports but said aircraft is not privately owned. That said it is public property and should not be liquidated by the whim of some bloody beaurocrat, hence yes export should be controlled by the federal gov’t. A privately owned aircraft is up to the owner and in my opinion should be free to sell trade etc what ever aircraft they like.

I’m not taking sides, but…let’s ask a question..

What’s the difference of a Mosquito going back to the land of its manufacture and the daily trade of Spitfires, Mustangs and Corsairs that freely go between the US, UK, AUS, NZ and Canada?

Many (most) current US Mustangs were at one time part of the RCAF (when surplused they went South as surplus US AC were sold/given way to govts. overseas or scrapped to avoid them going overseas illegally..the same thing happened with Sabres…). To perhaps stretch a point, If the Canadian govt calls the Mosquito an artifact…why not a Mustang, especially if it’s ex-RCAF?

Remember, it’s a two way street….
If Canada calls it a cultural treasure, what about the Halifax that went to Canada a few years back? It could have stayed where it was (Norway?) or claimed by the RAF. Playing this game could have repercussions down the road.

I just get nervous when countries play the “Cultural artifact” game.
The historic aviation world may be the loser….especially if the proposed UK owner wants to restore it to flight.
Let’s see, an unrestored Mossie in western Canada…or a flying one in the UK?
Sorry, to my Canadian friends, no contest.

That would be an awesome site to see one fly even as a replica. Don’t over complicate things though, if it is going to fly safety should be the most important thing. besides if it is the only one who is going to be able to pick it apart in 10years no one will be left who seen a real one. If you had outside dimensions you make a negative mold and make the thing out of carbon fibre, kevlar and glass and then infusion mold the whole thing. It would be stronger than a mossie and lighter and would require no chrome moly tube frame. For the main spar in the wing throw in some honeycomb. Most important thing though is use a decent 3D CAD program (not AutoCAD) to do the structural design because you will basically be re-engineering the airframe within those dimensions.

As for peregrine engines I think if I was going to do all that I would put 2 GE 2000lb thrust turbo props in it, would be loud as hell but would it ever haul. Basically same principal that the one US P51 replica uses with a composite airframe and a newer turbo prop power plant.

Did the Whirlwind have both engines spin the props in the same direction like the Mossie or did they correct that so it worked like the P38?

Would definitely be a fun project – long project though as I know building my spit it is not an overnight endeavour.

Cheers
Beurling

Hi Tom, just happened upon this post, sorry to jump in but as another replica spit builder I have also researched this topic to death. I think you will find if you look around now there are several commercially available PSRU’s flying for reasonable prices which can handle high HP engine setups. The new belt drive units for experimental use are available now for 1000+ HP and feature their own oil sump system to lubricate. If I find the vendor links in my mass of favorites I will post them for you. The belt system or the planetary drive PSRU’s are definitely the way to go as they are used on many auto conversions on agcats etc. with the big block chevs and fords.

As for props depending on the scale you are building a 5bladed prop will definitely take alot of power to drive and you will most definitely end up doing some machining of the prop hub. I do not ever recall coming across a commercial 5 bladed hub.

Cheers
Beurling

Hi MkI.

I have been meaning to get back to you about the power unit in your replica Spitfire. I recall that you mentioned that it’s home made as is your propeller.

So, first off, let me say that I am not trying to voodoo hex you into having bad luck. But as you mentioned, this is a pretty significant piece of metal so I want to ask what it is that makes you inherently comfortable with the homemade approach to yours. Same for the propeller.

I know a little reading is a dangerous thing. Maybe a lot is even worse. In my attempt to come up with a lower cost solution to a $10,000 PSRU and a $20,000 MT 5 bladed propeller for a Mk XIV replica Spitfire, I have been doing a lot of searching. As I go through many websites (actually there aren’t THAT many) about propellers and gear boxes, I become more confused, partly because I truly understand very little about vibration in its many forms, and partly because there are so many contradictory claims about PSRU’s especially. Some say the Hyvo chain kills reflected vibration, or is self-damping, some say this is nonsense and wishful thinking at best. The most authoritative “looking” website I have found, with reams of info, is the EPI site. The owner has also sent me two replies to a pile of questions, including his explanation of his complete mistrust of hyvo chains.

So, here are my questions MkI:

Your Spit has around 60 hours on it, right? How do you feel about the PSRU? If vibration can be damaging, whether you can actually feel it or not, what gives you the confidence to fire up and go for a hop?

How well was the propeller built? What sort of inspections are possible to verify its airworthiness?

In short, does your power train cause you concerns above and beyond normal levels of concern, and if so, how do you alleviate those concerns in terms of believing that your gear box and propeller will stay together?

Now, having said all of that, I ask because I also believe it would be possible to home-build these two units. Your machine’s maker wasn’t the first to do so and he probably won’t be the last. In my case, with a Chevy LS2 proposed as the engine, the stakes are a bit higher, with 400 HP, as opposed to what, 250? Still significant though, in your case. And yours uses a cogged belt. How high can we go with that drive mechanism? I wouldn’t suspect that 400 HP can be belt driven, could it?

If YOU were going to design/build the PSRU and prop, how would you approach it? Or would you simply not tackle those parts of the build?

I hope this didn’t seem vague or meandering, but really, there’s a lot to ask about with these two pieces of equipment, understandably. Overall, if the $30,000 expense in just the prop and the gear box is unavoidable, that’s pretty close to a show-stopper for me (but still better than a heartbeat stopper, I guess).

Thanks for any feedback you can give. I still think your machine is a pretty terrific looking beast. I’d like be flying too!

Cheers, Tom.