CAD and lofting processes demand a great deal of time and attention, having multiple team members working on different sections will help speed up the construction. Graeme is doing some amazing work with the monocoque as seen above which will allow us to start building up our fuselage frames.
The wing work is also heavily reliant on CAD systems, the surface model is in the process of being converted to solid, and known internal structure has, and is continuously being designed as per the Hawker design. Data for the missing items is being catalogued, and will be used to design the missing parts once the known data is all digitalised.
The radiator fairing frame master templates are also being lofted, but manually….[ATTACH=CONFIG]244704[/ATTACH]

It’s good to see these drawings being put to good use.

Keep plugging away, and not before long some large assemblies will start to appear.

I’d like to see it the right way up at least!

I’d second that.

I can’t help thinking though, that while the remains are still pretty “complete” that a new-build one should be made, and incorporating as many original parts as possible.

Some great news from the Bentwaters Cold War Museum team.

“The Bentwaters Cold War Museum wishes to announce that it has been successful in its bid to acquire an A-10 Thunderbolt on loan from the National Museum of the USAF. The airframe in question is an ex-509th TFS/81st TFW Bentwaters-based jet and is currently residing at Alconbury. It is hoped that the A-10 will be on display for the first opening of 2016 which will be Easter Sunday.
To say that we are pleased to be returning a Warthog to Bentwaters is an understatement. Our thanks must go to all the USAF and NMUSAF personnel involved in achieving what started off as a pipe dream back in 2003, four years before we first opened our doors to the Public. Hopefully this will be a very successful 2016 for BCWM!”

Jon Saunders has be trying for years to secure the loan of the frame to the BCWM with the help of the USAF despite the restrictions the US Congress has set in such dealings. The paperwork has all been signed so it is a case of the BCWM dismantling, moving and restoring the frame. For those that mention paint schemes.. It will be repainted to what it wore at Bentwaters. 😀

Cool!
Used to watch them prowling around the skies on finals and take-offs there.

So, DH Hornet propellers rotate In at the top, same as the Twin Mustang (with the exception of the 1st one).
P-38’s all turn out at the top (again, with the exception of the first one)
In the case of the 82 vs the 38, I think the relative position of the wing vs the centre of the prop arc must have something to do with it.

Anyone have any thoughts, or god forbid, facts!:D

I understand that engine failures in the Twin mustang were pretty much a non event, whereas the P-38 took some very quick and specific handling to maintain control after losing an engine.
This makes sense with regards to torque.

Andy

Aerodynamically there must be a good reason for wanting the propellers rotating towards each other at the bottom, as several manufacturers have attempted it in the first place.

I don’t know the answer, but wonder if someone does?

My first thought was “you’re bl00dy mad!”

This, however, sums it up much more beautifully:eagerness:

Andy

When we run out of workshop space, we’ll move into the fuselage.

🙂

Hi John

Any ides on the time frame for the Bombay ?.

Fantastic work by the way.

Bob T.

Hi Bob
No fixed timeframe as yet…. We know what order parts have to be made and assembled in,

One could quote a time, but we never know how many workshop moves are around the corner!

Not as far as I know, but I stand to be corrected. The fighter Meet moved away to the west country I seem to recall,
before moving back. Although I may have that wrong ?

I thought the “Fighter Meet” event was held at North Weald from the mid 80’s until the mid-90’s.

The first RIAT was held there in the 70’s before moving elsewhere.

Hi Kev

I don’t know much about casting but I have been wondering why – if you have a CAD drawing – you don’t make your mould tool as a 3D plastic print? I assume that all you do is surround it with sand then remove the tool? Sorry if that’s not right (or simply if it’s just more fun to make the tool yourself!).

Also you mentioned (elsewhere) compensating for shrinkage – if you drew what you needed on CAD could you not then just scale the model up to make it that little bit larger for the plastic print and so compensate for shrinkage? This has the advantage that if you made the tool a little too large or a little too small then changing by a mm or so would take about 3 minutes in your CAD program – whittling or increasing your current tool looks like an undesireable task (which reminds me of recently trying to fit a side panel to my bath!)

If you made a 3D print of each part you could also have a dry run assembly of the whole thing before casting.

While I’m spending your money – you might consider having parts you want to copy 3D scanned so you get the CAD drawing without lifting a ruler! You could ‘repair’ or restore parts in the CAD program.

James

Hi James,

There is a case for 3D rapid casting some parts. I have found based on experience that some parts can be made easier, cheaper and quicker using traditional pattern making methods. Other parts lend themselves to rapid production better. You have to look at each on on a case-by-case basis.