Standard AS seat

We do have a profile drawing of the seat which I believe to be quite accurate. Would anyone have similar for Spitfire (or other) for comparison.

It looks like the lower part of a standard AS seat up to half way up the back, and topped off with a tubular frame that supports an armour plate.

Here is an image of the AS seat for comparison (as fitted to single seat Vampire, Hornet, Firefly, Piston Provost, etc.)

If this is to be a well funded and expertly managed project, then I hope it succeeds. They would have already identified the fact that it would be a no-brainer to source all of the wooden structure in NZ. There lies the core knowledge of 3 new build fuselages and 2 wings to date, all the tooling, and people with current knowledge to make it happen. Of course this could be done in the UK, but why spend 10 years re-tooling here when an established industry already exists in NZ.

The wooden airframe could then be shipped to the UK for systems fit, and to create all of the necessry metalwork required. The wooden airframe would be the quick part to construct relatively!

Actually, I think re-building an NF36 would be an excellent type to re-build. Immediate post war types are scarcely represented, so for me this would be a thrill to see. (Imagine its 1946-1950 contemporaries: Hornet F1, Vampire F1, Meteor F4, Spitfire F24…. all absent from the skies now)

Good morning all. I’m preparing to build the venerable Airfix kit of the Stirling and intend going to town on it. One scheme that’s taken my fancy is N3638 Stirling I which was the fourth production aircraft. The photo below shows the aircraft in green/brown upper fuselage camouflage, but I’m a bit confused by the lower surface. My gut feeling is that it’s Sky as per the Day Bomber Camouflage scheme, but I have enough doubt that makes me think it could be yellow. :confused:

Has anyone out there got any info that can help this confused Stirling Bod?

John

John,
I think you have the answer to your question in your first posted image. The rear fuselage roundel has a yellow ring around it, which matches the underside colour/tone exactly.

WOW, that is so so clever.!

I take it then David that given the necessary budget that this kind of technique could be applied to re-manufacturing the wooden sections of a Sea Hornet too?! Or is there something else that makes it a different proposition altogether?

Rob

Hi Rob,
Yes this is entirely possible for any wooden aircraft, and the quickest way to make a small production run of a type.

The added complication for a Hornet/Sea Hornet would be its forged aluminium lower spar.

Bloody marvellous. Clever chaps those Kiwis!

I met the very man who did this last week! Very clever stuff indeed.

Having delved into the complexities of advanced lofting theory in attempting to decode the data we then realised that the practical chaps at Westland had actually used circular-section tops and bottoms (hence the radius figures) and splined sides, with curve break-points defined by structural features (essentially where the fuselage skin ‘planks’ joined).

Yes, this is exactly how its done, and how I have done the Hornet too. If you want to compare notes on re-creating extinct types just ask, I won’t bite! 😀

To be precise, everything matches except for one solitary ‘kink’ in the model’s rear fuselage lower profile which clearly shows up an 84-year-old drawing office ‘oops’ in the conversion of one point between full size and 1/24.).

This will happen. I have found several DH drawing errors. Just because we find original drawings, doesn’t mean they were the final released correct versions. Always trust your calculations and straight bits of wreckage.

Matt’s expertise has been that the digitally generated spline curves on the fuselage sides will be more ‘accurate’ – smoother along the length of the airframe.

Yes, this will happen. CAD models can be too accurate. Remember that the airframe material (ali/steel/mag,etc.) will want to follow “its” curvature when being formed, even after rolling and the only fairly accurate sections will be those at a frame or bulkhead.

Keep up the great work you are doing. You are going about this exactly the right way to achieve a well engineered build.

Yep both themes were my fault – idiot that I am – they were not even supposed to be themes – just gathering like cockpits in one area of the display site. You would have thought that after the flak I got for the Hunter gathering I would have seen sense and not suggested Warbird Alley!! But some never learn.

The coverage on some websites tends to suggest that Jets are the most popular (others are not shown). My suggestion for this year was to try and show jet fans that there are other eras and cockpits out there.

That said, our little patch of warbirds (Gary’s Stang, Dan and bro’s P63, Naylan’s Tempest and Tyffie and my offering) did attract lots of public who seemed to like them.

I wont, publically, suggest a sub theme again. But if anyone wants to park a cockpit near me then that is great!!! mind you, after this post, I will probably be placed behind the loos on the showground!!

Tony,
I will be bringing the Hornet F1 to Newark in 2013, so I think it entirely fitting that the smaller “warbird” cockpits are collected together. They tend to get lost next to some of the bigger jets, if not overlooked, then literally over-shadowed! 😀

It would be nice to finally get some doped linen and paint on the Hornet so I will want to be outside too.

The first “Stealth” Bomber

Did anyone get a photo of the Stirling flight deck?

It has attended two Cockpit-fest events now and managed to counter-measure photography very successfully :D:D:D;)