mark_pilkingtonFolks,
I am seeking help to locate Mr Thomas W Kendall/Catalina Ltd or his family/children , of La Verne CA, who owned PBY-5A Bu 48397 N5593V that was abandoned in Saudi Arabia in 1960, as per the posts and pics in the thread above.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonIt is true that there seemed to be a flurry of twin tail/fin designs in the late 1930’s early 1940’s and although the US manufacturers had a few types with twin tails, P38/B24, they seemed to return quickly to the single fin. The British use through the Heavy bombers of Halifax, Manchester and Lancaster continued on to the Lincoln and Shackelton postwar whereas the B-24 Liberator shed its twin tail in its PB4Y Privateer form.
I think generally the technical argument was based on a smaller total fin area being required by removal “outboard” of the fuselage slipstream, a futher benefit of control response at low airspeeds was claimed in having the fin/rudder being directly behind the thrust line and airflow of the engine/props, particularly on take-off etc.
I personally believe it had nothing to do with such technical theory or argument and that it was a simple extension of the old british view that “two heads are better than one”, and therefore so too should be two tails! smiles
(Of course the US took the British literally and built the F-82 Twin Mustang, but couldnt fit two cockpits to most other aircraft so the idea was shelved!)
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonSeems a bit expensive at the equivalent of $28kUSD when a near complete airframe has been listed for sale in the USA for $99kUSD.
A hell of a lot of parts missing for the $71kAUD gap? and its suggested wings and undercarriage are located, but not necessarily easily available?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI find this an interesting topic, and one which will eventually end up with unversal definitions being settled upon to differentiate provenance of the various aircraft being marketed at very great values.
JDK,
The definition of a ‘replica’ by the RAFMus and NASM seem at some odds with each other.
Mark
“The museum defines reproduction as an exact or nearly exact example of an original.
A replica is merely a look alike of different construction to the original.”
“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artefact in part or in total.” Another USAFM definition. Interestingly he gives the example of the Gee Bee Super Sportster build by the New England Air Museum with the technical supervision of the Grandville Bros Chief Engineer Pete Miller. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.
“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”
As JDK states in addition to the confusion over the definition for “replica” the museum definitions often dont directly translate into the warbird environment and use of words like “restoration” and “original”.
I think the confusion between the RAFM and NASM definitions arise from the fact that the “Art world” of museums really dont have “replicas” in paintings, sculpture or antiquities, they have “reproductions” (when they are acknowledged as copies). where-as the world replica appears to have arisen from the “industrial world” to describe duplication, copy etc.
The 1970’s use of the word “replica” by the “aviation world” to describe look-a-like WW1 aircraft constructed with steel tube instead of wood, and small radials instead of rotaries has created further confusion or a new definition.
“re-production” would seem to be the more appropriate word to apply to a new build ME262, Yaks or Oscar largely built to the original plans from the “same” but entirely new materials. effectively the same as if reproduced by the original manufacturer, and so I would lean towards the RAFM definitions, obviously these airframes do not claim the identity of an original aircraft.
“re-construction” may well be a term to apply to individual “name plates” that have a new aeroplane built around them from a mixture reproduction parts, restored parts from various sources and NOS parts (New/Old Stock), or even a wooden aircraft having much of its wooden parts replaced, but retaining its metal parts. (Glynn Powells Mosquitos?)
“restoration” would then be reserved to the NASM definition of an original aircraft retaining 50% or more of its original structure.
with “replica” remaining to describe “look-a-likes” of different materials/construction methods.
Preservation and Conservation would seem to be definitions purely reserved for the processes involved when an item is taken out of every day use and into a museum like outcome.
As I said an interesting topic to discuss.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
I’m sure Bruce will provide excellent details on the prospects of another derelict identity and parts kitset being available for a new “wood” project, and have more up to date information on some of the projects and remains listed here:
http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito_loc.htm
But it would seem from the following that up to 5 “aircraft” worth of metal parts may still exist beyond current restorations or displayed aircraft, but with 2 of the identities and parts destined for the Swedish Air Force Museum as an assumed static restoration, the most likely airworthy rebuild candidate would the parts held by Jim Dearborn in the USA. I believe there was previously some contemplation of a “plastic” based fuselage construction but that all pre-dated Glyn Powell’s construction of moulds for wooden fuselages, and I have no idea of the current status of his project?.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
FB.VI PZ474/NZ2384 California Sold in 1953, flown from New Zealand to California where it was damaged in a landing accident. The aircraft was subsequently registered as N9909F and eventually de-registered in 1970, the aircraft became derelict, but some components are with Jim Merizan. In the 1980’s, Jim Merizan traded ownership of PZ474 to the Swedish Air Force Museum.
NF.XIX MM625 California Currently with Jim Merizan, owned by the Swedish Air Force Museum
FB.VI RF670/N9868F
Note: this aircraft may actually be PF670/N9868F
Unknown! Precise current location of this Mosquito is unknown. Information circa 1988 states that the remains of N9868F reside with the Confederate Air Force, Harlingen, TX, however information from the CAF says otherwise!.
B.35 TA717/XB-TOX The remains of TA717 were sold by Mike Meeker to Jim Merizan in California in the mid-1980s when the project to restore HML folded. Jim Merizan subsequently sold the remains to Jim Dearborn around the start of 1999.
PR.34a RG300 Sold by Jim merizan to Jim Dearborn around the start of 1999.
In NZ the following 4 sets of parts/ID’s might one day yield an identity or two , along with surplus metal parts to allow a further flying project to commence? However the RNZAF and Ferrymead projects are obviously going to focus on the needs of their static restorations first from the 2 sets of remains they each hold and may effective consume most of the quality, and quantity of parts that exist?
FB.VI TE863/NZ2355 RNZAF Museum Parts only.
FB.VI RF597/NZ2383 RNZAF Museum Parts only.
FB.VI HR339/NZ2382 Held by the Ferrymead Aeronautical Society. The fuselage of HR339 did not survive intact, little remains forward of the wings.
FB.VI TE758/NZ2328 Held by the Ferrymead Aeronautical Society. The fuselage is essentially intact.
Lastly in Australia it is understood at least 1x 40′ container of former RAF 618 Sqn Mosquito parts collected from around Narromine NSW, was apparantly stolen from Sydney in the late 1980’s early 1990’s? and could be assumed to probably contain at least one more aircraft’s set of metal parts??, if those parts havent already been sold off seperately to support existing projects?
mark_pilkingtonRoy
can you elaborate on the “Rapide replica”?
I’m dreading it. I just _know_ that the Rapide Replica won’t be where we left it.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonAlex
One of the trials was to test the intercommunication slip rings.
Does anyone know what these are/were?
“Slip rings” are a standard “Electrical” term used in motors and other rotating electrical equipment to describe two sets of rings that allow fixed contacts to maintain contact with the rotating section to maintain an electrical circuit, they usually run around the pivot point so as to maintain contact regardless of the position of rotation, in this case the slip rings were obviously related to intercom wiring rather than electrical power, but if you google “slip rings” and “motors” you will probably find drawings and text to provide more general descriptions.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
Had to resort to buying My own Chrissie Present this year, so I bought this…..
realised when filling out the virtual museum list that I hadnt mentioned it previously.
regards
Mark Pilkington
http://www.lonestaronline.com/listings/details/index.cfm?itemnum=847057766
mark_pilkingtonStuart,
No, it wasnt intended to divert this thread, nor seek a reply or comment from others, it was intended as a simple statement of support for a comment Graham made in another thread regarding anonomous forum posters, and then as an afterthought to declare myself as a customer of his, at the bottom of my main contribution to the threads topic.
I have no wish to distract this thread any further from its topic and didnt consider those comments worthy of a seperate new thread, nor the “wishing of Happy New Year” either?
I would ask that anyone wishing to further reply to these comments of mine do so in a new thread if they feel the need? however its not something I am seeking to debate, simply airing my opinion, and would support Stuart’s request to keep this thread on topic?
In regard to your spitfire “repro”? I am not the editor of your entry so I am unsure how or why it has been ammended? but in a similar vein to your enquiry of me, is this the right thread to question the quality of your ebay supplier? as that has been a touchy forum topic of late? smiles.
again, Happy and a Safe New Year to all
regards
Mark Pilkington
(the spitfirespares.com identity thread is locked awaiting the webmaster’s return regarding other “ebay” related matters, otherwise I would have added a comment there)
mark_pilkingtonOriginally Posted by Dave T’
Australian A/C Consortium A-20 Wamira II nose/cockpit EMU (Dave T)
Auster J1/N Autocrat G-AJPZ frame (Rlangham)
Auster AOP.9 XK421 frame (Dave T)
Avro Anson C.21 anon’ cockpit (Dave T)
Avro Anson GR1 EG426 – “Static Project” (Mark P)
Avro Lincoln B2 RF342 – “Static Project” (Mark P)
Avro Shackleton AEW.2 WL756 nose/cockpit (Camlobe)
Beechcraft D.18s G-BKRN (philipturland and Texantomcat)
BAC Lightning 53-671/ZF579 (mjr)
Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B XX889 (Buccsociety)
Boeing B-17 Cockpit section-reproduction (B-17man)
Boeing B-17 Radio room-reproduction (B-17man)
Commonwealth CA-6 Wackett Trainer A3-167 Flying Project -(Mark P)
Commonwealth CA-6 Wackett Trainer A3-85 Flying Project (Mark P)
Commonwealth CA-6 Wackett Trainer A3-156 Static Project (Mark P)
Commonwealth CA-27 Sabre, A94-983 (Pete.PS)
Commonwealth CA-28 Ceres prototype cockpit VH-CEX/SSV (Mark P)
Consolidated B-24 Cockpit section-reproduction (B-17man)
Consolidated PBY-5A “A24-387” N68756 Static Project (Mark P)
de Havilland Chipmunk ‘pax WP927 (Stuart Gowans)
de Havilland Chipmunk ‘pax anon’ (Dave T)
de Havilland Hornet F.MK.1 nose/cockpit – repro’ (dcollins103)
de Havilland Vampire FB.5 VZ193 pod (dcollins103)
de Havilland Vampire T.11 XD599 (philipturland and Texantomcat)
de Havilland Vampire T.11 XE985 pod (MarkG)
de Havilland Vampire T.11 XH313 (Vampire)
de Havilland Vampire T.11 XH328 pod ? (Bruce)
de Havilland Vampire T.11 WZ584 (Bruce)
de Haviland Sea Vixen FAW2 XN650 nose/cockpit (HMS Vulture)
Douglas C-47A Skytrain / Dakota 111 FL517 nose/cockpit (c-47 Skytrain)
English Electric Canberra PR.7 WH773 (BexWH773)
English Electric Canberra PR.9 XH175 nose/cockpit (RossMcNeill)
English Electric/BAC Lightning F.1 XM144 nose/cockpit (XM172)
English Eectric/BAC Lightning F.1A XM172 (XM172)
English Electric/BAC Lightning F.3 XP706 (Scott C)
Enstrom 280C Shark G-BXEE (iws)
GLOSTER METEOR NF.14 WS807 (Buccaneer Society/Jet Age Museum)
Handley Page Halifax B Mk III cockpit reproduction (HP57)
Hawker Harrier GR.3 ZD670 nose/cockpit (Dave T)
Hawker Harrier T.2/4 anon’ nose/cockpit (XM172)
Hawker Hurricane P3554 ‘Jessamy’ (Rocketeer)
Hawker Hunter F1 WT648 nose/cockpit (Rocketeer)
Hawker Hunter F2 WN890 nose/cockpit (Rocketeer)
Hawker Hunter F5 WN957 nose/cockpit (Dave T)
Hawker Hunter F6 XG290 nose/cockpit (Rocketeer)
Hawker Hunter T7 XL591 (mjr)
Hawker Hunter FGA.78 QA12 nose/cockpit (MarkG)
Hawker Sea Hawk F1 WF145 nose/cockpit (HMS Vulture)
Hawker Sea Hawk FGA.6 WV838 nose/cockpit (wv838)
Hawker Typhoon Cockpit (Rocketeer)
Hunting Jet Provost T.3 XN549 nose/cockpit (avroxix)
Miles Messenger M.2a G-AKIN (texantomcat)
North American AT-6-D-1-NT Texan G-TOMC (Texantomcat and philipturland)
Piper PA22 Colt – airworthy. (Moggy)
Supermarine Spitfire IX repro’ (Stuart Gowans)
Supermarine Spitfire nose/cockpit (Rocketeer)
Supermarine Swift F7 XF113 nose/cockpit (Rocketeer)
English Electric Canberra T4 WT486 nose/cockpit (sniperUK/2241sq ATC)
Supermarine Spitfire MkVcTrop cockpit section(Qldspitty)
Supermarine Spitfire MkVcTrop Reproduction(Qldspitty)
Will they all be at Legends?
regards and Happy New Year
Mark Pilkington
( btw I agree with Graham Adlams’ comments on “forum identities” elsewhere on this site and agree people should be willing to identify themselves fully (even if they prefer to use a nickname in general use) and take responsibility for their comments here – good or bad. I should also declare I am a regular and happily satisfied customer of spitfirespares.com and wish Graham continued success with that business as he is providing an excellent service to those of us on the other side of the world.)
mark_pilkingtonHere is the Middle Eastern forum which was the source of my earlier photos, thanks to the owner of the photo’s who I couldnt identify or credit.
The forum indicates the photos were posted @March 2006
(Note this forum has its vertical scroll on the LHS)
http://www.mekshat.com/vb/showthread.php?t=46312&page=1&pp=15
Much earlier photos exist on flicker prior to the wing collapse, taken in February 1995.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kendo1938/112154359/in/set-72057594081556662
A dead aircraft in its final act of rigor-mortis
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonHere are some pics of N5593V showing the wing collapse off the rear pylon mount due to the weight of the engines.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe photo’s on Flicker are quite old and the aircraft is far more deteriorated as shown by google earth.
The Wing has toppled off the rear mount of the pylon due to the weight of the engines and is sitting leading edge down on top of the cockpit.
There are pics on a middle east forum I will post the link when I am back home from holidays.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonfor historical accuracy is that Lim-5, LIM-5, LiM-5 or L&m-5 in Cyrillic?
is it LYE EMM FIVE or LIMMMMMM FIVE?
passes Ken his coat on the way out – smiles
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe radial engine evolved by putting more cylinders on to smooth out the power stroke, and putting more banks or rows or cylinders to increase the power and capacity, eventually having to use liquid cooling rather than air cooling due to the difficulty in cooling the rear banks of cylinders.
Hence the early and inefficient 2 cylinder “V” radial evolved to being a 2 cyl, 6 row engine with liquid cooling, as the ultimate development of the radial engine:diablo:
smiles
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
