dark light

Kenneth

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 843 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Kenneth
    Participant

    Its now or never, the Hurri Mk1 needs to look correct up front !
    DBenz

    I dare to venture that even if you reduce life’s scope to the world of aircraft preservation, then there are more pressing and important problems that need to be dealt with.

    in reply to: Vintage aircraft in lions zoo compound? #798387
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Beech 18?

    in reply to: Piper Aztec Saved #805260
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Good on you! General aviation piston twins are disappearing faster than most people think. Try getting spare parts for a Cessna 303! All the best in getting the remaining parts!

    in reply to: Visit to Brussels museum #805556
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Except for its standing now on (almost) flat tires, the photograph on Wikipedia of the same aircraft dated 2006 shows it in substantially the same condition (albeit on wheel axle stands)…

    in reply to: Boeing 314 Clipper sponsons question #806571
    Kenneth
    Participant

    A bit of googling will reveal US Design Patent 101 707, from 1936 to Boeing, essentially a single-fin Boeing 314 with sponsons.

    in reply to: Boeing 314 Clipper sponsons question #806591
    Kenneth
    Participant

    A patent only confers rights in the country or countries where it has been granted, so if the Boeing 314 was built, sold and operated where Dornier did not have a patent, then no problem. Moreover, what at a first glance look like the same thing is often not so. All depends on the wording of the patent.

    in reply to: Boeing 314 Clipper sponsons question #806597
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Willy Messerschmitt filed several patent applications in the UK before WW2, some of which were actually granted and published during the war. One of them was for the Bf109 fuselage construction, with the bulkheads integral with the fuselage skin.

    in reply to: Vintage & Veteran Jets – UK and in Europe / US #806964
    Kenneth
    Participant

    I’m aware of the status regarding Hunters, of course.

    I’m out of my comfort zone here too, what is this status (presumably linked to the Shoreham accident)?

    Europe, there’s some Vamps/Venoms in Scandanavia and Switzerland, a couple of Hunters in Scandanavia and Switzerland, the Lansen, Draken and Viggen in Sweden with the SAFHF, a Starfighter now airworthy in Norway and at least one Mig 15 in Scandanavia as well.

    Isn’t the J29 Tunnan in Sweden still airworthy? Flying Bulls in Salzburg/Austria also has a couple of airworthy Alpha Jets. Isn’t a Mirage still airworthy in Switzerland? There’s also a couple of Aero L-39 flying in (continental…) Europe, an L-29 in Denmark and there must be some Magisters in France.

    in reply to: Perhaps time for a few Museums to start approaching Norway #807962
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Please don’t tempt me!

    Especially as the Safir was the first international acquisition that I secured for NAM!! 😮

    That said I would imagine that the F16s would be covered by the usual USAF disposal caveats etc.; but never say never!! 😮

    Why should they; they were bought and paid for by the Norwegians. As were the Danish F-16’s, many of which have been in storage for years with little interest being shown. And weren’t many of them built by SABCA in Belgium anyway?

    in reply to: Fort Collins, Colorado B-17 Project – New Build B-17G #816733
    Kenneth
    Participant

    No, there is indeed no harm in letting them try. But to have the audacity to welcome donations from other people for their dream, is, to put it mildly, cheeky for such a grossly unrealistic undertaking. In other words, they are not putting their money where their mouth is. Might as well throw the money out of the window, or even better, donate it to something which a chance of succeeding. There are presumably also people reading that website who do not know what it is that they are throwing their money at!

    This is not just a case of online nitpicking, but simply pure facts from someone who has been actively involved in aircraft restorations (= time donation) and who has actually donated money to a realistic project. I do however shake my head when I read the enthusiastic outbursts in this thread regarding the perceived prospect of an additional flying B-17…

    The comparison with the magnificent Halifax replica is not valid. This was never intended to be airworthy, so compromises could be made, and large chunks of structural components were or became available. All in all, a realistic project.

    And still nobody has answered the question regarding whether it is at all possible to operate an experimental, homebuilt aircraft of this size; which is what it is going to be in the unlikely case that it’s completed, as it has no identity or provenance….

    in reply to: Fort Collins, Colorado B-17 Project – New Build B-17G #817100
    Kenneth
    Participant

    I can’t get excited about this.

    I have been actively involved in the restoration of aircraft to static condition, and have first-hand knowledge of the cost of restoration and running airworthy aircraft.

    No project of this sort will succeed without money. Lots of it. Time, enthusiasm and volunteer workforce alone has never – and never will – restore, replicate or fly any aircraft.

    They intend it to be airworthy. What does the FAA think about a homebuilt, experimental B-17? Where’s the money for fuel, maintenance and hangarage going to come from? For the raw materials? For four, airworthy engines? For workshop space? For electricity? For the coffee for the coffee machine?

    The only comparable – and very admirable – replica project which appears in these pages, and which is taking form, is the Hornet cockpit replica. Realistic goals and small size. And I bet that a lot of money has been sunk into that too (castings, materials, parts acquisition), but not at all comparable to what the recreation of a huge B-17 to airworthy standards from scratch is going to cost.

    Sorry for being a spoilsport, but that’s reality, like it or not.

    in reply to: Duxford Diary (2017) #817523
    Kenneth
    Participant

    If the P-40F is taking off in the photos above, what an enormous flap deflection!

    Great pics as always, many thanks to the “correspondents”!

    in reply to: Throttle control identity #817751
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Obviously from a single-engine aircraft, and the applications for the two patents were filed in 1933. Which doesn’t tie up with any “Bristol Bomber” I know of.

    in reply to: Alleged French Aircraft with Electric Drive #378523
    Kenneth
    Participant

    More likely a Rotax 912…

    in reply to: Whirlwinds at Elstree #822633
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Were they silver with dayglo markings? If so, former Danish Air Force Sikorsky S-55’s, two of which have since returned to Denmark and been restored.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 843 total)