By: dylan9391
- 8th October 2014 at 10:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wasn't thinking of using old war time metal in construction. I was thinking more of producing new metal to the correct EN standard suitable for this aeroplane and are there jigs and drawings available to create things like the spars. How many years did it take to make jigs and moulds for the Mosquito in New Zealand. A static aeroplane assuming the drawings are available and a huge spare hangar. I made my Spitfire frames in the garage at home and it's only now that I have moved to a storage unit as she comes together as a whole. Even with extra space I can't get both wings on as my unit is 28ft square.
I can make another aeroplane at the side of it and have started making new frames after work etc.
By: Bruce
- 8th October 2014 at 10:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Spitfire is well documented. There are plenty of original patterns, plenty of drawings and a huge amount of other salient information relating to the type. It was also in service until well after the war, and technically remains so by virtue of the reasonable number of airworthy specimens surviving. Should there be a desire to do so, recreating a production line for the Spitfire would be a simple business (money aside). Look to the example of Jaguar cars, who have put the E type Jaguar back into production on a limited basis - albeit only 6 cars, to the lightweight specification.
The same could be done with other aircraft such as the Mustang, Hurricane, P40, P47, Mosquito and others. Relatively simple in terms of engineering. With modern production methods and materials these could all come together quite quickly.
Now, look at aircraft like the Stirling, Halifax and others - there are either no, or very few survivors. There are no, or very few original manufacturing drawings. We may not know precisely what they were made from without extensive analysis of parts we don't have. These aircraft were quickly scrapped after the war; whilst they carried out their role reasonably well, they weren't considered good enough to keep once the guns had become quiet. Everything we knew about them was quietly disposed of. Yes, we could make a fair fist of building one from scratch, but it would need a big dash of poetic license, and a huge helping of intuition. Realistically, it wont happen.
Incidentally, no aircraft are built with EN grade materials.
By: Beermat
- 8th October 2014 at 12:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depends who 'they' are, or were. Most British aircraft built for military purposes during WWII had British Standard (Aircraft Series) material specifications (but not EN, as far as I know this is a much more recent set of standards) and DTD specs where no standardisation had been arrived at. I believe that the L series used to describe light alloys are/were part of the BS scheme, but I'm not sure of that.
Sorry, I misunderstood your bit about metal. Fair shout, but I don't think original materials are necessary - in fact, modern airworthiness standards would - I understand - cause deviation from original spec in many cases anyway?
Edit - EN are European standards, incorporated into the BSi schema. Just looked it up.
By: HP111
- 8th October 2014 at 17:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Original-spec materials, metal or wood, might not even be available today. You have to determine a suitable substitute which adds to the design and certification burden.
By: ozplane
- 8th October 2014 at 18:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Amen to that. A pal of mine has an Airtourer light aircraft manufactured in 1968. Corrosion was found in the tailfin attachment brackets and fortunately drawings were available but the correct spec material wasn't and remember this was built as recently as 1968. To cut a long story short Boeing came up with an acceptable replacement material with the right section but he had to buy 10 metres of it for two brackets 15 cm long. You ain't going to build a Stirling any time soon.
By: dylan9391
- 8th October 2014 at 18:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I always liked the Stirling and remember being bought an Airfix kit as a Christmas present in the 70's. It was a good model (not sure in terms of dimensions etc) but in the kiy you had a bomb carriage, tractor and some ground crew. So excellent play value.
By: TempestV
- 8th October 2014 at 18:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To mention an earlier posting, I have loved seeing the Vulcan continue to fly. It is probably the most impressive thing you will see in the air. Also as an active member of the Stirling project, comparing the potential funds available to one with the other just isn't realistic. A static repro Stirling will never have the "box office" draw to Joe public like the Vulcan has.
By: J Boyle
- 8th October 2014 at 22:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite - without a pattern aeroplane, or at least big chunks of one, there is no chance of seeing a Stirling fly - ever. Bruce
I was thinking of a static Stirling since the costs for a flyer would be prohibitive...not to mention the obvious lack of airworthy Hercules engines.
My point is a Stirling...even a static would be a nice tribute to Bomber Command crews.
By: David Burke
- 10th October 2014 at 00:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The exodus of usable engines has been for a few years to Australia for Beaufighter projects -early marks . As to 'airworthy' engines -I imagine the Noratlas in France is the best example of a flying Hercules engine -there are a number in the U.K which are ground runners or good engines suitable for reuse. They are however later marks - like the 216 and 264.
By: TempestV
- 10th October 2014 at 08:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Beermat,
I'll reply on behalf of John, who usually updates our dedicated thread. Yes the Stirling Project still continues to grow...slowly, and we are making progress. It is being done by a working group of 4 regular, and a few more part-timers (myself included)
The full and realistic outcome of this would be a section of forward fuselage highlighted in the attached cutaway. This would incorporate the already restored nose turret, bomb bay, bomb aimer, navigator, flight deck, coupe canopy and flight engineer/radio operator positions.
It's not decided yet if it will go back as far as the wing spar, or just to the radio operators station, but even this section is comparable to the size of a double-decker bus!
We are now at the stage where much of the detail work on the flight deck is nearing completion, so thoughts have been turned to making the bomb bay structure. This forms a keel to the fuselage, onto which the sides and flight deck attach to. Some steel girders have been aquired to form the fuselage jig, and final refinements are due to be made to the CAD fuselage model that have given 3D "life" to the 2D drawings already prepared.
By: powerandpassion
- 10th October 2014 at 08:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Emergency Number
No En, Thanks for that, that's interesting. What metal standard do they use in aircraft?
EN in the context of WW2 stands for Emergency Number, being, particularly, steel alloys rapidly impressed into wartime service without the delay occasioned by a committee considering the materials classification under DTD (Directorate of Technical Development of the Air Ministry) or British Standard. Most of your Stirling would be composed of BS and DTD materials as well as EN. So you would be right using EN materials and most folk over the age of 65 think of steels in 'EN'. Euro norm, that's something different again....
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 8th October 2014 at 10:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite - without a pattern aeroplane, or at least big chunks of one, there is no chance of seeing a Stirling fly - ever.
Bruce
Posts: 32
By: dylan9391 - 8th October 2014 at 10:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wasn't thinking of using old war time metal in construction. I was thinking more of producing new metal to the correct EN standard suitable for this aeroplane and are there jigs and drawings available to create things like the spars. How many years did it take to make jigs and moulds for the Mosquito in New Zealand. A static aeroplane assuming the drawings are available and a huge spare hangar. I made my Spitfire frames in the garage at home and it's only now that I have moved to a storage unit as she comes together as a whole. Even with extra space I can't get both wings on as my unit is 28ft square.
I can make another aeroplane at the side of it and have started making new frames after work etc.
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 8th October 2014 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Spitfire is well documented. There are plenty of original patterns, plenty of drawings and a huge amount of other salient information relating to the type. It was also in service until well after the war, and technically remains so by virtue of the reasonable number of airworthy specimens surviving. Should there be a desire to do so, recreating a production line for the Spitfire would be a simple business (money aside). Look to the example of Jaguar cars, who have put the E type Jaguar back into production on a limited basis - albeit only 6 cars, to the lightweight specification.
The same could be done with other aircraft such as the Mustang, Hurricane, P40, P47, Mosquito and others. Relatively simple in terms of engineering. With modern production methods and materials these could all come together quite quickly.
Now, look at aircraft like the Stirling, Halifax and others - there are either no, or very few survivors. There are no, or very few original manufacturing drawings. We may not know precisely what they were made from without extensive analysis of parts we don't have. These aircraft were quickly scrapped after the war; whilst they carried out their role reasonably well, they weren't considered good enough to keep once the guns had become quiet. Everything we knew about them was quietly disposed of. Yes, we could make a fair fist of building one from scratch, but it would need a big dash of poetic license, and a huge helping of intuition. Realistically, it wont happen.
Incidentally, no aircraft are built with EN grade materials.
Bruce
Posts: 32
By: dylan9391 - 8th October 2014 at 10:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No En, Thanks for that, that's interesting. What metal standard do they use in aircraft?
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 8th October 2014 at 12:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depends who 'they' are, or were. Most British aircraft built for military purposes during WWII had British Standard (Aircraft Series) material specifications (but not EN, as far as I know this is a much more recent set of standards) and DTD specs where no standardisation had been arrived at. I believe that the L series used to describe light alloys are/were part of the BS scheme, but I'm not sure of that.
Sorry, I misunderstood your bit about metal. Fair shout, but I don't think original materials are necessary - in fact, modern airworthiness standards would - I understand - cause deviation from original spec in many cases anyway?
Edit - EN are European standards, incorporated into the BSi schema. Just looked it up.
Posts: 635
By: HP111 - 8th October 2014 at 17:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Original-spec materials, metal or wood, might not even be available today. You have to determine a suitable substitute which adds to the design and certification burden.
Posts: 1,628
By: ozplane - 8th October 2014 at 18:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Amen to that. A pal of mine has an Airtourer light aircraft manufactured in 1968. Corrosion was found in the tailfin attachment brackets and fortunately drawings were available but the correct spec material wasn't and remember this was built as recently as 1968. To cut a long story short Boeing came up with an acceptable replacement material with the right section but he had to buy 10 metres of it for two brackets 15 cm long. You ain't going to build a Stirling any time soon.
Posts: 32
By: dylan9391 - 8th October 2014 at 18:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I always liked the Stirling and remember being bought an Airfix kit as a Christmas present in the 70's. It was a good model (not sure in terms of dimensions etc) but in the kiy you had a bomb carriage, tractor and some ground crew. So excellent play value.
Posts: 1,494
By: TempestV - 8th October 2014 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To mention an earlier posting, I have loved seeing the Vulcan continue to fly. It is probably the most impressive thing you will see in the air. Also as an active member of the Stirling project, comparing the potential funds available to one with the other just isn't realistic. A static repro Stirling will never have the "box office" draw to Joe public like the Vulcan has.
Posts: 9,821
By: J Boyle - 8th October 2014 at 22:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was thinking of a static Stirling since the costs for a flyer would be prohibitive...not to mention the obvious lack of airworthy Hercules engines.
My point is a Stirling...even a static would be a nice tribute to Bomber Command crews.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 8th October 2014 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'obvious lack of airworthy Hercules engines' -they are down in Australia !
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 9th October 2014 at 08:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Static Stirling - isn't this - or the first stages of this - already happening ( regular updates on this forum)?
Posts: 923
By: G-ORDY - 9th October 2014 at 21:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure a Shorts S.31 replica would be a possibility ...
Posts: 9,821
By: J Boyle - 10th October 2014 at 00:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Okay, how many are regularly flying in the UK?
How many are overhauled and ready for flight in the UK?
Not many...compared to Wrights, P&Ws, Merlins, etc.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 10th October 2014 at 00:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The exodus of usable engines has been for a few years to Australia for Beaufighter projects -early marks . As to 'airworthy' engines -I imagine the Noratlas in France is the best example of a flying Hercules engine -there are a number in the U.K which are ground runners or good engines suitable for reuse. They are however later marks - like the 216 and 264.
Posts: 1,494
By: TempestV - 10th October 2014 at 08:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Beermat,
I'll reply on behalf of John, who usually updates our dedicated thread. Yes the Stirling Project still continues to grow...slowly, and we are making progress. It is being done by a working group of 4 regular, and a few more part-timers (myself included)
The full and realistic outcome of this would be a section of forward fuselage highlighted in the attached cutaway. This would incorporate the already restored nose turret, bomb bay, bomb aimer, navigator, flight deck, coupe canopy and flight engineer/radio operator positions.
It's not decided yet if it will go back as far as the wing spar, or just to the radio operators station, but even this section is comparable to the size of a double-decker bus!
We are now at the stage where much of the detail work on the flight deck is nearing completion, so thoughts have been turned to making the bomb bay structure. This forms a keel to the fuselage, onto which the sides and flight deck attach to. Some steel girders have been aquired to form the fuselage jig, and final refinements are due to be made to the CAD fuselage model that have given 3D "life" to the 2D drawings already prepared.
Posts: 3,902
By: Propstrike - 10th October 2014 at 08:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just keep going.......eventually you will be asking yourself if you should do the rudders as well !
To my mind it IS a Stirling. To quote Sir Thomas Sopwith, a 'late production' example.
As far as i am concerned if I make a Plum Duff to Mrs Beeton's 100 year old recipe, it is a real Plum Duff, not a replica:)
Posts: 1,354
By: powerandpassion - 10th October 2014 at 08:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Emergency Number
EN in the context of WW2 stands for Emergency Number, being, particularly, steel alloys rapidly impressed into wartime service without the delay occasioned by a committee considering the materials classification under DTD (Directorate of Technical Development of the Air Ministry) or British Standard. Most of your Stirling would be composed of BS and DTD materials as well as EN. So you would be right using EN materials and most folk over the age of 65 think of steels in 'EN'. Euro norm, that's something different again....
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 10th October 2014 at 08:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Different 'EN' to the 'European Standards EN' numbers.
Steels.....ah, EN8! Happy days!
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 10th October 2014 at 09:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blimey! I live and learn :-) Thanks.