Warbird Information Exchange

i was just wondering how viable, and how feasible it would be to build a 1/2 or 3/4 scale replica of a WWII fighter plane?.. i spent many years in college for aerospace engineering, and have always been a fan of WWII aviation.. but how many people actually build replicas of these planes?.. even if i had an original, id probably never fly it because if something happened id honestly probably worry about the plane more than myself, so i was just wondering if there was any sort of community or group of people who do this?

You could have a look here.

http://www.replicafighters.com/Home

_________________
P-51, The Cadillac of the Sky!

thats very interesting.. question i need to ask myself is which plane specifically id be most interested in making a replica of, and then start collecting all of the technical details, schematics, and information i can on it.. aircraft id be most interested in replicating would be either the P39, P40, or german BF-109

Your in luck then Justin!

http://new-messerschmitt.gportal.hu/gin ... g=34380780

It just may not sound like the real deal

There seems to be a fair selection of smaller radial engines available now (P&W R-985, Rotec, M-14, etc.), and you can often fit an opposed engine into a radial cowl.

The problem you will have with a 109 for instance is finding a suitable inline engine. Most of the automotive liquid cooled engine conversions have been an abject failure, for various reasons. You are forced to not only design and prove the airframe, but the engine, cooling system and likely a prop reduction drive as well. You may not think that is much of an obstacle, but everything I have read shows this to be the achilles heel in those replicas.

well originally i thought about going biplane, perhaps a WWI fighter plane.. or even the HE-51.. the fixed landing gear and simpler wings would make it much easier to construct

there is one option.. of building full size, a lot of weight would be saved over the military models in not having the guns, cannons, or armor installed and that decrease in weight could potentially offer similar performance with a smaller engine, and after thinking about it.. theres no reason i couldnt use a more conventional wing structure that didnt have those advanced features, or even retractable landing gear at first.. i could always build simpler wings to start out with and take a bit longer working on more advanced wings and landing gear such as the real BF-109s had

and am i mistaken? or did the P-39 and P-40 use a simpler wing structure to begin with?..that could be a lot simpler to make than a BF-109.. i cant imagine the advanced features didnt have their own gremlins on BF-109s.. i could only imagine one of the components in the BF-109s more advanced wings breaking and causing an otherwise perfectly good aircraft to fail

These guys are starting to build full scale 109s using a 450 hp Mazda-Wankel engine.

http://new-messerschmitt.gportal.hu/

_________________
Classic Wings Magazine

https://www.classicwings.com/

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/ClassicWingsMagazine/

Preserved Axis Aircraft

http://www.classicwings.com

My opinion only, but why build a replica of something that is already on the airshow circuit? Why not build a P-43 or a P-66? Then you have an interesting story to tell that might make you a more attractive and interesting airshow subject.

You could build a sub-scale Shinden with a buried horizontally opposed engine. Now that would be something to see! Kind of a tweaked Vari-Eze.

What other designs are out there that people would like to see, yet are unlikely to ever be restored to fly or no longer exist?

If you want to keep it simple to start with, you are adding a huge, huge amount of complexity from the start by considering a rear-engined type such as the P-39, with the necessity to design the driveshaft and reduction gear system from scratch.

ive been avoiding radial powered designs for a reason, no one really makes a good, higher powered radial i could use for such a build, and old ones arent easy to find

but ive been studying some of these builds.. and it would appear that without the armor or weaponry, theyre able to achieve the same handling characteristics of the originals with half the power.. what this means is with newer engine technology, i can take a large car engine and achieve the power i need to equal the performance of the originals, while being much easier to work on and maintain.. cheaper too.. but there is one major problem in doing this.. and that is going from (using the BF-109 as a reference for arguement) the massive mercedes V-12 engine (a 1,600lb engine) to that of a mercedes V12 (just to atleast have the same brand and number of cylinders.. of course, a lot of work would need to be done to this engine to make it suitable)..

youre losing more than 1,000lbs in the front end added to the weight already lost by removing the guns, its likely to make the end product not fly right at all, so either weights would have to be added to the front, or the aircraft would have to be scaled down.. and id rather not scale it down if i dont have to

so i notice a lot of museums and aviation resources actually have full sets of blueprints to these aircraft whether original, or backwards engineered.. of the top of your heads, which aircraft designs would i be able to aquire original, and which aircraft designs would i be able to aquire backwards engineered blueprints for, and where could i get them?.. if i know i can get full schematics for all the parts to the aircraft, i will choose the aircraft i build from that list and begin the long hard work of studying those parts as i begin improving my machine shop for the capability of fabricating them

Jack Roethlisberger, who previously restored Prize winning Stearman, is building a full scale Spitfire for himself. He has over the years probably restored 10 or more Stearman.

_________________
Tyler Pinkerton
Active Member of Air Heritage Inc. of Beaver Falls, PA.
Aircraft: C47B, C-123K, Fairchild F-24, Funk Model B, L-21B, T-28B, T-34B
Static: F-4C Phantom II, F-15A, T-3 Provost

i just couldnt fly an original even if i had the finances to find and restore one.. i just dont think i could put it through any risk of damage by taking it off the ground.. its like those people who buy a ferrari, and then leave it in the garage because theyre too afraid to scratch it

A friend is building a full scale Sopwith Pup...with an original Le Rhone engine. All original-type materials too, no carbon fiber or flat screen avionics.

Awhile back, I posted a link to a Texas outfit that build scale Spitfire kits...and the snobs at the FlyPast forum banished it to their never visited general aviation forum.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

I'd like to see any details / pictures of this project as it progresses. A thread worthy project for sure!

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

My own 2-cents, which is worth what you're paying for, is that it's better to fly a real warbird that you can afford, even if it's a training or liason aircraft, than attempt a scale replica of a fighter.

It's better to do the real thing, even if it is a slightly smaller real thing.

Hey, you can do what you want with your money and time, but I honestly respect someone who flies a T-6/Harvard, or a PT-19, or a Stearman or an L-Bird. I know what a commitment it is to make that happen, and I welcome that person into the community.

You'll find that doors open for you at airshows and other events if you have a real yellow-bird or L-bird probably more than if you have a scaled fighter, which is always viewed as an oddity.

Dave