Warbird Information Exchange

I can see and get that, but kind of wish that wasn't the case. I think these guys who fly replicas should be considered big time enthusiasts of WWII aircraft. Everybody wants a fighter. A PT-17 isn't a fighter. Of course I wouldn't mind either way, but everybody wants something with some "teeth". Even if it's a scaled down version.

Replicas are the most potent and popular when:

A. They are full size and look just like an original from the outside

B. They're an extinct aircraft, like the Stuka that visits CF's Stow facility for the battle reenactment.

_________________
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?

With rare exceptions, the downscaled warbird replicas don't strike me as a good deal. They don't really look, sound or perform much like the originals and are viewed by the community as just one step above painting stars and bars on your RV-6. And the RV would be a better plane.

Whereas with a PT or L bird you get genuine history, a sound time-proven design, and the respect mentioned by Dave.

August

The field of fighter replicas is full of half finished aircraft often abandoned by the designer of the kit. I've been around several of the successful replica fighters, and have also been involved with full size warbirds starting in the 1980's.
I also owned and flew a very early homebuilt Pitts S-1C (I did not build it).
I followed a blog by a fellow building a 3/4 Spitfire with a modified Chevy engine in it. He had successfully built and flown a similar plane with a smaller engine. One day there were no posts. He died on the first test flight.
Another aircraft (Thunder Wings fiberglass Spitfire) was damaged on the first attempt at a test flight, and the Norwegian Aviation Authority refused to allow any further attempts.
We have quite a bit of homebuilt activity at my local airport, we have had two fatalities with first "high speed taxi attempts" in the last four years.

I think the first thing you might consider is research of the various replica aircraft available, how many are flying and what kinds.
Get some flight time (if you haven't already) in a Pitts S-2B with the big engine. This will give some idea of what a high powered 3/4 replica will be like on landing, through the handling of the Pitts in the air will probably be better.
These are links to some replica sites. Some these have yet to have a successful flight, some of have quite a number of aircraft flying.
Good luck!

http://www.spitfire47.com/

http://www.spitfireaircraftco.com/home.html

http://www.thundermustang.com/

http://www.jurcaplanswest.com/

http://www.waraircraftreplicas.com/

well those other planes mentioned really dont do it for me though, and looking to the size of some of the cockpits on these fighters its hard to understand how someone could even fit in a 3/4 scale plane.. so im probably going to build full scale, and figure out something for the power plant

question is.. how historically accurate should i shoot for?.. spec for spec, spart for spar id like to make it identicle to an original, but probably using higher quality alloys instead, and probably CNC machine a lot of the parts vs castings and stampings the would have been found on the originals but other than that id love to find a set of complete blueprints and go from there

the plane id like most is the one ive always admired most, the BF-109, preferably an F or G model.. so i should try to see what sort of information i can find on the original design of these aircraft, and it really doesnt matter what others think of it, being original or not, im not after their approval but my own enjoyment and i really think im willing to put fourth the level of work it would take to construct the real deal true to the blueprints if im able to find them.. heck, if i had the facilities to do so id even fab the engine too, but that would be a hell of a task in its own right as these engines were just so incredibly massive

settling for anything else to me would be like saving up for years for a new corvette, and once youve finally raised enough to get it, and you still want one, you buy a pinto instead.. sort of defeats the purpose, ya know?

Might be cheaper for you to think about purchasing this one. It's not an F or G but it's one class act 109. If it's still for sale which I believe it still is. By the time you put your master plan into full swing it may still be cheaper to buy this one. But if your set on building a full scale replica or 3/4 scale or whatever scale, choosing a 109 will be quite the task. Not to mention quite the chore to learn how to fly one at any scale. Best of luck whatever direction you choose. Good to see fresh thoughts from the younger enthusiasts. I'm assuming that's your birth date? 2-28-85?

http://www.platinumfighters.com/#!bf-109e/c7r0

_________________
“With bottomless pockets...anything is possible”

Is it one of these?

http://www.spitfireaircraftco.com/home.html

Not sure, it very well could be but I honestly can't remember who he said made the kit. Will ask him the next time I see him at the airport and maybe even be able to get some pics. He just recently brough the project to the airport from his house.

_________________
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

Could not agree more with that entire statement?

100% scale Spitfire replica with Allison engine:

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/ph ... 6901L.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurca_Spit

Only 100% scale replica flying that I am aware of (that isn't a recreation built to mostly original stock standards). Has a wooden wing and a sheet aluminum covered steel tube fuselage.


This one under construction for many years:

http://www.spitfireaircraftco.com/about.html



I knew a guy at Chino who built a really nice 3/4 scale Jurca P-40 with a Chevy V-8 engine. He took one flight and had to land immediately due to engine overheating. That with the big radiator right up front. After many years of fighting to get the engine to run properly, he sold the aircraft. It later caught fire during a ground run and was a total loss.

so the spitfire built used an engine smaller than what the kit was designed for? i believe ive already stated the problem with doing that?.. but honestly these planes were really not that big to begin with.. im kind of curious how some people are able to scale them down at all and still fit in the cockpit?.. wouldnt it be rather interesting, if you had the equipment to do so, build a 3/4 scale engine to go with that 3/4 scale plane?.. but anyway, what were some of the smaller fighter planes around during WWII?.. i dont know of many smaller than the ones ive already mentioned.. so my plan now is to try to find a source for blueprints to build 1:1 scale and figuring something out for the engine.. i seriously doubt finding a DB605 is even possible so, id have to find something else

Why doesn't someone build a full scale replica of one of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XP-77

The originals were made out of wood. Keep the construction weight light (sans armament, etc.)
and one could probably use a PT-19 / PT-26 200hp Ranger engine instead of the original 500hp
V-12 V-770 engine and still get decent performance.

Or, just buy this:

http://courtesyaircraft.com/Current%20Inventory/N64NA%20North%20American%20P-64.htm

The P-64 is probably the overall cheapest, most realistic / authentic replica out there, and
some of them are already built / ready to fly! (plus you'd get to build T-6 time, which is the
obligatory stepping stone to flying any of the fighters...).

Bela P. Havasreti

i think that XP-77 is a very interesting concept.. i mean, if i didnt specifically want a WWII fighter plane id be inclined to design my own using some more advanced, or just some less than common material choices and configurations.. would be something to experiment with.. but i just REALLY want a BF-109.. always been my favorite plane of WWII

Justin: Peter Garner has put his 100% replica He-51 project up for sale. No clue as to an asking price. It's pretty far along from the last info that I saw.

Aas to an XP-77.... this might give you a little insight on taking on a build. http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.o ... hp?p=13768

nah, buying something isnt suitable.. i want to build something myself, building things is my biggest enjoyment

well, i fully understand the complexity of the BF-109 and the enormous power requirements for a full size model.. i also wouldnt feel right constructing one of these if it wasnt true to the originals.. but, i think i need a stepping stone.. i dont think i should try to build up to the full power, full size BF-109 right away..

so right now im thinking the He-51 would be a better start.. simpler wing design, lower power requirements, easier construction, fixed landing gear, with the added benefit of what im assuming has a much, much shorter takeoff run and probably shorter landings as well which means more places it could be landed

but id like to discuss some of the russian designs in a more technical detail.. many of the russian planes look alike, be it a mig, yak, or lagg, and its to my understanding that many of the components on the russian planes were interchangable, wings, fuselage, engines.. did the russians adopt a more modular approach to their aircraft?