Back - with a Boxkite!

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:28 am

G'Day folks,
I've been away from WIX (and most other forii) for a while, for reasons various. But now I'm back, for better or worse*!

My first two return posts will be a very early (pre-)warbird and the next... Well, wait and see.

As some here will know, one of the main things I've been concentrating on recently is supporting the completion of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Museum's Bristol Military Biplane (Boxkite to most!) by Project 2014 for the Museum. The replica has taken a huge amount of work by various generous and remarkable people, led by the redoubtable Group Captain Ron Gretton AM, RAAF (Retired) and Wing Commander Geoff Matthews RAAF (Retired) project manager and designer respectively.

Exciting times lie ahead; the replica was built to fly on the 1 March 2014 at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria, Australia on the 100th anniversary of the first flight of an Australian military aircraft, at Point Cook. The RAAF also noticed this anniversary, so they're going to be the annual main RAAF Airshow at RAAF Point Cook - the Centenary of Military Aviation (in Australia) or 'CMA14' on the 1 & 2 March 2014. It's going to be a big show for Australasia, with, promised, a full array of the current RAAF grey pointy things(TM) and a magnificent array of vintage machinery, much of it in action.

This is an RAAF Hornet overflying the Boxkite replica at Point Cook in December. The Boxkite is being restrained from attacking the usurper.

For the first time since about 1917, there will be (replica) examples of all three of Australia's first military aircraft on show; the Boxkite, a Deperdussin and a B.E.2a. The originals equipped the military (Army) Central Flying School, or CFS.

The BE and Dep are static exact replicas built by remarkably dedicated chaps, while the Boxkite is a flyer, and, fingers crossed, weather dependent etc, etc, we hope it will be flown on the day. The BE will be 'all newly' completed, and having watched the progress on it, I think it's a stunner. The Dep has been on show for some time, and it is, too, magnificent - but I also admit a bias.

I'll be at the show, and be delighted to meet up with anyone who finds themselves in this Victoria for the weekend.

Anyway, that's the bones of the saga, there's more news and interesting items to share, which I will put in the Vintage forum, more appropriate than here, but till they get posted, I'm more than happy to answer what questions I can, here or there.

Regards,

*The bucket o' words is back...

Ken · **Posted:** Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:44 am

Glad to see you back!

Ken

RickH · **Posted:** Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:12 am

Welcome back. I hope ya'll aren't getting a Hornet pilot to fly the Box Kite for you ! :drink3:

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3331

Sorry, James who?

StangStung · **Posted:** Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:48 pm

Welcome back James, so good to see you posting again!

DH82EH · **Posted:** Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:24 pm

Welcome back James.

Hope all's well.

Enjoy the anniversary show and please post us some pics.

Andy Scott

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:47 pm

Great to have you back, James! :drink3:

SN

Dan K · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:15 am

Welcome home, James. :drink3:

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:21 am

Thanks for the greetings and welcome. It's good to be back.

RickH wrote:

Welcome back. I hope ya'll aren't getting a Hornet pilot to fly the Box Kite for you ! :drink3:

Heh. The two pilots who have flown the Boxkite are both qualified test pilots, RAAF pilots, from our ARDU (Aircraft Research & Development Unit) and Air Vice-Marshal Mark Skidmore, AM, RAAF (Retired), mentioned in the press release that he now has the air forces' fastest and slowest aircraft in his log book. I think the other one was something known to its friends as a 'Pig', or an F-111 more politely. I don't know, but I think both pilots - the other is Squadron Leader Steve Bekker - have F/A-18 time, among many other types.

Regards,

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 am

DH82EH wrote:

Enjoy the anniversary show and please post us some pics.

Well, here's one to be getting on with! One thing we now know is that the Boxkite Replica flies - this is a shot from one of the two circuits undertaken on 23 January 2014.

Until these flights, and the pictures we're able to view, no-one has seen a full-span 'military' Boxkite in action for over 90 years. (Of course all credit to Shuttleworth who have been flying their 'standard' Boxkite replica for about a half-century, far, far more activity than any other Boxkite ever got near achieving.)

Fingers are very much crossed that weather will allow us to see the Boxkite in action at the Centenary of Military Aviation airshow on 1 & 2 March 2014; after all that's a great part of what Project 2014 built the Boxkite for the RAAF Museum for.

And I hope to be able to share a bit more Boxkite 'news' in the next couple of days...

Regards,

Dave Hadfield · **Joined:** Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm **Posts:** 1672

Welcome back, James!

Re the Boxkite, is that a Rotec in it?

Dave

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:56 pm

Thanks Dave! Yes it is. So here's a bit about Boxkite engines. Most original Boxkites were equipped with a seven-cylinder 8 litre 50 hp Gnome rotary. This is a pic of the Australian Army's CFS-3, with Richard 'Dickie' Williams holding the prop and modelling the flying helmet. (The image is from the RAAF Museum Archive.) The first thing to note is that the aircraft isn't complete, the upper wing extension isn't fitted, and the inner balancer (aileron) is also missing.

The second thing to note is that the front of the aircraft is to the left, and thus the rotary is hanging off the BACK of the propeller - even more removed from the airframe than your standard tractor-type rotary. We've not found a reliable reference as to why it has this configuration, but an obvious possibility is that the slipstream is desired / required to cool the engine; something there would be far less of if the prop were aft of the metal. Anyone know better?

Another item to note here is the very Victorian style (though Edwardian era) metalwork of the engine mount; an artwork in its own right.

The Project 2014 team chose to use a Rotec seven-cylinder 110 hp 2.8 litre radial in the RAAF Museum's Boxkite replica, and this is also - necessarily - more conventionally arranged. It's seen here test running before the initial hops, and shows well the arrangement of the unit.

While an original style rotary would be nice to have (and thanks to recent pioneering work in New Zealand becoming more likely in the future) supporting the local Victorian company with their essentially ideal engine was the chosen path. (It's ideal because it's more friendly to maintenance and use, less costly than unobtanium rotaries, and more alike to other engine types used by today's pilots - real rotaries are sadly rare in Australia. Also, back when the project was started, neither of the NZ companies had got near running their 'new' rotaries.) With this set up, a decent sized (beautiful, wooden) prop, more like the period large, slow prop was also possible.

Shuttleworth's Boxkite has always had 'flat' engines, currently a Rolls Royce Continental of 100 hp. The apparent excess power of the replicas does not translate into whizz, but is a function of the different nature of engines and use then and now - but that's another story...

Regards,

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:06 am

Messing around with old aeroplanes at dawn can have an upside. These kind of images may not be editors or rivetees favourites, but I like them. The RAAF Museum's Boxkite replica in Jan 2014. Taxi tests.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:29 am

JDK wrote:

Thanks Dave! Yes it is. So here's a bit about Boxkite engines. Most original Boxkites were equipped with a seven-cylinder 8 litre 50 hp Gnome rotary. This is a pic of the Australian Army's CFS-3, with Richard 'Dickie' Williams holding the prop and modelling the flying helmet. (The image is from the RAAF Museum Archive.) The first thing to note is that the aircraft isn't complete, the upper wing extension isn't fitted, and the inner balancer (aileron) is also missing.

The second thing to note is that the front of the aircraft is to the left, and thus the rotary is hanging off the BACK of the propeller - even more removed from the airframe than your standard tractor-type rotary. We've not found a reliable reference as to why it has this configuration, but an obvious possibility is that the slipstream is desired / required to cool the engine; something there would be far less of if the prop were aft of the metal. Anyone know better?

Another item to note here is the very Victorian style (though Edwardian era) metalwork of the engine mount; an artwork in its own right.

The Project 2014 team chose to use a Rotec seven-cylinder 110 hp 2.8 litre radial in the RAAF Museum's Boxkite replica, and this is also - necessarily - more conventionally arranged. It's seen here test running before the initial hops, and shows well the arrangement of the unit.

While an original style rotary would be nice to have (and thanks to recent pioneering work in New Zealand becoming more likely in the future) supporting the local Victorian company with their essentially ideal engine was the chosen path. (It's ideal because it's more friendly to maintenance and use, less costly than unobtanium rotaries, and more alike to other engine types used by today's pilots - real rotaries are sadly rare in Australia. Also, back when the project was started, neither of the NZ companies had got near running their 'new' rotaries.) With this set up, a decent sized (beautiful, wooden) prop, more like the period large, slow prop was also possible.

Shuttleworth's Boxkite has always had 'flat' engines, currently a Rolls Royce Continental of 100 hp. The apparent excess power of the replicas does not translate into whizz, but is a function of the different nature of engines and use then and now - but that's another story...

Regards,

Engine moved aft to correct a weight and balance (nose heavy) issue?

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:59 pm

The Inspector wrote:

Engine moved aft to correct a weight and balance (nose heavy) issue?

That's an interesting idea! Pretty sure not. The couple of Boxkites with fixed inlines had the engine further forward. And it would be equivalent today of someone putting the engine of a hombuild tractor type forward of the prop to fix a weight & balance issue - a solution people will leave you in an expanding circle of solitude for. They were original back then, but not that original.

Regards,

Warbird Information Exchange

Back - with a Boxkite!

Who is online