Warbird Information Exchange

Is that a new verb? It certainly describes my last 2 summers.

I got this sponsorship: "Just take the Lysander, put our name on it, and explain what we do at every airshow and fly-in you can possibly get to." It has been a marvelous opportunity, and a complete privilege.

So I stole the aeroplane from Vintage Wings of Canada, in Ottawa, moved it to SW Ontario where most of the air events take place, stashed it in a local hangar, and flogged it all season -- 2015 and '16.


A bit of video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vjQ5WcVmwk



Dave

Sounds like a dream to me - I have seen a few Lysanders; only one flyable (at OSH, but it remained on the ground the whole week).

Birdwatchers have a "life list". where simply seeing one they haven't seen before counts. My Warbird life list is planes I have photographed in the air. The list of pre-1950's planes I have ground shots of, but nothing inflight is short:

Lysander
P/F-82
Martin B-26
Martin Mauler
ME-262
FW-190

Please twist arms to bring it to OSH '17 and help me check one off!

_________________
Chris

Chris,

The sponsor, The Lysander Fund, wanted to bring it to Oshkosh this year, but had an unfortunate scheduling contact. So, the plan is next year, yes.

I was asked to describe flying it on another forum, and made a number of remarks about its restoration and flight operation. You might find it interesting...

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread. ... ysandering

Thanks! I heard much the same discussion from the gentleman that flew the CWH black & yellow model into OSH (Rickards, IIRC).

I have always admired the lines of the Lizzie - it should be ugly like a Blackburn Skua or Roc (my opinions only), but somehow they pulled it off.

_________________
Chris

I'm surprised few, if any, found post war use, you'd think with their short field capability that they'd found favor in Canada as Bush planes. Remember, in the days before the Beaver, guys (those that couldn't afford a Norseman) were making a living flying small Cub-type a.c. (one well-known Alaska pilot started out with a surplus L-2). You'd THINK a cheap surplus Lysander would have been a step-up in capability.

My guess is the UK engine wasn't supportable in North America...and apparently the rest of the world as well...considering their rarity.

_________________
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.

Leading to the question, why not just re-eninge them with a P&W R-1830 or something similar in weight / power?

_________________
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?

"Leading to the question, why not just re-eninge them with a P&W R-1830 or something similar in weight / power?"

Heretic!
Next you'll suggest putting an R-2800 in a Sea Fury! Oh, wait...

_________________
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

Even back then, and even for a bush plane, the CAA (American and Canadian) paperwork and test requirements were likely byond the capabilities of most small operators.

Really, I 've wondered about this for years, any Canadian experts here to comment/ guess?

_________________
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 wouldn't think a US-engine Lizzie could be certified for commercial ops.

Plus, you can't put floats on one, which is a real drawback for a bush plane in Canada.

August

Other than it hasn't been done, is there a particular reason it couldn't go on floats?

Glad to see it flying,

Mr Hadfield, I did some flying with your son on the EMJ a while back he's a good kid.

Mark

I think the reason why it wasn't adapted for commercial use is that the rear cockpit/cabin is so small. There isn't much room for cargo or people. And there is no side door. You have to clamber up and over to get in. Plus the steel tubing of the fuselage would make installing a door very difficult.

An older Fairchild 2C or Bellanca was commercially more efficient. Or a cabin Waco.

Also, there are no fittings for floats or skis, but it's more than that --the big arch that forms the gear legs is integral to the forward structure. There is no simple way to remove it. So getting the aeroplane on or off floats would be a big deal.

The engine... not really a problem. There were lots available in the post-war world. But re-engine-ing with a Wright 1820 of about 1000 hp would also be quite practical I would think, and not weigh much more.

No, the big kicker was making it pay. And if there was no clear way to make it pay, then it wouldn't happen.

Mark, that's cool!

I did a flight with him too, last April, on the 777, to HKG and back. He's an RP now. Good fun!

Dave