Easy to build and easy to fly

[Cvairwerks]

The P-66 was originally one of four designs that were to share major componets. The BT-13 and 15 ended up as production versions of two of the designs. The Model 48 as orignallly designed, shared a considerable number of components. After flight testing began with the radial engine on the second prototype, it was determined that there were significant handling problems. It took a redesign of the center section and most of the tail to rectify the problems. By the time it went into production as the P-66, the number of common pieces had been significantly reduced.

As for stress levels, all four designs had common major assemblies, so while the intended use of each were different, the designed stress loadings for the fighter version were carried down to the other designs.

As to building a -66, it would be a heck of a lot easier to fabricate the entire a/c from scratch over modifying a BT. By the time you shorten outer panels, change the center section dihedral and fold the gear, change the tail surfaces and convert over to retractable tailwheel, you would have expended more energy and time than starting from raw materials.

I've had a set of unrestricted prints stashed for a lot of years and at one time had compiled a list of current extrusion numbers that were the same as the wartime ones. Unfortunately, I can't find the data anymore, so I've slowly been working on compiling it again.

[jet1]

Simple to build and cheap to maintain? Grasshopper, hands-down. Tube and fabric structure, four-banger engine.

no one would pay the 2 million or so per plane it would cost you to build one once you factor in the costs of DEFENDING yourself against ambulance chasers....

I didn't (and don't) think Legend Cubs cost that much...



Ryan

they haven't been sued......yet

[skydaddy61]

Skydaddy61 wrote:

Simpler: Put a 30-cal in the cowling of a T-6, paint a kangaroo on the side, and call it a Wirraway.

About the only things directly interchangeable with the Wirraway and the T6 is the wheels and brakes, brake master cylinder and a few minor fittings. I think I should know...

I din't say it would BE a Wirraway.

I said you could CALL it a Wirraway....

nudge nudge

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

It would be kind of neat to pick a fighter or bomber type and disperse the manufacturing of detail parts/hydroform blocks to Wix members and other warbird enthusiasts through some sort of collective. Something like a Betty, but only if the detail drawings still exist.

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

How does one go about getting the manufacturer technical drawings microfilm to make a replica warbird without having to sign that liability waver from NASM? Would be nice for the community to know alternative options for it.

What exactly does the liability waiver say? I know of one restoration using Smithsonian blueprints...

[Wheels up]

Fiat cr42 Falco....



Handsome, built in quantity, active fighter, flexible construction, could be powered with either P&W or Wright common engines and props, construction materials would allow flexibility in alternate selections, well faired so landing gear components can be adapted from other available parts, extremely maneuverable to fly, good ease of handling, strut braced so exotic bracing wires avoided, used by several countries so several liveries available, several survivors for documentation....

Dang...I think I'll start tomorrow!

[Glyn]

[quote="Wheels up"]Fiat cr42 Falco....



A good choice but I was told that the earlier CR32 was even nicer to fly.

[Wheels up]

A good choice but I was told that the earlier CR32 was even nicer to fly.

Could be, but the selection of an inline engine narrows the available choice of powerplant and complicated installation/construction jeprodizing the original purpose of this fantasy.

[BHawthorne]

How does one go about getting the manufacturer technical drawings microfilm to make a replica warbird without having to sign that liability waver from NASM? Would be nice for the community to know alternative options for it.

What exactly does the liability waiver say? I know of one restoration using Smithsonian blueprints...

Gotta sign one of these before they will process your order:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/WebPDF/indem.pdf

You can get a ton of information from their microfilm archives, but the issue is you're legally limited in how you use it. It's their canned legaleese to prevent from being sued when aircraft fall out of the sky. I've got a full set of F-84F/RF-84F technical drawing microfilm being reproduced. For about $1000-1500 you can buy the whole set of microfilm reproduction on an aircraft and technically have enough information to do a 100% replica if you have enough time to burn. NASM will give you access to the plans, then you just need a bottomless pit of time and money after that...lol.

[shoki]

site is in japanese. Probably can use Google translate on that page to read it.[/quote]
if there is any thing you want translated let me know.
Steve, thank you for the link.

Last edited by shoki on Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

I would think the ME-163 would be a good candidate. Simple, small enough to fit in the garage, and the motor wouldn't be too hard to build.

[shoki]

I would think the ME-163 would be a good candidate. Simple, small enough to fit in the garage, and the motor wouldn't be too hard to build.

Didn't someone in Germany build one with a newer rocket motor in the last few years?

[Steve Nelson]

I know there's an Me-163 replica flying in Germany, but I think it's a pure glider. I always thought it'd be cool to build one with a jet engine like the one used in the BD-5J.

SN

[Baldeagle]

Wood wing, steel tube fuselage, but R-1535 engine I think, hard to find....

The Fiat G.50 does sound like a good candidate-




-

[Second Air Force]

I'd think a Macchi C.200 would be an interesting choice also. They aren't too complex and an 1830 could possibly be made to work.

Scott