Canadian Warplane Heritage Lysander flies!! (NOW WITH VIDEO)

[JDK]

I do see that it's a beautiful aircraft.

The air observers in the UK were taught "there are other aircraft and there are Lysanders..." The lozenge shaped wing and overall layout's pretty unique.

Dwight (not Don) Brooks died of cancer quite a few years ago.

Ah, Jack, I trusted you, and not my memory! Sorry to hear that. It's a pity in a way that his aircraft was retired from flight, but at least it's on show in the Smithsonian to show there really is a different way of doing everything.

[Jack Cook]

The Registry says it's in Portugal ad the photos is of a ugly yellow project a/c.
But we all know it's in DC.

[m charters]

To see it up close or in the air , you have to admit it catches ones eye! Having worked on it, it is really easy to like it! Come up and see it some time!

[m charters]

I seam to remember seeing that the Lysander over in Portugal went over with a registration on the side that of Brooks airplane, but everyone in the article in Flypast new it wasn't. Not sure how that came to be. I think that came from Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum in Brandon Manitoba.

[JDK]

I think that came from Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum in Brandon Manitoba.

Correct. It was then rejected by the Portuguese and is now with the French in the Musee de l'air (it had gone via Germany, IIRC). Pass-the-parcel.

Brooke's example, registered N7791 is given as C/No 1185 • Mk. IIIa RCAF 2346.

The Brandon machine was painted with the RAF/RCAF serial 'N7791', and is given as C/No.1217 • Mk. IIIa RCAF 2375.

However Lysander identities, like Lysander parts are notoriously 'mixable'. Refs the Warbird Directory, 2008.
http://www.warbirdsdirectory.goodall.co ... ntents.htm

[m charters]

Yes the data info on Lysanders can be a little fuzzy at times. If you look on Wikepedia they have CWH Lysander as 2361 but it is RCAF 2363 build sn# 1202 built in 1942. It retired in the fall of 1946 and we believe it did not fly after that, possibly 1947, but no info is available for sure.
Looks pretty good for an old girl that hasn't flown in 63 years!

[warbird1]

Do you guys/gals at the CWH have a spare engine in case this one craps out? What about spare cylinders? Just curious how hard it would be to replace/fix that engine in the event of an engine failure?

BTW, I love the look of the Lizzie, even with it's target tug scheme. It is so unique and eye-catching and that makes it even more attractive in my book. Every time I see the Lysander, I am always reminded of the O-52 Owl. Those 2 planes together are unsung heroes which always hold a high place of esteem in my mind.

[rcaf_100]

As airnutz said, it's a standard Target Tug scheme, which was devised in the late 1930s in Britain and used by the Commonwealth countries (certainly the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and Rhodesia) through the war and later in some cases. Despite the fact that many aircraft survived into civilian hands precisely because they were used as target tugs, it was a forgotten scheme until relatively recently in preservation - not aggressive enough for some.

The fact that the majority of fighter and gunnery crews found it hard to hit a barn door in combat is indicative that we should have had more TT and gunnery training, and today we should acknowledge a difficult and dangerous role - one that the Canadian Lysanders played a big part with.

They would tow a sleeve or banner target for either fixed gunnery from fighters or flexible or turret mounted guns as appropriate.

As far as I'm aware this is the ONLY airworthy aircraft in such a TT scheme anywhere in the world. The RAAF Museum has FB.30 Vampire in TT colours, the RAF Museums Hawker Tempest is in these colours and the Imperial War Museum's Mosquito is also painted in this scheme. All these have been painted/repainted in the last decade. (Sometimes the black-yellow stripes were only on part or the underside of the aircraft.)

The colours served two purposes - one to distinguish the tug from the target(!) and secondly that the aircraft was towing a(n effectively invisible) cable which could be lethal to a passing aircraft, tempted to 'bounce' a plodding machine...

The second reason is why training gliders and their tugs often had green-brown disruptive camouflage above and the stripes on the underside.

Another aspect of the diversity of W.W.II aviation highlighted. Well done, CWH.

Regards,

(Author of the Westland Lysander, published by MMP Books: http://mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=84 )

From what I hear the powers to be at CWH want to repaint it into the more familiar night intruder scheme...

The guys who did the restoration painted it in this scheme 'because that's the way it was during the war...'

I for one love the target tug scheme. Maybe they should use it to tow banners around for advertisement...

And for it being the only Lysander in TT colours, isn't VWoC's Lizzie in the bumblebee scheme as well?

It was when I last saw it, but please correct me if it's not now.

[Firebird]

What displacement is the engine in the Lysander

Just under 25 litres IIRC

Oh, geeze...I thought 25 litres was 80 feet!

How about 1520 cubic inches then.......

[warbird1]

What displacement is the engine in the Lysander

Just under 25 litres IIRC

Oh, geeze...I thought 25 litres was 80 feet!

How about 1520 cubic inches then.......

So, it's roughly equivalent to a 1340 then - a T-6 engine. I wonder how hard it would be to re-engineer the Lizzie to accept a 1340? How do the dimensions compare to the original?

[JDK]

From what I hear the powers to be at CWH want to repaint it into the more familiar night intruder scheme...

That may be so, at least it isn't now. It's not a 'night intruder scheme' but the colours of the Special Duties or SD Lysanders of 161 and 138 Squadrons in Europe and a few in the Far East and Med. The development of this scheme is often misunderstood - while I'm no camouflage expert, I can help with accurate data.

The guys who did the restoration painted it in this scheme 'because that's the way it was during the war...'

I for one love the target tug scheme. Maybe they should use it to tow banners around for advertisement...

Now that's a neat idea: "Visit the CWH!"

And for it being the only Lysander in TT colours, isn't VWoC's Lizzie in the bumblebee scheme as well?

It was when I last saw it, but please correct me if it's not now.

It is in these colours, it's not airworthy. I understand another scheme is being chosen with a Canadian connection for when it flies.

So, it's roughly equivalent to a 1340 then - a T-6 engine. I wonder how hard it would be to re-engineer the Lizzie to accept a 1340? How do the dimensions compare to the original?

Argghhhh! Nononononono!..... Why not just fly (yet) another T-6? What's the point in being half-assed about preserving unusual warbirds?

OK, it's an innocent question, and maybe I'm over-reacting* but if you want to fly different aircraft, you deserve support, and going all the way is important, where possible. Rather than wondering if you can turn it from a thoroughbred into a mule, let's give a big handclap to the CWH for actually getting a Mercury working on their unusual machine.[/Rant off.]

*Probably.

The Mercury (link on previous page for data) apparently provides significantly more power than the Wasp. Mercury's the same diameter, weighs more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Mercury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-1340

[warbird1]

So, it's roughly equivalent to a 1340 then - a T-6 engine. I wonder how hard it would be to re-engineer the Lizzie to accept a 1340? How do the dimensions compare to the original?

Argghhhh! Nononononono!..... Why not just fly (yet) another T-6? What's the point in being half-assed about preserving unusual warbirds?

OK, it's an innocent question, and maybe I'm over-reacting* but if you want to fly different aircraft, you deserve support, and going all the way is important, where possible. Rather than wondering if you can turn it from a thoroughbred into a mule, let's give a big handclap to the CWH for actually getting a Mercury working on their unusual machine.[/Rant off.]

*Probably.

Oh, I agree with you, JDK! I'm all about originality and preserving the original engine, believe me! But from what little I know, it seems like the Bristol Mercury engine is exceedingly rare. Eventually, it will reach a point where one of those will have to be virtually scratch built, so I'm just thinking ahead 20 to 30 years in the future, when the then 4 or 5 flyable examples have burnt out the existing Mercury stock.

Would it not be acceptable to see it fly in the air with a different engine than not at all? I don't see many people getting excessively upset about Sea Furies flying with 3350's, Zero's flying with 1830's, or Flug Werk 190's flying with Ash-82's. Sometimes you don't have a choice. I guess that's my only point. If the original is available, then yes it should be used. And, by the way, I am VERY happy that the CWH has decided to keep the original engine in the Lizzie!

[JDK]

Oh, I agree with you, JDK! I'm all about originality and preserving the original engine, believe me! But from what little I know, it seems like the Bristol Mercury engine is exceedingly rare. Eventually, it will reach a point where one of those will have to be virtually scratch built, so I'm just thinking ahead 20 to 30 years in the future, when the then 4 or 5 flyable examples have burnt out the existing Mercury stock.

The working Mercuries are effectively major build projects - the number of airworthy examples dipped to near zero several times in the last 20 years or so. Despite the rarity, it's a growing number (rather like the flying Mustang count as a comparison). However the Shuttleworth Collection have been operating a Mercury (on the Gladiator G-AMRK) for the last 40 years or so. There have been fixes required, but I think that indicates a benchmark. The Mercury, when properly used, and on an underloaded aircraft doing low hours, such as these warbirds, should be good for a long time - decades of flying are possible.

I suspect the balance is then whether it's better to produce consumed parts or develop an engine conversion. As has been discussed, the Mercury in the types touched on, Lysander, Blenheim/Bollingbroke and Gladiator have an exhaust collector ring as part of the cowling forward of the engine. That, as well as the engine, contributes the sound to be heard around Hamilton at the moment. I doubt such an exhaust arrangement would be viable with an American engine, and would, therefore lose an important part of the aircraft's 'character'.

However the CWH have a Bollingbroke. They were all fitted with Mercuries, except for 15 (according to the CWH website) which were fitted with R1535 Wasp Juniors. The CWH, IIRC, and again according to the website, are planning to fit theirs also with Wasp Juniors.

http://www.warplane.com/pages/restorati ... pdate.html

In Australia, the Australian built Bristol Beaufort underway in Queensland will have P&W Twin Wasps, as per Australian production, instead of the (few Australian and) British production sleeve-valve Bristol Taurus.

http://www.beaufortrestoration.com.au/Index.html

In both those cases, they were W.W.II production conversions to use American engines on a British airframe. This means that these aircraft are certified factory designs rather than a modern conversion. The Hawker (Sea) Furies with R3350s can't be licenced to fly in UK ownership as they are not a CAA acceptable design modification - while I'm not an expert on the paperwork, importing such a modified type into the UK would require certification as a major conversion or new 'type', prohibitively expensive if possible. The UK does not have an 'experimental' or similar category to the USA. Australia does, but again, I'm not sure of the factors.

Just some further thoughts - corrections welcome.

[Simcoe Warrior]

I do see that it's a beautiful aircraft. The first a/c I saw in that scheme
were Wes Agnew's on his farm during a trip to Canada a very long time ago.
I though it was sorta ugly then too. but, Mr Agnew was a nice fellow and had some cool stuff!
Dwight (not Don) Brooks died of cancer quite a few years ago.
The fellow here in Salem was Ron Haviland (sp). He flew Battles in France in 1940 and escapes to Ebgalnd after his squadron was decimated.
He died quite a few years ago.
Also the the former leader of the local St Andrews Society here flew Lancs in 617 Squadron 44-45.

For purely selfish reasons I must ask if you took any photos during your visit to Mr. Agnew's farm.

[CWH Museum]

Here is my first attempt at a video. CWH Lysander first flight. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMeXckf7Tbo