Quantcast

Between-the-war aircraft replicas

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Which between-the-war aircraft replica


  • Total voters
    28

Swampyankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
1,432
Location
Earth USA East Coast
Scaled replicas of the P-26, P-36 and F3F would be pleasing.


BJC
They would be, although some very unfortunate pilots in the Philippines got to use P-26s against Zeros, and the P-36 few (quite successfully) against the Luftwaffe in France*

--------------------------------------------------------
* This tends to support my suspicion the main air combat problem of the Armee de L'Air was crappy aircraft and ineffective doctrine, not pilot quality.
 

cdlwingnut

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
499
Location
Iowa
Not exactly between the wars but close enough id would absolutly love to build and have a jn4 jenny replica
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,527
Location
USA.
Back in the early 1970's my foreman and I were talking and the subject went to airplanes. He told me that he flew a Boeing F4B in the 1930's. Next day he showed me an air-to-air picture of him flying the Boeing. I always liked that airplane.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,405
Location
Thunder Bay
Not exactly between the wars but close enough id would absolutly love to build and have a jn4 jenny replica
I'd start on one tomorrow if it wasn't so huge. I'm not a 'trailer it home everyday or no deal' guy but I do think it would be nice to have a plane that at least fits in a T-hangar.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,446
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
With a Jenny the nostalgia exceeds the performance.

Now a P-26 replica with a 360 hp Vedeneyev M14P!

Or a Travel Air Type R Mystery ship, full scale.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,826
Location
Memphis, TN
I bet a Jenny with brakes would make people take notice with Valdez competition. It would take a week to rig it if you trucked it to the competition. It would take two weeks to fly there. If there was some sort of blueprint drawings on a P-26 I would have to bite. All the replicas I know of were big money projects. There is a GeeBee R1 that is really close to flying. All the big chunks are made and there is a OH engine on a stand. He is using the spare cowl from Benjamin and used his tooling for his wheel pants. It's just a plain homebuilt too.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,446
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
My problem with the GeeBee is it's eagerness to snap roll with a yank on the stick. High landing speed is an issue with other planes too, not unique to the GeeBee.

The Grumman "flying barrel" series has spin recovery issues.

Compared to the military craft of the day, the Golden age 1920-30's racers can be faster and safer. Pete, Mr. Mulligan, Mike, Mystery Ship, etc.Would all make great home built planes.

With variable levels of difficulty. Mr. Mulligan is a bigger project than a RV-10.

How anachronistic are you willing to go? Lockheed Vega/Detroit Aircraft. ..... build the concrete mold for plywood? Go with the Detroit aluminum fuselage? Fuĺl composite like a Lion Heart?
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,826
Location
Memphis, TN
I believe a replica is supposed to be a replica. You build these to have a real one, not to be a catch all good sport plane. That is why it is, for most, a crowning achievement plane to build; last hurrah. That GeeBee project took years just to gather the data. Only at a certain point did the others accept him as real and share what they learned. The biplanes are much better to build than the monoplanes. Mulligans are huge; two GeeBees worth of plane. Your not building a Flybaby when you go for one of these. A GeeBee D or E would be the easy projects.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,405
Location
Thunder Bay
I've said it before but I think a slightly scaled down Magni Vale with a five cylinder Verner would be a neat and racy little airplane.

I'm picturing tube and gusset wings and tail on a composite fuselage, aluminum cowl using a motorcycle fender stamping for the nose bowl, and aluminum spring gear under composite fairings. Give away the wing and tail plans as well as the full assembly instructions for free, sell the composite fuselages.
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
The Normandie-Niemen group is a perfect showcase of how of the quality of French pilots was never the issue.
We say bad things about the French. It is unwarranted. Remember that the British were pushed off of the beach at Dunkirk. The French aircraft were excellent, and they also had good planes like the Curtiss, which in the CBI theater were said to be able to turn with Japanese fighters (Hayabusas), meaning that they had excellent maneuverability. The Moranes were more maneuverable, but slower, and racked up a kill score as well. It was a logistics problem, meaning that Generals and more so the politicians, were at fault rather than the French soldier, who has always been superb (Surrender monkeys? Go hump someone else's leg. I don't know if anyone said that here, but I've heard it before). It was a political problem, and we, as well as the Brits are currently experiencing our own political problems, so be careful of calling the kettle black (everyone is black).
 
Last edited:

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,536
Edit: It's funny, I posted something here late last night, and now when I read it I don't know what point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should stop after 10pm.
 
Last edited:

Swampyankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
1,432
Location
Earth USA East Coast
We say bad things about the French. It is unwarranted. Remember that the British were pushed off of the beach at Dunkirk. The French aircraft were excellent, and they also had good planes like the Curtiss, which in the CBI theater were said to be able to turn with Japanese fighters (Hayabusas), meaning that they had excellent maneuverability. The Moranes were more maneuverable, but slower, and racked up a kill score as well. It was a logistics problem, meaning that Generals and more so the politicians, were at fault rather than the French soldier, who has always been superb (Surrender monkeys? Go hump someone else's leg. I don't know if anyone said that here, but I've heard it before). It was a political problem, and we, as well as the Brits are currently experiencing our own political problems, so be careful of calling the kettle black (everyone is black).
I think a lot of the "surrender monkey" rhetoric started or restarted in the 1980s, when the French government refused overflight permission for strikes on Libya.

France lost 25% of is military-age male population in WW1; some portion of these would be middle managers, foreman, mid-level civil servants, and, in the French Army, senior NCOs, senior officers, and generals.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,446
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
That Magni Vale is cute! I'd just English wheel the cowling.
The Fokker D.VIII parasol fighter is my favorite WW1 fighter for multiple reasons. As a concept tthe parasol fighter died out by WW2. But some lovely machines were made in the 1930's.

The French? Great planes. Great soldiers. Generals? A bit political for my taste. I note Napoleon had a habit of giving command to sergeants as he trusted the troop's competence more than his officer's. So the historical problems go back to the Revolution.

The airplanes though! France jumped ahead of everyone shortly after the Wright brothers proved heavier than air craft could be controllable. No insult to Russian and other designers. America didn't catch up till after WW1.

It's amazing how good the French planes were at the beginning of WW2. If the war had started in 1944, as many planned, on both sides, things would have been different. When half your inventory of new, superior fighters was in hangers because they were waiting on propellers and other logistical/planning mistakes? ???

& the Curtis P-36 was state of the art for it's day and did well. Even against it's Grumman F4F cousin.

I really would enjoy an alternative history novel with war in the 1930's. U.S. Navy flying aircraft carriers. Etc.

Unsinkable ice aircraft carriers battling U-boats in the North Atlantic. What might have been.
 

Swampyankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
1,432
Location
Earth USA East Coast
That Magni Vale is cute! I'd just English wheel the cowling.
The Fokker D.VIII parasol fighter is my favorite WW1 fighter for multiple reasons. As a concept tthe parasol fighter died out by WW2. But some lovely machines were made in the 1930's.

The French? Great planes. Great soldiers. Generals? A bit political for my taste. I note Napoleon had a habit of giving command to sergeants as he trusted the troop's competence more than his officer's. So the historical problems go back to the Revolution.

The airplanes though! France jumped ahead of everyone shortly after the Wright brothers proved heavier than air craft could be controllable. No insult to Russian and other designers. America didn't catch up till after WW1.

It's amazing how good the French planes were at the beginning of WW2. If the war had started in 1944, as many planned, on both sides, things would have been different. When half your inventory of new, superior fighters was in hangers because they were waiting on propellers and other logistical/planning mistakes? ???

& the Curtis P-36 was state of the art for it's day and did well. Even against it's Grumman F4F cousin.

I really would enjoy an alternative history novel with war in the 1930's. U.S. Navy flying aircraft carriers. Etc.

Unsinkable ice aircraft carriers battling U-boats in the North Atlantic. What might have been.
Britain backing France up when the Germans started to openly violate their treaty commitments, e.g., with restarted U-boat construction, remilitarizing the Saar, etc. would have been nice.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,828
Location
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA
The scenario in which the Japanese military and political leadership actually listened to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and other senior Japanese admirals who opposed the Tripartite Act of alliance with Nazi German and Fascist Italy and warned against war with the United States might have resulted in a very different world today. Would the U.S. have entered the war without the attack on Pearl Harbor to galvanize public opinion? We'll never know, thank goodness, but the prospect is very scary.

Getting back to airplanes, I have always like the lines of the Fiat CR series biplanes especially the final CR.42. I would not want a replica of a Fascist Italian military aircraft, but they were also used by Sweden and, as you can see, Belgium.

R01 line ED Coll.jpg
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,446
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
One alternative history novel has Hitler in a plane crash on Dec. 6 1941. While he was hospitalized, Goebbels and etc. declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. "We'll settle with these Europeans and then join you, this treachery will not go unavenged" The U.S. doesn't go to war with Germany, concentrating on the Pacific, & conquers Japan with a very costly invasion. The Atom bomb is delayed without the pressure that Germany would develop one against us. England has it's back to the wall & was invaded, holding the line on the Salisbury plain.

1945. Newton Gingrich. Ends on a cliffhanger and I haven't seen the sequel.

The Fiat was used in WW2 and did well. For it's limitations. Several Italian planes were groundbreaking in the interwar years.
 
Top