Replica home builts

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,087
Location
Thunder Bay
I like the C3 suggestion, that's pretty manageable.
I second that, though the C-3’s wings are weird at best. If you want to go just a little bit more special than an Aeronca there are plenty of other commercially unsuccessful flivver planes of the 1930s. For example, you could have the only complete Cessna EC-2. I think there’s a bare fuselage in a museum so you’d be able to measure that up, not sure how to go about dealing with wings.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,431
Location
Seattle, WA
That N-number comes up as a turboprop Airtractor.
The Deregistered aircraft list comes up with a Lockheed 749A-7, and does not show Experimental or any other particular registration. This aircraft was deregistered in 1974, and the Lockheed 749A was the Constellation......

Ron Wanttaja
 

Tench745

Active Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
31
Location
Syracuse, NY
You could build something sporty and weird like the Chester Goon, or Jeep.
Or relatively unknown, like the Curtiss Fledgling.
(I think we're all assuming you want to build rag-and-tube.)
How about a Caproni Stipa? or DFW T-28 Floh? Weird things.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
7,882
Location
USA.
I second that, though the C-3’s wings are weird at best. If you want to go just a little bit more special than an Aeronca there are plenty of other commercially unsuccessful flivver planes of the 1930s. For example, you could have the only complete Cessna EC-2. I think there’s a bare fuselage in a museum so you’d be able to measure that up, not sure how to go about dealing with wings.
My vote is on this one, IF I get a vote :) I like it with the 0-100 engine.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,085
Location
Orange County, California
That N-number comes up as a turboprop Airtractor.
The Deregistered aircraft list comes up with a Lockheed 749A-7, and does not show Experimental or any other particular registration. This aircraft was deregistered in 1974, and the Lockheed 749A was the Constellation......
Yeah, doctored image. Lots of artifacts around the edges of the added N-number lettering, which wouldn't show if it were actually on the airplane without the rest of the high-contrast edges in the image showing the same thing.
 

AJLiberatore

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
109
Location
Canton MI
My vote is on this one, IF I get a vote :) I like it with the 0-100 engine.
Pops...

Imagine that bird updated for today. Grove Gear, Verner Radial, and use the wing off of the Zodiac 601XL, it is aluminum and already cantilever.

My best.
Anthony
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,574
Location
Memphis, TN
I love replicas. The reality is if you build one, it needs to be exact or build it for you to fly. No museum wants a pretend version; they want something to hang their hat on if they are going to give it floor space. The crowd may love it at fly ins, but if it’s not exact all your work will have zero value. If you build it better be something YOU will want. It’s harsh but I tend to follow replicas and it is the toughest crowd to get any cred. It’s one of the clubs that you can’t buy your way into like the warbirds. 1/2,3/4,7/8 scale planes have their place in homebuilding, but they are only homages not replicas.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
7,882
Location
USA.
Yes, build it as close to the original as possible.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,365
Location
Canada
How about a replica de Havilland Hornet? Very good areas and moments and could easily accept automotive liquid-cooled engines. Keep the wing loading under 20 lbs/ft sq and the power loading near 10 lbs/hp. The prototype had very good single engine handling.
..........................................................

Definitely possible to build a deHavilland Hornet replica.
A group of Frenchmen built a wooden replica of a deHavilland Mosquito. It is powered by pair of Lycoming or Continentals with the cylinder heads concealed inside exhaust shrouds similar to those installed on Mossie night fighters.
Only purists will complain about the slightly larger than scale cockpit canopy.
If I were building a half scale Mosquito replica, I would enlarge the vertical tail to improve single-engine handling at low air speeds.
Which brings up another point: handling. Some of the originals were beasts to fly.
For example, many WW1 airplanes were tail-heavy, so Graham Baslee adjusts balance and control surface areas to make his replicas easier for low-time, modern pilots to fly. Since Baslee maintains similar silhouettes on flying surfaces, only purists notice the subtle differences.
In a second example, the original Focke Wulf 190 had a viscious stall, so I would increase the leading edge radius and a few other tricks to give my FW 190 replica a docile stall more like a modern Cessna.
It also helps to install modern instruments and control handles in a modern configuration. My moving map GPS would quickly fold against the cockpit wall the retain the antique appearance.
 

cvairwerks

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
202
Location
North Texas
The N number is not photoshopped. We had a block of numbers in the 60xx and 60xxx range for those aircraft. It’s interesting that if you look up every one that was on a Block 60 a/c, the history is blank from 1999 thru 2007 and later until they show up under Cessna. Plenty of photos taken at that time. I spent lots of time on those birds before they went overseas.
 
Last edited:

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,085
Location
Orange County, California
Not questioning your experience with "those birds" but you don't really believe that the pic you linked is an untouched photo, do you?

Rob
Not to mention that this particular N-number is currently registered to a cropduster, per Dana's earlier post, and a Lockheed Connie before that, per Ron's.

The image is doctored.
 

cvairwerks

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
202
Location
North Texas
Nope, not doctored at all. Here's a photo of RF-25 with most of the N number blown off in flight
http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album07/album42/3025

How about RE-7....

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album07/album42/aat

Maybe RE-11

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album07/album42/abb

or maybe RF-14

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album07/album42/abc

The N numbers outside the flight test aircraft were applied with nothing more than vinyl tape. They only had to last a couple of flights. They sometimes didn't last an entire flight.
As to the N number database, take a close look at the issue and cancellation dates...you will find a period between 1999 and 2008 for almost every one of them where the number is not active on an aircraft. That's the time period of the program...you will also note, if you chase thru the available photos on the web, that there are a number of them showing the aircraft in UAE markings, but with Arizona National Guard fin flashes and USAF serial numbers. UAE was a one-off production program that had a lot of FAA regs deemed to not apply.

BTW...should you want to amuse yourself, you can go to F-16.net and chase thru all the 00-60xx serial numbers and see the N number every aircraft wore at one time.
 

RJW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
708
Location
Wisconsin and Kansas
Nope, not doctored at all...
Looking at other pics there seems to be similar stuff going on with temporary numbering. The shots you posted seem to be at quite a distance. Maybe the pics were resized or processed to a different format? These things might make the pics look a bit manufactured. The weird way F16 canopies refract light makes the shots look even more artificial.

Sorry about the hasty judgement.

Rob
 
2
Top