And as "fun" to fly as the original, no doubt. I break a sweat just thinking about it. A lot of older airplanes flew in ways we'd very much consider "marginal" today. Caution is warranted in picking a really older design, especially for a novice pilot.A Blériot XI would be very cool.
If you’re interested in building two fuselages I’d be interested in doing two sets of wings (or whatever ratio of bits is fair). I don’t know if I could keep up with your pace but I adore early Monocoupes and I do have the chops to do aircraft wood.
Is no sweat...At the time those were shot, (2003-2004), it was early in the digital world and I suspect they are actually scans of negatives and have been resized a time or two. The location they were shot from is public property and is at least 1000 feet from the side of the runway and close to 1500 feet from the taxiway. Couple it all with using some pretty long lenses and that the paint used distorts reflections and you can get some weird things happening.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.
cavelamb on his Vwee Monocoupe:Cavelamb drew up a nice little VW powered version. He might have some original drawings.
Steve built Samson Mite. You could build a scaled GB-R2, which has not been done AFAIK, with a Verner... What designs exist that really would be neat to pursue? Spirit of St Louis? A rare racer? I'm not sure, I'm open to discussion. I'd even consider not flying it and donating it to a museum if it was far above my skill set. I'm after the challenge of it. The Gee Bee has been done a few times, so as much as I love that airplane it's not an option.
My only real requirement is that the fuselage is steel tube and fabric.