Quantcast

What scale and composition of your favorite Warbird would you purchase?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

What scale and composition of your favorite warbird would you purchase?


  • Total voters
    17

WARPilot

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Messages
17
I think the best size is in the 60-65% scale range. This allows for lower cost, lower power engines, and performance in the 150-200 mph range. Using composites cuts the weight drastically allowing for greater useful load. Using a WAR type as an example, they typically weigh 750#-800# empty. They are supposed to weigh about 620#. Using composites it should be possible to get to the 550#-600#empty weight. This will lower stall speed and enhance performance. Construction would have to use pre-molded carbon granite skins over a substructure or skins that are designed to carry the loads.
The picture is a fuselage that is made from a mold and structurally very strong. Once the mold is made it is relatively simple to make copies.
 

Attachments

Aviacs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
90
Small Block Chevy.
The block and heads were cast to replicate the dimensions of a SBC, only longer. So with a crank and cam to match, the rest is parts that have been around for decades; mix 'n match (more or less) from a wide array of stock and aftermarket suppliers of pistons, rods, bearings, valve & valve gear, etc. etc.
 

Erik Snyman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
56
A very interesting thread, thanks to all the people that participate.
I have noticed (also) that the replica world seriously lacks copies of Japanese planes. Looking at them, they seem to be not too complicated to build, already in the required size so scaling seems not necessary. No extreme compound curves, a basic sort-of cylindrical design, a radial up front and a tail at the rear, bubble canopy stuck on top. Really worth investigating, IMHO.
I have also given thought to a 100% ME 109. Small enough to forgo scaling, but the landing gear geometry scares me. Too narrow a tract, and, as the gear gives the -109 part of it`s distinctive look, no other configuration will (visually) do.
Also, not for the lower-time pilot. Look up the amount of pilot and aircraft losses due to the l/g config, during training. Staggering. I bet there will be something interesting in the Italian air force, too. Might be ugly, but handling like just the Italians can accomplish.

Erik in Oz.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,565
Location
World traveler
Tachikawa Ki-36/Ki-55 have always appealed to me, though I’d be more interested in an “inspired by” design than a replica. Fixed gear makes for an easier project


Early Fiat and Macchi radial-engine monoplane fighters are also appealing.

A very interesting thread, thanks to all the people that participate.
I have noticed (also) that the replica world seriously lacks copies of Japanese planes. Looking at them, they seem to be not too complicated to build, already in the required size so scaling seems not necessary. No extreme compound curves, a basic sort-of cylindrical design, a radial up front and a tail at the rear, bubble canopy stuck on top. Really worth investigating, IMHO.
...
I bet there will be something interesting in the Italian air force, too. Might be ugly, but handling like just the Italians can accomplish.

Erik in Oz.
 

Marc W

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
520
Location
Colorado
The problem I see with the Japanese fighters is that the canopies seem to be small in proportion to the fuselage size. Look at the Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-84 and George. All seem to have smaller canopies than the American fighters.

On the other hand, the Ki-43 Oscar has extremely simple lines that would be easy to replicate with flat wrapped aluminum. It also has ample wing area that would scale down well. And the cockpit sits well forward which should help with weight and balance.
 

deskpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
1,126
Location
Morphett Vale, South Australia. Just south of Adel
Wyvern01.jpg Gordon_65.jpg Non left today, only one Griffin powered one.

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1 (2 in T.3)
  • Length: 42 ft 3 in (12.88 m)
  • Wingspan: 44 ft 0 in (13.41 m) (folded 20 ft (6 m)
  • Height: 15 ft 9 in (4.80 m) (folded 20 ft (6 m)
  • Wing area: 355 sq ft (33.0 m2)
  • Empty weight: 15,600 lb (7,076 kg)
  • Gross weight: 21,200 lb (9,616 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 24,550 lb (11,136 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Armstrong Siddeley Python turboprop engine, 3,560 hp (2,650 kW) +1,100 lbf (4.893 kN) residual thrust
  • Propellers: 4-bladed Rotol contra-rotating, 13 ft (4.0 m) diameter
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 383 mph (616 km/h, 333 kn) at sea level, 380 mph (612 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)
  • Range: 910 mi (1,460 km, 790 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
  • Rate of climb: 2,350 ft/min (11.9 m/s)
  • Wing loading: 59.7 lb/sq ft (291 kg/m2)
  • Power/mass: 0.194 eshp/lb
Armament

  • Guns: 4 × 20mm British Hispano Mk.V cannon, 2 in each wing
  • Rockets: 16 × RP-3 underwing rockets
  • Missiles: 1 × Mk.15 or Mk.17 torpedo
  • Bombs: Up to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) of bombs or mines
 

bifft

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
280
Location
Utah
The problem I see with the Japanese fighters is that the canopies seem to be small in proportion to the fuselage size. Look at the Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-84 and George. All seem to have smaller canopies than the American fighters.
Japanese Imperial Army Air Force fighters are something of an obsession of mine. At 100% they would probably be tight but doable for larger American pilots. For smaller scales you would need to have the canopy hinge or slide with part of the fuselage top and have just your head in the "canopy" portion. Pilot in a reclined seat down inside a fuselage that doesn't need all the room for fuel tanks and weapons that a real fighter needs.

On the other hand, the Ki-43 Oscar has extremely simple lines that would be easy to replicate with flat wrapped aluminum. It also has ample wing area that would scale down well. And the cockpit sits well forward which should help with weight and balance.
That is how my part 103 napkin sketch ended up looking like a Ki-43. You might also consider the Ki-27 which has fixed gear. Does have the harder to build elliptical horizontal stabilizer.

Another one that would be simple is the Ki-61/Ki-100. Same fuselage and wing, different engine. The wings are a straight taper unlike the forward swept (at 25% chord) Nakajima fighters. Fuselage is pretty boxy, originally designed around a liquid cooled inline engine. Ki-100 was the same plane with a radial. Based on having seen a surviving Ki-61 100% scale would probably be needed for someone my size to get inside.
 

flitzerpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
71
Location
Hirwaun, Aberdare, S.Wales, UK.
Hi Deskpilot.

Actually the one surviving Wyvern (at Yeovilton) was a prototype and is powered by a Rolls-Royce Eagle.

For a scaled Bf 109, the sketches below might provide a useful basis. It's my favourite WW2 fighter by a good margin, but many Japanese and Italian types have good proportions and burying a flat-four in a cosmetic radial cowl is a good option.Messeschmitt Bf 109 retracts.jpg Messeschmitt Bf 109 retracts. 2.jpg

Cheers.
 

RJW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
708
Location
Wisconsin and Kansas
I have also given thought to a 100% ME 109. Small enough to forgo scaling, but the landing gear geometry scares me.
A lightened full-scale Me 109 with a LS motor could be built to weigh half of what, say, a G6 weighs, maybe less. It would have a landing speed much slower than the originals. I think this would mitigate the ground handling problems of the originals to some extent.

Of Japanese fighters the Ki 43 would be a good candidate for a lighter full-size replica. They are already comparatively light. Plus they are just really beautiful airplanes.

Rob
 
Top