REBUILDING THE PAST

[DIK SHEPHERD]

With the discussion in this forum about re-constructing a B-17D/c, I was wondering what other aircraft types would people like to see re-constructed?

Keeping in mind that it doesn't matter what kind of material is used, or which type of powerplant is installed, as long as it is full scale.

I, for one, would like to see an Hs-129 on the airshow circuit. And I always thought it would be neat to have a flyable Ohka 11 (Baka Bomb) as a high speed rocket glider. There are solid propellant rockets with at least 10,000 pounds of thrust available, so it wouldn't be hard to build one that could launch off a runway, or fit a B-25 with a special rack to launch it in the air.

Something else I'd like to see is a PT-13/17 modified to look like a Gloster Gladiator. The actual measurements of both aircraft are nearly the same, so it wouldn't be much of a problem modifying a PT airframe into a Stearman Gladiator. I know there are other things that would need to be changed, such as the tail feathers, but that's not much of a problem either. It wouldn't have to be exact in every detail, but it would sure look a lot better then just another stupid PT.

So, any other examples?

[jmkendal]

I would like to see the F-15 version of the P-61 recreated. I remember the original at Santa Rosa CA. when I was a kid.

Also I think a B-9 would be pretty cool. And; actually maybe even more "doable" from a construction standpoint.

[hang the expense]

We all need to be the head of a fortune 500 company for any of this to happen.People with the amount of money to fund something like this are rare as rocking horse wheels and even more so that share our affliction with old airplanes.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Things are always going to cost money no matter what. However, if everyone used that argument (about having to be overly wealthy) nothing would ever get done.

Like I said, re-constructing something in a material other than what was originally used (composites rather that aluminum for example) can sometimes be cheaper.

All this bull crap from some no nothing people about "everything has to be exactly as the original or it's not going to be right, and so it's not worth doing at all" prevents a lot of things from happening.

All I'm saying is that it's sometimes better to see a particular (unique) design flying than worrying about what it's made of, or what kind of engine is pulling it through the air.

What it does take is imagination and a willingness to do it, no matter what.

[hang the expense]

Hey Dik, It still takes gobs of money and time regardless of what materials are used.In fact aluminum is still way cheaper than composite. I have been building my P-40K for years or I should say collecting and making the airframe parts and the hours in the days just fly by.My son will probably be old enough to fly the darn thing when it is done and he is only 7 years old.And then there is the B-17 parts I produce which take up most of my time.Hell,I gotta sleep sometime and that is usually between 2 and 6 in the AM.We need to start training the younger generation oh say the 7 and 8 year olds so by the time they are 17 then they can take over this stuff.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

I agree with you on some points. But I've learned, over the years, that very few, and I mean very few, kids past tens years of age want anything to do with aircraft, unless it's to fly from point A to point B.

Their biggest problem is that, unlike you, me, and most people on these forums, they have no real imaginations. The only thing that comes into their minds is, they can't imagine doing without. They think that they should always have what they want, and they should always get to do what their friends get to do. They can't dream of things for the future because they don't know, understand, or care about, the past. By the time your kids are 15 or 16 years old their interests and tastes will probably not be towards aviation. Sorry, but that's the way it normally turns out.

Kids today only care about what they have or can get right now. And when that's gone, oh well! There's always mom and pop to get them whatever's new on the market.

It's not a new situation, it's been happening for years now. Ever since they started letting piss-brain psychiatrists and psychologists run the public schools it's been - let the kids do whatever they want as long as they feel good about themselves. Even when they get to college, most of them don't know squat and can't do crap, but they feel good about it.

Here's an example of something written by a present day college graduate (found on the PC-WIX site) . . .

"Highschool? Nah, I got board and went to collage. Never did have a senior year in highschool"

However, getting back to the reason for this topic. What unique aircraft types would you like to see re-constructed?

[hang the expense]

A fixed gear Hawk 75 M or O.Just like the one in Thailand in the museum.I have been trying to find drawings in peru which had them from the late 30s up till 1956.There are no stateside drawings for export hawks in the US.Anybody know a contact Down in Peru for finding info?

[NickV]

Dik,
Thanks for asking. My $.02 on this subject would be to recreate a flying Dornier 335 Pfeil. A pushing and a pulling DB605s would be too cool to see. As I recall, there was a two-seat version as well.
Switch on!
Nick

[DIK SHEPHERD]

A Do 335 would be great to see doing a high speed, low level pass at any air show. A monster aircraft like that would never be forgotten after being seen in flight.

[Oboe Leader]

Hi, all. Newby here. Just my two cents ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, there are no surviving Curtiss Condor airliners. It was an interesting mix of old and new - the last biplane airliner, the last built with a steel tube fuselage, wood wings, and fabric covering. Yet it was the first with electrically operated landing gear, and one of the first with controllable-pitch props. Sort of a Janus-faced moment in airliner evolution. (Also, the Army ordered a few as transports - we can qualify the Condor as a Warbird.)

It could be - relatively - easy to build. All-metal aircraft lend themselves to mass production, but one-off models are a tough haul. (All those damn clecoes!:)) But steel tube and wood planes, while tougher to mass produce, are easier to hand-craft.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

I don't think I'm dreaming, but I believe that I read, someplace, that someone has a "CONDOR" that is being restored. I think I read about it, and saw pictures of it, 2 or 3 years ago, and it's not a museum.

I might have read about in AIR CLASSICS magazine.

[hang the expense]

Wasnt there a condor fuselage in France? I think a farmer owned it or it was a bar.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Wrong "Condor". You're thinking of an FW200. We're talking Curtiss-Wright.

Here's a quote I got from the Internet . . .

"Of the 45 Condor IIs, 14 Model 19s, and B- Bombers built by the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, only NC12363, serial number 23, has survived. It is currently located in Moab, Utah, to be restored to flyable status. It was recovered from an accident site in 1966 for American Airlines, but then stored in a suburban Chicago area garage until 2004. Many original components of the aircraft were located and acquired, and will be used in the restoration process."

[hang the expense]

Oh hell Dik,I sure missed the plot on that one.I am partial to anything Curtiss-Wright. That is really cool.

[Oboe Leader]

Thanks, Dik. Here's the full article from Air Classics.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n17176614

Don't know how I missed it. I've been interested in the Condor ever since I read Ernie Gann's article in his book "Flying Circus."

Something else. About a month ago, I bought a VHS copy of the film "Dive Bomber," starring Errol Flynn and Fred MacMurray. I hadn't seen the film for some time. It was something, seeing a field full of prewar types such as the Vought Vindicator and Brewster Buffalo.

Due in part to a current research project, I'm gaining a new appreciation for the mid to late thirties prewar types. Sure, they were obsolete when the war broke out (although some were pressed into service anyway). But they held the line during the thirties, and provided the future wartime pilots plenty of valuable stick time. When the war broke out, most were sent to the purgatory of airframe mechanic schools, and were later scrapped.

Just my two cents, but I think if I had the resources to create an "antique reproduction," it would be one of those. Say, a Vindicator, or Douglas Devastator, or a single-engine model of the Curtiss Shrike.

One more thing, then I'll stop rambling. My father built an EAA Biplane, and painted it in the colors of a Curtiss P-6E Hawk. I think there is only one original P-6, out at Wright-Patterson. A repro project would be a lot of fun.