Hawker Typhoon rebuild
Discussion
Following on from the discussion on the Spitfire Factory thread...
these guys https://www.typhoonlegacy.com/ seem serious about building one. Some good videos on YT.
these guys https://www.typhoonlegacy.com/ seem serious about building one. Some good videos on YT.
I would love to see a Typhoon in the air.... the first airfix model I ever put together (badly..) when I was about 7 was a Typhoon.... love em!
On a separate note, I do always wonder with these restorations and the length of time it takes to find original parts, refresh them and rebuild the entire structure whether there isn't a more modern method to simply build a 'new' airframe which mimics the size/shape of the aircraft in question.
I would have thought with modern materials, space frame type structures, it would be relatively straightforward to design a new aircraft that is a re-creation of the original using new material and simplify this dramatically.
For the vast majority of people watching, its the sound and sight of the aircraft in flight... not whether its an original or not...
I guess this has been looked at previously and isn't cost effective etc... it always gets me thinking what i'd spend my lottery win on though!
On a separate note, I do always wonder with these restorations and the length of time it takes to find original parts, refresh them and rebuild the entire structure whether there isn't a more modern method to simply build a 'new' airframe which mimics the size/shape of the aircraft in question.
I would have thought with modern materials, space frame type structures, it would be relatively straightforward to design a new aircraft that is a re-creation of the original using new material and simplify this dramatically.
For the vast majority of people watching, its the sound and sight of the aircraft in flight... not whether its an original or not...
I guess this has been looked at previously and isn't cost effective etc... it always gets me thinking what i'd spend my lottery win on though!
Cheeky Jim said:
On a separate note, I do always wonder with these restorations and the length of time it takes to find original parts, refresh them and rebuild the entire structure whether there isn't a more modern method to simply build a 'new' airframe which mimics the size/shape of the aircraft in question.
I would have thought with modern materials, space frame type structures, it would be relatively straightforward to design a new aircraft that is a re-creation of the original using new material and simplify this dramatically.
If you do that (and its done from time to time, although more often abroad) then you simply have a 'replica' as the finished product which in value terms might be a fraction of an that of an original/rebuilt aircraft (but perhaps requiring almost the same resources to achieve). The organisations and individuals rebuilding Typhoons, Tempests and similar aircraft are motivated by the desire for the real thing. In order to achieve that they need an original airframe or substantial remains of one to begin with. In fact if you don't have that in the UK then you would not be permitted by the CAA to 'build' a Typhoon as it would be a new aircraft and you would have to go through type certification which would be prohibitively costly - and still end up with a 'replica'.I would have thought with modern materials, space frame type structures, it would be relatively straightforward to design a new aircraft that is a re-creation of the original using new material and simplify this dramatically.
Having said that, most (but certainly not all) major warbird restorations these days do use a significant amount of new parts - but they have to be made from traceable material and conform to original material specifications (and of course made in accordance with OEM drawings). Original parts are always used wherever possible and this was discussed in the Spitfire Factory TV show but for many basic airframe structural parts such as fuselage frames etc the originals are often beyond re-use. These days its certainly more 'fashionable' than it was thirty years ago to retain and re-use original material as originality has much more cache than it did back then. In the early 90's it was not unusual to discard all the skins on a Spitfire and replace with new, regardless of their condition!
I completely get the desire to have an original, that would always be the primary goal I think. But I'd not really thought about all the approvals etc that needs to be completed to get a(ny) design into the air. I guess that it all boils down to the cost / value discussion.
Just seems sad, there are so many beautiful older aircraft of which there are none left, but with some creative design could be made again using modern materials...although i'm not sure how easy it would be to build a brand new Merlin engine for example from scratch!
I guess its just too difficult/expensive and never going to be enough volume to make it worthwhile.
Just seems sad, there are so many beautiful older aircraft of which there are none left, but with some creative design could be made again using modern materials...although i'm not sure how easy it would be to build a brand new Merlin engine for example from scratch!
I guess its just too difficult/expensive and never going to be enough volume to make it worthwhile.
The Flugwerk FW190 recreations are essentially this, largely based on original drawings but modified in some areas to suit modern materials and engines. The issue is that because it is a new build rather than a restoration (same as the NZ built Mosquitoes) it is subject to modern regulations rather than 1940s standards so won’t be allowed to fly in many countries.
The Flugwerk 190s are a good example but they are not based largely on original drawings (there is pretty much no parts interchangeability with an original example) - however the Avspecs Mosquitos are generally considered restorations (although nobody has tried to register one here yet).
Edited by Mark V GTD on Monday 30th November 17:47
Cheeky Jim said:
Just seems sad, there are so many beautiful older aircraft of which there are none left, but with some creative design could be made again using modern materials...although i'm not sure how easy it would be to build a brand new Merlin engine for example from scratch!
There is no need to do that as there are plenty of original units out there to keep us going for a while. Admittedly some of the subtypes such as the Merlin 66 are getting harder to get hold of.Edited by Mark V GTD on Monday 30th November 17:49
Cheeky Jim said:
For the vast majority of people watching, its the sound and sight of the aircraft in flight... not whether its an original or not...
Restoring Warbird aircraft operates to a very different set of rules, regulations and requirements compared to restoring historic or classic cars. You simple cannot make an aircraft certifiable for flight if you try to use 70 - 80 year old components. If you watch "Inside the Spitfire Factory" you will see how much of these restoration projects is actually all new.Eric Mc said:
Restoring Warbird aircraft operates to a very different set of rules, regulations and requirements compared to restoring historic or classic cars. You simple cannot make an aircraft certifiable for flight if you try to use 70 - 80 year old components. If you watch "Inside the Spitfire Factory" you will see how much of these restoration projects is actually all new.
Eric, not sure if you were trying to say that using 100% 70 to 80 year old components or not being able to use any at all. The most recent Spitfire restoration I worked on is probably 90% original structure. The engine is the original unit also along with a very large number of secondary items. Some of the Spitfire Factory projects such as the Greek Spitfire used a substantial proportion of original structural material including external skins.It would actually be more difficult to get an aircraft certified for flight if you don't use 70/80 year old components!
Edited by Mark V GTD on Monday 30th November 18:32
Mark V GTD said:
Eric, not sure if you were trying to say that using 100% 70 to 80 year old components or not being able to use any at all. The most recent Spitfire restoration I worked on is probably 90% original structure. The engine is the original unit also along with a very large number of secondary items. Some of the Spitfire Factory projects such as the Greek Spitfire used a substantial proportion of original structural material including external skins.
It would actually be more difficult to get an aircraft certified for flight if you don't use 70/80 year old components!
I'll bow to your greater knowledge.It would actually be more difficult to get an aircraft certified for flight if you don't use 70/80 year old components!
Edited by Mark V GTD on Monday 30th November 18:32
saaby93 said:
Eric Mc said:
These 2/3 or 3/4 scale replicas don't do much for me. They just don't sound right.
Is there something that prevents them building a 3/3 or 4/4 replica?We also have the UK based Typhoon project which currently has the original rear fuselage section being rebuilt to airworthiness by Airframe Assemblies on the Isle of Wight. They have a significant amount of structure and a Napier Sabre. Before Covid the plan was to get it flying for the eightieth anniversary of its crash landing.
Website here,
https://hawker-typhoon.com/
Website here,
https://hawker-typhoon.com/
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff