Thinking about new airframes

[ralster]

Gentlemen, greetings. My first posting. As a longtime student of WW2 aviation, I have been researching the feasibility of "new" airframes for such planes as 109E, F, K? and Ki43, A6M2, Ki61...Most of these 1930s-40s designs are of straightforward construction. The problem is powerplants, especially for the inverted v12s. Obviously there will be alternate powerplant choices, so would not be 100% reproductions, although certainly fullsize and at least 80% of the HPrating, whatever the powerplant choice. I do not agree with wooden replicas (like some Spitfire reproductions). I live in a city with 3 aircraft factories and many airframe & sheetmetal workers available for parttime moonlighting on my project as well as aero engineers for consultation. I have been compiling airframe data+CD drawings (Fw190). It is not-so-surprising that many of the later Luftwaffe planes were build in sheds or other simple (dispersed) areas, which highlights the simpler techniques of that era. I havent picked which airframe deserves to grace the air first, but obviously I love these planes and am tired of only seeing P51s and Texans and fake Zeros(modified AT6Texans..) at airshows. The Me262 recreations by Tischler, the FlugWerk 190, and the Blayd Zero (new construction with hardly any original parts) only add to my eagerness. I have thought about an all-metal Spitfire Mk1, F4U, P40 (B or E?), again because these are "M.I.A" at airshows and in the air (and engines exist for these 3). My intent is not to try to profit from these, but to put those glorious shapes back in the air again, with myself flying one. Then again, if I spend $ on R&D, these may be 1/4th the price of a surviving original--gets more in the air, maybe? Also, the Me109G owned by MBB is simply too precious to risk flying it. I welcome anyone's thoughts on my idea, especially if you like Luftwaffe/WW2 planes as much as I do.

[edNorth]

How about Hs 123 or Hs 129 (these are extinct species) )

[Graham Boak]

People are making Fw 190s, Ki 43s, I-16s, and to all intents and purposes Spitfires and Hurricanes (nothing original except the nameplate......). So your idea is certainly workable, but remember that you are creating a very potent machine, and so will have to meet important airworthiness requirements. "Moonlighting" in "sheds" is NOT the way to go. Not all the manufacturing techniques used were actually "simpler" and some of them may be difficult to reproduce nowadays, as the technology has moved on and skills have been lost - or at least are much rarer. The thought of the cost being 1/4 is, frankly, naive. Good luck: but do talk it through with those who have gone that way ahead of you before you actually start.

[DaveM2]

Originally Posted by ralster

Gentlemen, greetings. My first posting. As a longtime student of WW2 aviation, I have been researching the feasibility of "new" airframes for such planes as 109E, F, K? and Ki43, A6M2, Ki61...Most of these 1930s-40s designs are of straightforward construction. The problem is powerplants, especially for the inverted v12s. Obviously there will be alternate powerplant choices, so would not be 100% reproductions, although certainly fullsize and at least 80% of the HPrating, whatever the powerplant choice. I do not agree with wooden replicas (like some Spitfire reproductions). I live in a city with 3 aircraft factories and many airframe & sheetmetal workers available for parttime moonlighting on my project as well as aero engineers for consultation. I have been compiling airframe data+CD drawings (Fw190). It is not-so-surprising that many of the later Luftwaffe planes were build in sheds or other simple (dispersed) areas, which highlights the simpler techniques of that era. I havent picked which airframe deserves to grace the air first, but obviously I love these planes and am tired of only seeing P51s and Texans and fake Zeros(modified AT6Texans..) at airshows. The Me262 recreations by Tischler, the FlugWerk 190, and the Blayd Zero (new construction with hardly any original parts) only add to my eagerness. I have thought about an all-metal Spitfire Mk1, F4U, P40 (B or E?), again because these are "M.I.A" at airshows and in the air (and engines exist for these 3). My intent is not to try to profit from these, but to put those glorious shapes back in the air again, with myself flying one. Then again, if I spend $ on R&D, these may be 1/4th the price of a surviving original--gets more in the air, maybe? Also, the Me109G owned by MBB is simply too precious to risk flying it. I welcome anyone's thoughts on my idea, especially if you like Luftwaffe/WW2 planes as much as I do.

I don't think MBB 109 is too precious, it is after all a converted Buchon so not at all rare.
There is of course a large amount of work going on reproducing exact WW1 replicas (see http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/vinta...ge-aviator-ltd).

regards
Dave

[ArtieBob]

The devil is in the details. Much of the main structures can be recreated with a reasonable amount of effort. What is really difficult is making all the small pieces fittings, pulleys, castings, L/g struts, etc, etc. These often were made by outside companies, even the large aircraft companies did not make these items and the manpower required to manufacture them would not be included in manhour figures for the airframe construction. Specifically for the Bf 109, there is a single large forging that structurally ties together the l/g, fuselage and wing structure. The "death" of a Buchon is generally when this is damaged beyond repair. All this can be done, but it would probably be wise not to underestimate the degree of difficulty. My suggestion is just for practice, build one of the all metal home built aircraft that are available. After that, one might begin to know what questions to ask about building WWII aircraft replicas. I currently am in involved in a rather simple recreation project (not an aircraft). I assure you it is a lot harder than it might seem at first, including a lot of reverse engineering.

Best regards,

ArtieBob

[ralster]

Thanks for the comments above. Yes, I have realized there is a tremendous amount of engineering involved. As for the costs involved, I will soon be doing a "feasibility" discussion with a few of the aeronautical engineers here in Wichita, KS. My idea really is the full size shape, metal construction--but not necessarily rivet-for-rivet...so all those small parts and fittings may be different or simpler, and again, this may require engineering input/ingenuity...(once you start changing the original structure). Obviously, when he sees what all I am trying to do, an engineer may be able to ballpark me some sort of $ figure once he sees what a particular design will entail. My "1/4 cost" is a thought on the airframe only (minus engine), or should I say a hope. I have thought about this for several years, but if the engineering feasibility study shows it will cost >$300-400k for just an airframe, then I might as well forget it and go help someone restore a real original. Keep in mind that factory prototypes often had more machined parts, while the production runs used more castings (where applicable) to facilitate mass production. Im not aiming to do 'mass production', so my tooling requirements would reflect only my goal. No, it wont be built in a 'shed', but in a dedicated aviation hangar, like many other projects, restorations, etc. Hope to show you all some pictures one day.
Regards,
ralster