The Vintage Aviator's Remembrance 2012 Airshow

[Deleted]

Quite right, BRI being a genuine example.

[ErrolC]

Nov 13, 2012 9:52:49 GMT 12 JamesStokes said:

Brett, I was doing a little research on exactly that yesterday, as I could never remember. The Omaka based F2b is ZK-JNU and TVAL's example is ZK-BRI.

Last night I extracted the 39 (IIRC) aircraft registered to TVAL from the CAA, and started matching it against the list earlier in this thread.

Then I realised that I have other things that I should be doing first!

[johnnyfalcon]

Great pics everyone. Thank you!!

Jus to be Mr Picky, re the term "...replica..." in describing these masterpieces. I believe the word "reproduction" is more accurate and dignified for most of these machines.

Again, well done all for the pics :-)

[TS]

Lovin it more, more, more please great pics ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Peter Lewis]

Nov 13, 2012 9:21:21 GMT 12 Brett said:

Isn't that Bristol Fighter ZK-BRI?
ZK-JNU (the replica) is marked as B1112.

Cheers,

Brett

Quite right.
Just checking if anyone else is checking.
Error corrected.

[Peter Lewis]

Next batch:

The third SE5A participating in the display was ZK-SES which is marked up as 'B507'



The Vintage Aviator organization has produced two Sopwith Pup replicas, both registered this year.
Unfortunately, given the variable wind conditions at the time of the display, neither flew but were on static display at the flightline.

N6205 'Betty' has been allotted the NZ civil registration of ZK-PPY



While its stablemate ZK-PPD represents B2162



The heavy metal section of the afternoon featured an aerobatic display by Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawk ZK-RMH. Restored after wartime service with the RNZAF as NZ3009 and time at MoTAT. Was briefly G-CCBE in 2003.

[Dave Homewood]

So I guess there are now four Sopwith Pups in New Zealand? These two, the one at the Air Force Museum of New Zealand at Wigram and the Chariots of Fire Collection's one at Omaka. Are there any others?

[JamesStokes]

Love that first shot of SES Peter. Good stuff

[pjw4118]

Lovely photos, I spent three days there on and off and didn't spot you intrepid photographers. Here's a few random ones.





















And of those who flew them









Thanks to TVAL

[Peter Lewis]

Nov 13, 2012 11:38:11 GMT 12 johnnyfalcon said:

Jus to be Mr Picky, re the term "...replica..." in describing these masterpieces. I believe the word "reproduction" is more accurate and dignified for most of these machines.

If you check on the CAA online aircraft register you will find that the official description of these aircraft includes the word 'replica' not 'reproduction'.

[Peter Lewis]

There were three Fokker Triplanes in use on the day.

ZK-JOB shows the hazards of a crosswind takeoff



ZK-JOC got shot down



and ZK-JOG seemed to survive that day without getting into trouble



That's it from me folks, until the next one.

[johnnyfalcon]

Nov 14, 2012 19:54:29 GMT 12 Peter Lewis said:

Nov 13, 2012 11:38:11 GMT 12 johnnyfalcon said:

Jus to be Mr Picky, re the term "...replica..." in describing these masterpieces. I believe the word "reproduction" is more accurate and dignified for most of these machines.

If you check on the CAA online aircraft register you will find that the official description of these aircraft includes the word 'replica' not 'reproduction'.

Yeah. But I don't always agree with CAA...

[Deleted]

Enjoying all the photos so far

A few photos of the new Albatros D.Va













More photos later

[Dave Homewood]

Wonderful shots Peter and Peter! And Ralph!

[TS]

Nov 11, 2012 21:27:36 GMT 12 TS said:

Awesome photos guys, what luck with the weather aswell !!

Question: With the FE2b's I notice that the new one does not have a support nose wheel? attached and the other does??? Sorry if this is a silly question but as I have no real idea, on these machines is it there to stop the aircraft from nosing in when the gunner is on board? Or is the Cof G different between one and the other
Tell me to go away if it is really obvious but to me sitting way out there must make things a little nose heavy ??

Sorry to push this point but does ANYBODY know the answer???

[Peter Lewis]

Obviously the CofG factor comes into play.

During the display, the older FE had a gunner occupying the front cockpit but the new one did not.

I suspect that, as the new one will still be in it's flight test phase, only solo operations are permitted? So no need/requirement for the front wheel.

I guess we wait and see if the 'trainer wheel' is added at some stage.

[ErrolC]

Nov 14, 2012 21:09:14 GMT 12 johnnyfalcon said:

Nov 14, 2012 19:54:29 GMT 12 Peter Lewis said:

If you check on the CAA online aircraft register you will find that the official description of these aircraft includes the word 'replica' not 'reproduction'.

Yeah. But I don't always agree with CAA...

You don't have to disagree with them to think that some replicas can usefully also be described as reproductions.

[JDK]

Looks like a great event!

Unlike in some other fields, 'reproduction' and 'replica' don't have agreed, certified or authorised meanings in aviation preservation, so it usually ends up as a futile exercise in arguing the difference - a good scratchbuilt aircraft gets praised by trying to raise its status ('late production' etc.) which is a mismeasure, IMHO rather than a compliment.

The Fee's nosewheel was used on some examples, but not all. IIRC, those used for night bombing were without to maximise the payload, by dispensing with such items.

Wiki says:

The undercarriage of the F.E.2b/d was particularly well designed - a small nosewheel prevented nose-overs when landing on soft ground, and the effective oleo type shock absorbers were also appreciated by crews landing in rough, makeshift fields. In order to gain a few extra miles an hour the nosewheels were however frequently removed in the field, and some aircraft were fitted with a normal "V" type undercarriages - again in an effort to reduce drag.[25]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.2

Regards,

[JamesStokes]

pjw, I love the first photo, of the new FE.2b. looks like it could be waiting for a sortie in France sometime in the war. Fantastic.

[aeromuzz]

Nov 14, 2012 22:41:28 GMT 12 JDK said:

Looks like a great event!

Unlike in some other fields, 'reproduction' and 'replica' don't have agreed, certified or authorised meanings in aviation preservation, so it usually ends up as a futile exercise in arguing the difference - a good scratchbuilt aircraft gets praised by trying to raise its status ('late production' etc.) which is a mismeasure, IMHO rather than a compliment.

The Fee's nosewheel was used on some examples, but not all. IIRC, those used for night bombing were without to maximise the payload, by dispensing with such items.

Wiki says:

The undercarriage of the F.E.2b/d was particularly well designed - a small nosewheel prevented nose-overs when landing on soft ground, and the effective oleo type shock absorbers were also appreciated by crews landing in rough, makeshift fields. In order to gain a few extra miles an hour the nosewheels were however frequently removed in the field, and some aircraft were fitted with a normal "V" type undercarriages - again in an effort to reduce drag.[25]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.2

Regards,

Having now looked at the photos a little more closely, it appears that the second Fee actually has the later "V" type undercarriage, hence no nosewheel.

There is also something protruding down from the front left of the pod. I'm guessing that it is some sort of bombsight. Anyone know for sure?