The Vintage Aviator's Remembrance 2012 Airshow

[pjw4118]

Thanks James, that was taken on Friday, which was a very relaxed time to wander about. Sunday was the same.

[TS]

Hey thanks guys for the explanation on the "trainer wheel".
I had noticed the difference between both main undercarriages and thought that was the reason.
But figured it was best not to assume and ask, as there are blokes on this forum as already seen that are on the ball with such things.

Cheers

[Brett]

I'd like to wade into the "replica" debate for no other reason than to increase my post count.

Many of the TVAL-operated aircraft are listed with the CAA as 'replicas' because that is what they are. They are interpretations of historic aircraft, but may have concessions such as modern engines, tailwheels, steel tube fuselages etc.

On the other hand, the TVAL-built aircraft are not listed with the CAA as replicas. This is because TVAL is a Part 148 Manufacturing Organisation. These are listed as 'production' aircraft, as TVAL is a licensed aircraft manufacturer - just the same as PAC.

I think 'reproduction' is a reasonable term to use in this case, although 'production' could be more accurate.

[Brett]

Aeromuzz - I think that tube is a flare chute.

[JDK]

The problem of definitions remains, Brett, and slides into a question of false representation if one is not careful and starts to use terms such as 'production' for something not produced by any of the original manufacturers, but a modern builder.

In the same way that a civil registration document is not legal title of an aircraft, you'll find the CAA does not state the terms replica reproduction etc. are official definitions, but classifications for clarity. They do not offer themselves as offering definitions, nor classifying the naturare of an aircraft beyond flight certification.

Some time ago I typed out the views of the RAF Museum and Robert Mikesh of the Smithsonian. Note though they are offering opinions, there is NO agreed definition in aircraft preservation (as there is for historic cars, say, for the terms 'veteran' and 'vintage') that I have ever managed to find. Note also that depending on context, terms have fundamentally different meanings in different uses in aeronautics and in other fields - replica being a term with contradictory meanings at times. (I draw attention to the contradictory definitions of 'replica' below.)

The RAF Museum conservation centre, Cardington quoted by Ray Rimmel in ‘World War One Survivors’, in a photo:

“The museum defines reproduction as an exact or nearly exact example of an original.

A replica is merely a look alike of different construction to the original.”

Robert Mikesh, former Senior Curator of the National Air & Space Museum, in ‘Restoring Museum Aircraft’ gives six categories: original; restored original; replica; reproduction; look-alike and mock-up.

Briefly, he defines them as follows:

“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” He gives Spirit of St Louis as an example.

“Restored original (Restoration): An artefact composed of at least 50% original components (by surface area or volume) and the remainder returned to accurate early condition made with the same materials, components and accessories.” – He quotes it as a USAFM definition.

“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artefact in part or in total.” Another USAFM definition. Interestingly he gives the example of the Gee Bee Super Sportster build by the New England Air Museum with the technical supervision of the Grandville Bros Chief Engineer Pete Miller. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.

“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”

(Other classifications include 'look alike' and a 'mock up', often listed as 'full scale model' or FSM)

Hope this helps.

[Peter Lewis]

As a side issue on this debate, how is it possible to build an exact replica, reproduction, or whatever of a WW1 aircraft with all its inherent dangers and then be legally allowed to fly it?

I take, as an example, the Camel. Powered by a rotary engine, the pilot in the original Camel sat right on top of a fuel tank with the engine on his knees. There was no firewall between him and the engine.

At some stage in the 1920s (possibly as a result of the Harry Hawker fatal accident) it became compulsory for a firewall to be installed in aircraft between engine and occupants. No firewall, no CofA.

So, either this aircraft has a firewall, in which case it is not 'exact' or it doesn't, in which case it does not meet the regs.
I can think of other similar situations, this is just one example.

To draw a ground-bound analogy, if you wanted to build an exact replica of a 1900 classic kiwi villa to live in you would not be allowed to. These days you are not allowed to have an outside toilet, cotton-wrapped electrical cables and use lead-based paint. You would also need to conform to modern standards of insulation, ventilation and hygiene. You may end up with something that looks a bit like the original but it would certainly not be exactly the same as the original in all respects.

I have asked this question before, but never obtained a satisfactory answer.

[corsair67]

I think reproductions is a fair term - as they look like the real deal, but all have 90+ years of safety and/or aerodynamic knowledge added to the design.

[Dave Homewood]

I don't give a monkeys what people call them, I just really appreciate that they exit and we can get the chance to see them. They are amazing, all of them.

[DragonflyDH90]

Just as an example here, how about a Skycraft Scout, Bantam B22, thruster or many such as this? no firewall there.
Admittedly these are microlights and have a different set of rules to an aircraft with a standard category certificate of airworthiness, the same applies to those aircraft built as replicas, reproductions or whatever you would like to call them.

Also, we could look at aircraft such as Tiger Moths and many others that do hold standard category CofA's but these were issued many years ago, under grandfather rights they have maintained these (save for some things that must be complied with such as ELT's) but if they were new designs to be implimented today they most likely would not meet the required standards for today.

There are many categories which aircraft may fall under within the current rules here in NZ, by example we have Special Category-Exhibition (of which I think the likes of many of the WWI machines fall), Special Category-Limited, Special Category-Primary, Standard Category, Class 1 Microlight, Class 2 microlight and a few others also.
Many of these classes were essentially lumped together within Amateur Built or Experimental (of which there is still Special Category-Experimental for test phase and evaluation which also carries certain restrictions) which caused problems with defining certain things. Now with the clearer categories we are able to have certain new rules such as Part 115 Adventure Aviation which allows the great addition of fare paying joyrides in some wonderous machines the previously was very difficult to control or regulate.

There are sometimes rules that make things better and easier, not often but sometimes.

The compulsory addition of a firewall quite possibly came about from that mentioned above but I would think this regulation (although I have never read it myself or seen reference) would likely only apply to Standard Category Airworthiness Certificates but have been adopted broad spectrum as common sense.

There are limitations for operations for each of these classes.

By the way, there are many aircraft where you either sit on, have directly over you or occupy the same space as the fuel tank; Pitts Special, Tiger Moth (auxiliary and main) and many many others. Firewalls make good sense but might delay the inevitable by perhaps 20-30 seconds in the case of an aluminium firewall (strange term really as alloy wont stop much of anything) and in the case of a fabric aeroplane (particularly covered with nitrate dope) will burn from around you faster than the fire will likely penetrate the firewall.

[JDK]

Nov 15, 2012 20:00:53 GMT 12 Peter Lewis said:

As a side issue on this debate, how is it possible to build an exact replica, reproduction, or whatever of a WW1 aircraft with all its inherent dangers and then be legally allowed to fly it?

Simply, as Dragonfly's explained in more detail, under some form of limited, experimental or restricted category.

That means the aircraft does not have to conform to standard requirements.

The terminology, certification and requirements vary in each country, but most countries with a developed, active heritage aircraft element have such limited certification.

There are still factors that are more difficult to achieve (the TVAL aircraft don't have real, working guns, for instance).

I have asked this question before, but never obtained a satisfactory answer.

That's the answer, I hope it proves satisfactory!

Further clarification - if you wished to build your historic Kiwi house for experimental archaeological purposes, you'd be surprised at how close to original your example could be for the purposes of research or demonstration. You couldn't live in it though.

I take, as an example, the Camel. Powered by a rotary engine, the pilot in the original Camel sat right on top of a fuel tank with the engine on his knees. There was no firewall between him and the engine.

The Camel's TWO fuel tanks are both BEHIND the pilot (just) and the engine is not 'on his knees' but (obviously) forward of the engine bulkhead, which is forward of rudder bar's arc. (The ammunition tanks, causing the 'camel's hump' are over the pilot's legs, and the engine ancillaries are aft of the engine bulkhead.)

A firewall is usually installed behind the engine, and in many cases ahead of the fuselage fuel tank. The fitment and nature of such a device is not an absolute, outside full cert aircraft, any more than it will 'stop' a fire. Replica builders and restorers negotiate with the certifying authority of an agreed requirement or compromise.

Fuel tanks may have fire protection (mitigation, really). The Messerschmitt 109's pilot sat on the 'L' shaped fuel tank that ran up behind him.

More relevant is that the Albatros has no wall of any kind between the engine and pilot, which is unusual, and I understand from accounts that the TVAL examples don't have a modern firewall. (The Albatros may not be unique, as the drawing I have of the Fokker D.VII doesn't seem to show any bulkhead between the engine, tanks, and pilot.)

Regards,

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2012 21:43:36 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

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?

Dan Frew, who worked on the MkV Spitfire, Mosquito and Yak-3 ZK-VVS, has one underway at Omaka, and there may be another one underway there also. A group of us got as far as building a full set of centre ribs for four Pup replicas, I believe this may have been included in one of the Omaka builds?

Great photos, guys! My partner and I went to a wedding in Auckland so that ruled out Hood and Karapiro, so it has been great to see so many beautiful pics from both events!

That new Fee is gorgeous, as is the Albatros! I'd hate to do all that masking though...

[Gavin Conroy]

great photos everyone, last few from me and have 254 to upload onto my website in a few weeks.

[Dave Homewood]

Fantastic photos there Gavin.

Keith Skilling must have had a great weekend, Fe2 on Saturday and Mosquito on Sunday.

[DragonflyDH90]

That last shot is one of my all time favourites. It feels just so.....authentic, strange choice of words but it could just as easily be a wartime shot.

Could you put it up in B&W Gavin? Sorry to be a pain.

[Gavin Conroy]

Hi Ryan, no worries it does come a close second for me, seeing the FE.2b strolling towards us in the other B+W photo did it for me. Such an incredible thing and never thought I would see a black Fee loaded with bombs!!!
Not only did Keith fly those two but he flew one of the Pups for the first time the day before and said that had been on his wishlist for a while.

When I first approached him on the Saturday, I asked him if he had anything left on the bucket list and all he could do is laugh and say "No"

[DragonflyDH90]

Thanks Gav, thats really very impressive.

[ngatimozart]

Absolutely cool photo Gavin, both the colour and b&w copies.

[oggie2620]

Wonderful pics and I love the B&W as it harks back to when they originally flew!
Dee

[Poohbah]

Filmed the evening before the airshow.

[johnnyfalcon]

Fantastic! THANK YOU!!