|
|
Post by baz62 on Mar 19, 2015 11:36:59 GMT 12
I want one.  Me too that is one racy looking homebuilt! |
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Mar 19, 2015 11:37:51 GMT 12
Ooops when I pushed post it didn't go to the thread like normal but kicked me onto the next page of Recent threads! So tried again and same thing. It was only when I went back to the main page and clicked on Recent posts that I found they had worked. Must have a wee glitch today.
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Mar 19, 2015 14:34:31 GMT 12
www.ofmc.co.uk/spitfire_hist.aspxThe above is a bit contradictory. The first line says that it has never been fully rebuilt, while in the last paragraph it says that it had it's first major rebuild in the winter of 94/95. Although if it was carried out over a winter, it wasn't more than a general tidy up, so I'll let you all guess. Ray always told me that she was kept clean and tidy and things were replaced as necessary, but she was never rebuilt. Harvard 1091 is kind of like that too. Derek has been flying her "as is" since he bought her from the RNZAF. Just regular servicing whilst in their care. Zac, I've built an aircraft from plans before. Kit for me next time!
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Mar 19, 2015 14:36:05 GMT 12
Ooooh, that is nice baz. Another one I like is the plane that you lay on top of. Can't remember the name. I seem to have a thing for micro planes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 19, 2015 14:39:29 GMT 12
I'm fairly sure MH434 had a complete strip down and rebuild not long before Ray Hanna died too. or perhaps just afterwards? There was talk of it and maybe photos on the FlyPast forum and I have only been a member there since 2003.
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Mar 19, 2015 14:46:32 GMT 12
10 years this year since Ray died! Good grief, where does the time go!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 15:27:43 GMT 12
Zac, I've built an aircraft from plans before. Kit for me next time! Aww, but it's so small! You can do it in your living room!  A bit more on, possibly, the engimatic "ZM-AAM". This is from the Pou du Ciel Review newsletter's November 1997 issue, an extract from an article by the builder of ZK-FLE Rob Germon: "I believe that an HM-14 was started in the early 1950s but not completed. I have also visited a man who had completed an HM-14 last year, but who only built it for fun, with no intention of flying it." |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 21:09:50 GMT 12
Well if you must go on, where do you draw the line? What percentage replaced makes an existing aircraft a reproduction? ? Rebuilding any aircraft involves salvaging what can be salvaged, and replacing what cannot, when that aircraft is to fly the level of what can be salvaged has to be raised to much higher level. There are warbirds and museum exhibits that have had most of their airframe replaced, yet neither are considered reproduction. Just as there are aircraft of all types flying around that have had large amounts of their structure replaced by someone other than the manufacturer. There are a lot of wooden aircraft that have had all their wood and fabric replaced, are you calling all those reproduction's also? A lot of the aircraft that fly as warbirds don't have their original model engine (Like spitfires, which the operators prefer to use transport blocks). Are they all reproduction's?
I think to those associated with the rebuild of KA-114, it's not thought of as a reproduction, but instead a rebuild, just like any other. KA-114 is an operational aircraft, not some dead old rotting hulk sitting in the corner of a museum somewhere being looked after by some anal retents. It might be all original, but has so much oxidation in it that it can barely support its own weight statically. Personally I like to see aircraft do what they were designed to do, fly, and if to achieve that safely they have to have all the wood replaced, then fine. But I'm not going to call it a replica or reproduction, just as I would not call Stan Smith's lovely Moth Minor a reproduction. Whilst its nice to be able retain as much structure as possible from the original (which is what was done on KA-114), its just not possible to operate safely using original wood. Certainly to those vet's who wept when they saw KA-114 fly, it wasn't a reproduction. I guess to someone like you, you'd rather see it as it was when recovered sat in the corner of a museum?
This reminds me of the argument about when does Craft transition to Art ? The artsy argument was about creativity, and that Art was original and "creative" where as craft was reproduction and replication, but hang on surely someones hand made quilt is just as original as someone's painting? Only the medium is different? The real answer was when some snobs with there heads stuck so far up their own arses that they would not know what day of the week it is decide they will accept a totally original work being called Art, nothing more nothing less than that.
Dr Evil
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 21:38:28 GMT 12
Well said Dr Evil, I am tired of hearing self appointed experts rant on about this
Kerry
|
|
|
|
Post by joesmith on Mar 19, 2015 21:57:05 GMT 12
Yes.. I second that. Well said drevil and fockewulf.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Mar 20, 2015 11:46:46 GMT 12
I'm fairly sure MH434 had a complete strip down and rebuild not long before Ray Hanna died too. Yes I believe that was the major one I recall Dave as there was an article in Flypast about it at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Mar 23, 2015 12:20:50 GMT 12
Alright, I'll bite. I stated that I wanted to not indulge in this debate any longer by agreeing to disagree because I couldn't be bothered to continue as our views were differing too greatly, but someone wants to drag it out again! For God's sake!
Well Kerry, self appointed expert huh? I've been involved in aviation all my life. I'm an aircraft engineer by trade and have worked in aviation museums overseas, including the RAF Museum. I don't need to defend my knowledge to anyone here and if you want to try me, go ahead, mate.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Mar 23, 2015 17:07:49 GMT 12
Where's the bucket of water!  |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Mar 23, 2015 18:28:21 GMT 12
Cool it guys, or we will forcibly terminate this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 19:27:04 GMT 12
I really, really wish I hadn't asked about replica Fleas being any different from others. I'm sorry guys. I'll try and get it back on track.
Homebuilts! Poux! Building a proper flying machine in your garage/lounge!
So, any more ideas as to ZM-AAM's pedigree?
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Apr 10, 2015 19:15:50 GMT 12
I'm a bit late in this, but I seem to remember the remains of a Flea in the corner of the Rex Aviation engine shop at Bell Block when I was there in 1966, also a 3 cylinder Anzani engine. No photos, I wonder which Flea this was. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 10, 2015 20:10:39 GMT 12
Probably the example owned by the very eccentric Taranaki Beekeeper and homebuilder Roy Edgar Brewster. This example is in the Taranaki Aviation and Transport Museum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 15:17:45 GMT 12
I've heard back from the CAA and the Flea can be built and flown in New Zealand as a microlight, although it would be registered under ZK-xxx.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmax on Sept 3, 2015 23:57:57 GMT 12
Hi Guyz, Have just come across this thread and may be able to add a little about a second Coromandel flea. I am travelling overseas at present and will not be back home for another couple of months but somewhere in my archives is a article taken from an Australian sport aviation mag from roughly 20 years ago about a chap in the Coromandel area who was at the time building an HM14 Pou-du-Ceil and was interested in reviving Flea interest and forming a club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Sept 4, 2015 9:02:52 GMT 12
That'd certainly be of interest.
|
|
