New Vintages

I am interested in some feedback regarding the interest level for flyable replicas and would like your input. I am considering building a homebuilt aircraft and do not wish to build one I could not sell.

I would like to know what kind of WW1 style 2-seat replica plane YOU would be interested in owning, if you had the licence and money (around $30.000 US).

My initial thoughts hover around
Sopwith 1.5 Strutter
Albatros C.III
Albatros C.VII (My favourite candidate)

Reproduction is a Steel frame for structural integrity, plywood and fabric. Wood frame would be too expensive and would act more adversely to weather than steel, which is stronger than aluminium.

Full size.
Certified.
Safe.

Email me your answer. Which one and, importantly, WHY. Planes not in the list are also welcome.

/Ken

[Ira_Silverman]

Ken:

It's just a gut feeling, but I'd guess a Bristol F2B would be REAL popular.

VBR,

Ira

Yup the f2b bristol fighter i think would be a popular choice.
My interests would include the FE2b, not much of a fuselage but lotsa wires.
or the Roland CLII but thats a monocoque construction so its not in your profile.

[PeterL]

A refreshingly original list Ken, the Sopwith has been done I think, but not the other two AFAIK. Of those you suggest I would go for the CIII. The CVII has more of the fighter about it while the CIII looks like the workhorse it is. Besides, you get to paint a dragon on the side of it

Off the list, how about a Salmson 2A2? It meets your structural criteria and is powered by a radial engine. Plus it's a good looking bird,

Peter L

F2b Bristol or a Halberstat CIV or Rumpler.

The F2B is very popular and has a distinguished service history. I am not sure yet exactly how easy/difficult it would be to build, though. Definitely something to look into. A 270 hp engine may be costly, though.

FE2B? Naah. I would not consider this plane safe enough. One nose-over and you end up wearing an engine. I'd be very afraid of spins as well, since most of the weight is concentrated to the centre of the plane.

The Roland CL.II has come to mind. It would be a Steel frame with fibreglass fuselage. I figure as long as the plane LOOKS like the real thing from the outside, only grognards would be picky with regards to the interior.

The difference is cost, which has to be kept down. A true replica, while very presentable and subject to untold scrutiny, would be very expensive and the wood required is actually not easy to find. FAA and TC have rigid requirements for wood, which is not as even in quality as steel.

Albatros C.III and C.VII are relatively easy to build and attractive aircraft. A look at the latest Windsock Datafile on the C.VII proves that point.

So that's:
Bristol F2B Fighter - 2
Albatros C.III - 1
Roland CL.II - 1
FE2B - 1
Salmson 2a2 - 1

More feedback is welcome, and thanks for the feedback already recieved.

[Vigilant]

I'll second (third?) the Brisfit for the reasons you already have.

I'd also be interested in a replica RE8 or AW FK8, but I expect that's just me!

Vigilant.

Hi Ken,

IMO Strutter would be perfect it is pretty plane from any angle. More importantly it is what an allied WWI aeroplane should look like according to most of the populace. It has two wings, a gunner on the back, has red white and blue roundals of any order, and a big circular engine on the front.

Unfortunately everyone knows German WWI aircraft are red and have three wings, plus they are capable of shooting down 747's and outrunning F16's. Maybe show the Albatros 2 seater with MvR next to it on any brochures. Probably sell like hotcakes then.



cam

ROFL, Cam!!!!

Nice to read from you. Same old cynic (G).

Ken: Please see my offerings on the large displacement Ford V-8 as a likely candidate engine for the replica builders. It is in a response to the request for info. re the DVII which is in a subsequent string. There were a few Brisfits built for the film "High Road to China" a few years ago. I have been around one and I concur, with others here, that it is a good choice.The film makers I've heard didn't use them as the Rangers with their much smaller props made them marginal flyers. Someone really should develop the Ford/Lincoln engines. I think they can go up to nearly 600 cubic inches and can pretty well emulate the WWI engines in terms of the needed Torque at low RPM. As I said the weight is almost identical to the 750 #s of the M-B. Have a go at it! Cordially yours. Lee