Author Topic: Just some cool photos...nothing more, nothing less... (Read 1943132 times)

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6075 on:** June 25, 2025, 04:06:05 PM »

I have added to my stash defences…

Photos taken a few days ago.

apophenia · « **Reply #6076 on:** June 26, 2025, 05:03:16 AM »

Only the most confident of hobbyists will install skylights above their stash defences

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6077 on:** July 13, 2025, 02:03:12 AM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6078 on:** July 13, 2025, 02:03:56 AM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6079 on:** July 13, 2025, 02:06:25 AM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6080 on:** July 19, 2025, 02:37:04 AM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6081 on:** July 24, 2025, 03:13:40 AM »

Old Wombat · « **Reply #6082 on:** July 24, 2025, 10:15:34 AM »

That looks nice!

robunos · « **Reply #6083 on:** July 29, 2025, 05:24:13 AM »

I make no apologies for posting this here, but this time cropped somewhat . . .
The Shuttleworth Collection's Bristol Boxkite replica, Old Warden, 26/07/2025 . . .

cheers,
Robin.

Kerick · « **Reply #6084 on:** July 29, 2025, 06:21:55 AM »

Where do you get an engine for something like this? A new built replica of the original would be incredibly expensive. An old engine block would be extremely unlikely. A modern engine would cut into the meaning of the word replica. It’s like a “restored” Mustang that has 90% new pieces. Not that I’m complaining. Everyone likes to see these birds fly. I sound like Mr. Crabbypants but I’m perplexed by where the lines are drawn. Paramount, of course, is safety. No one wants these to crash and maybe get someone hurt so a modern engine would be best for that purpose. It’s like a warbird flying with modern instruments and radios. It just works better for everyone. I know I wouldn’t want to rely on WW2 electronics with those super high tech vacuum tubes!
Anyway, congrats to them for a fine job using whatever engine fit the purpose!

Annnnddd! A little research on my part shows that the Shuttleworth replica has a four cylinder Continental engine and the one built for the RAAF Museum has a Rotec engine. Also, both were built with almost no surviving parts or drawings to be found. Well done!

perttime · « **Reply #6085 on:** July 30, 2025, 12:16:09 AM »

Quote from: Kerick on July 29, 2025, 06:21:55 AM

Where do you get an engine for something like this? A new built replica of the original would be incredibly expensive. An old engine block would be extremely unlikely. A modern engine would cut into the meaning of the word replica. It’s like a “restored” Mustang that has 90% new pieces. Not that I’m complaining. Everyone likes to see these birds fly. I sound like Mr. Crabbypants but I’m perplexed by where the lines are drawn. Paramount, of course, is safety. No one wants these to crash and maybe get someone hurt so a modern engine would be best for that purpose. ...

"It is powered by a Rolls-Royce Continental four cylinder engine of 100hp. The greater power of the modern engine is cancelled out by the smaller, higher revving modern propeller which, perhaps surprisingly, does not provide the same thrust as the seemingly lower powered 1910 design."
https://www.shuttleworth.org/discover/collection/aircraft/bristol-boxkite-replica

At least that should make it easier to operate.

robunos · « **Reply #6086 on:** July 30, 2025, 01:00:14 AM »

Indeed. It's interesting that the Boxkite, and the Avro Triplane Replica, flew well, whereas the Bleriot XI, which is original, with the original engine, could only perform a 'hop' in one direction, and a fast taxi in the other . . .

cheers,
Robin.