The Official Newsletter of THE AUSTRALIAN VINTAGE

CONTACT
The Official Newsletter of THE AUSTRALIAN VINTAGE AVIATION SOCIETY
Issue 1
March 2012
www.tavas.com.au
W
elcome to our first ever newsletter
dedicated to the re-creation and
preservation of true vintage aircraft - in
particular aircraft that flew prior to, or during, WW1.
So why the need for this organisation? –
Many people consider all pre WW2 aircraft to be
‘vintage aircraft’ and in many respects think all
vintage aircraft to be much the same. However there
is such a huge difference in aircraft design,
construction and handling prior to the end of WW1,
that is not so well known about today, that needs to
be re-learnt or at least understood in detail to be
able to create replicas that are safe and enjoyable to
fly.
In the decade that followed the Wright Brothers
flight in a heavier than air powered aircraft,
aeroplane development was characterized by a
proliferation of types, conceived by inventors of
varying degrees of competence. And for the most
part, all of these aircraft were home builts in the
truest sense.
A few of these aircraft flew moderately well,
some poorly, and some not at all. There was little
scientific and engineering foundation for aircraft
design, and many aircraft built during this period
were constructed by nontechnical people as
amateur, backyard−type projects.
Bleriots crossing of the English channel in 1909
demonstrated to some the true potential of aviation
and many of his aircraft were ordered creating the
beginnings of a cottage industry aircraft assembly
plant. However many people still regarded flying as
something of a novelty or a curiosity.
That attitude changed shortly after the outbreak of
WW1 and the use of aircraft became obvious. As
needs and tactics changed, combat aviation
developed and the need for better performing, role
specific aircraft became apparent and was met.
CONTACT – Issue 1
Editor: Andrew Carter
Literally hundreds of aircraft prototypes were built
and flown over that 4 year period. A multitude of
types were tested in combat. The prototype of a
fighter aircraft could be designed, constructed, and
test flown within a period of a few weeks. Although
the designers overcame a huge learning curve in that
short time, there was still so much more to learn.
So there is no real comparison between the aircraft
built from the 1930’s on, to the aircraft built and
flown from 1903 – 1920. That was the single biggest
learning curve in aviation design, construction and
power plants, until the advent of the jet engine
some 25 years later.
Remember that the DH82 Tigermoth – the aircraft
many people would be familiar with and think of
when you mention Vintage aviation - came about in
1931 and was Geoffrey Dehavilands 82nd design (and
at least the 42nd one of his designs that was built
and flown), using all the experience he had learnt
since building his first aircraft in 1909 (which he
crashed on his first flight!). He knew a hell of a lot
more about aerodynamics and structures in 1931,
than he (or anyone else) did during World War One.
Pre 1920 aircraft are unique in the world of aviation
and this organisation aims to help educate and
inform anyone with any interest in this period, in
particular builders and flyers of replicas, for them to
better understand the complexities and quirks and
to gain a greater appreciation of the people who
both designed and flew these aircraft at a time when
aviation was experiencing its initial growing pains.
The purpose of this organisation is to bring together
all the like minded people who share a common
interest and encourage more people to build and fly
WW1 replicas and to share information and skills.
So in each issue we plan to cover a current build and
a current flying project. Over coming issues, we will
also look at various power plants available for use
and what characteristics they have.
www.tavas.com.au
Page 1
Pooling skills and information, makes it easier for
people building projects or wanting to start one, to
succeed in the quickest time with the least
frustration - rather than having to spend ages
searching out the correct information and people,
like Chris Shepherd had to with his unique Albatros
D.Va build, which we cover in detail in this issue.
IN THIS ISSUE
Greeting from the Editor
Chris Shepherds Albatros D.Va build
Fighter Comparison Albatros vs Nieuport
From the cockpit – Sopwith Pup replica
Pg 1
Pg 2
Pg 7
Pg 8
Also in this issue we speak to Dave Marshall about
flying his Sopwith Pup replica.
We have big aims and long term goals for this
organisation which you can read about on our
website, but it all begins with getting more people
building & flying replicas of these incredible aircraft
– and that is what we plan to do.
Help us keep our members informed of current build
projects and flying examples around Australia by
sending details to us at [email protected]
Chris Shepherds beautiful Albatros D.Va build in its
new home – read article below for full details.
Andrew Carter
Founding Director TAVAS
CHRIS SHEPHERDS ALBATROS D.VA BUILD
First, a brief history of Albatros aircraft
The Albatros Werke began to build airplanes in 1910.
In 1916, they began building an incredibly advanced
fighter design, the D.I. Small improvements to that
design to improve visibility for the pilot ended up as
the D.II, powered by the Mercedes water cooled 160
hp engine. With further refinements, the D.III was
introduced in 1917. The D.IV was produced with a
more rounded fuselage (the earlier models had all
been flat sided) and was fitted with an experimental
geared version of the Mercedes which proved to be
problem ridden and so no production run of that
aircraft was ever ordered.
The D.V was released shortly after, with the rounded
fuselage of the D.IV, but with wings very similar to
the D.III. It was originally fitted with the 160 hp
engine, but this was soon replaced with a Mercedes
180 hp.
This aircraft suffered a spate of upper wing spar
failures, usually during high speed dives. This was
CONTACT – Issue 1
due to the single spar being located well behind the
quarter−chord point (the approximate location of
the aerodynamic center in the chordwise direction).
This spar location caused aeroelastic divergence, a
phenomenon apparently not understood at the time
the Albatros fighters were developed. An increase in
torsional stiffness or a relocation of the wing elastic
axis, or combining both, would have cured that.
www.tavas.com.au
Page 2
They attempted to fix the problem, by strengthening
the ribs and spars and reinforcing the fuselage. This
resulted in the aircraft re-designation, D.Va. These
remained in production until April 1918, but were
flown in combat right up till the end of the war.
Many of the highest-scoring German aces achieved
the majority of their victories while flying Albatros
fighters. Although the Red Baron, Manfred von
Richthofen, is most often associated with the Fokker
Triplane, he actually won three-quarters of his 80
combat victories in Albatros aircraft.
Approximately 4,800 Albatros fighters of all types
were built during World War One, with 1,612 of
those being the D.Va. Yet despite such high numbers
having been produced, only 2 original Albatros D.Va
exist today. One at the Smithsonian National Air and
Space Museum in Washington D.C. and the other at
our very own Australian War Memorial (AWM) in
Canberra.
official hours gliding in the Air Training Corp and a
few dozen hours with the Sydney Aerobatic School.
His father Lloyd was, until recently, a pilot with
Qantas and had flown a Sopwith Pup replica on
occasions. He had also built an Acro Sport II and
rebuilt 2 Piper Pacers over the years. So with that
background, some solid family support and a strong
interest in World War One aircraft, it was no surprise
that Chris decided to build his own WW1 fighter.
What was a surprise is the subject matter he chose
was possibly the most difficult he could have
selected – especially given this is the first aircraft he
has ever built.
The idea came to him after a visit to the Australian
War Memorial (AWM) in Canberra more than 30
years ago, where he first saw the Albatros. Chris (like
most of us) decided he wanted one and (unlike most
of us) decided 20 years later to build one for himself.
Thus began a long time research project, obtaining
all drawings and information he could find on the
subject. Some of it, like the National Air and Space
museums book on restoring their D.Va, was very
good, but the majority of it was not. He made many
parts based on flawed drawings only to find later
that they weren’t accurate and most of those parts
subsequently had to be thrown away. This included
an entire set of lower wing ribs and almost all of the
original fourteen fuselage bulkheads.
One of only 2 surviving D.Va’s. This one resides in the
Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington.
The Vintage Aviator Limited (N.Z.) has produced 2
extremely accurate reproductions and Col Palen’s
Old Rhinebeck (U.S.A) has a Ranger engine powered
example, but very few others exist due to the
complex elliptical cross-sectioned, semi-monocoque
fuselage construction and lack of suitable engines.
Despite those difficulties, one man on the NSW
Central Coast, is in the process of creating his own
flying replica Albatros D.Va.
In 2006, the D.Va was removed from general
exhibition at the AWM for restoration. Through the
very helpful John White, Chris was granted access to
the actual aircraft during that time. Using
measurements and photos he took during those
visits and combining that information with the very
accurate Bob Waugh drawings, Chris was finally on
his way to creating his dream as accurate to the
original as he could.
Chris Shepherd –
is a 40 year old, school teacher whose interest,
patience and perseverance has seen him ride a steep
learning curve and produce a magnificent looking
build of one of the most unique looking aircraft of
WW1.
He has been around aircraft for most of his life but
with little active involvement other than a few
CONTACT – Issue 1
The only other original surviving D.Va. This one at the
Australian War Memorial where it was undergoing
restoration and Chris had access to it at that time.
www.tavas.com.au
Page 3
Fuselage construction.
The fuselage has been built in a 2 car garage, so not
a lot of room for elaborate jigs and molds. Chris was
able to make a small jig using a series of wooden
sawhorses and a long rectangular frame like a
ladder. This was leveled and then nailed to the floor
with cross bracing to help counter any twisting at a
later date.
With the centreline longerons cut into the bulkheads
and using a long line on the floor it wasn’t hard to
drop a plumb bob at each frame. Once happy with
the positioning, Chris used a nail gun to drive blocks
either side of the longeron where it crosses the
ladder cross members. Where needed, he used
small packers tucked under the longerons to ensure
they were level.
The main reason he constructed the fuse this way is
that he could then still lift the fuselage up (and with
some helpers) remove the cross members and re-jig
the fuselage upside down to skin the lower side. The
cross members then support the longerons in the
same way.
in temperature and humidity resulted in the wood
skins swelling and distorting in the rearmost, and
unfixable, bottom corner panel where they had been
glued to the formers.
The following day, Chris had to take to it with a
hammer and chisel and remove the skin from that
side and start again. Lesson Learnt – don’t change
what works the first time.
During the war, Germans skinned the D.Va mainly
with 2mm and 1.5mm ply. Chris has used 3mm ply
from the engine bay to aft of the cockpit and then
2mm ply from there back to the tail where it
becomes 1.5mm. This was done for longevity and as
a safety measure given the many images Chris had
seen of DVa’s with broken backs after a hard landing
Also the type of wood used in the build differs
slightly, while the Germans used Birch and Adler
pine, Chris has used Douglas Fir and Hoop Pine.
The types of glues differ too, with some interesting
consequences. The German glues required that small
nails were used every 25mm on average, to hold the
skins together and to the bulkheads. Modern day
epoxy is much stronger or at least better bonding
and as a result, the nails aren’t needed. But as Chris
says, “It just doesn’t look like an Albatross without
the nails”, so he has put them in – all 2000+ of them!
Fuselage on the move
The simplified jig Chris created to mount the bulkheads
and begin his build.
What makes this story even more interesting is that
late last year Chris moved house, which meant
having to move a nearly completed fuselage as well,
from the deck of his shed - 20 meters above the
road, surrounded by trees and power lines!
Sounds simple in theory, but like all these things,
provides challenges in practice. The wood skins don’t
actually join on the bulkheads, but behind them.
Chris started planking one side from the rear of the
fuselage forward, gluing it with epoxy. This proved
quite successful, but Chris decided to see if he could
create one complete skin and sheet the other side in
one go.
He spent considerable time measuring and cutting
each panel and trial fitting it, before gluing it all
together over an 8 day period, to form one large
correctly curved skin. On the day he fitted that skin,
the weather went from cool and mild, to hot and
humid, before resulting in a thunderstorm. The rise
CONTACT – Issue 1
The man in his machine – Chris Shepherd and his
D.Va in the work shed 20 meters above the road.
www.tavas.com.au
Page 4
He wrapped the entire fuselage in plastic in case it
rained and mounted it on wooden wheels and
pushed it out onto the deck. Waters Cranes tuned up
on a day when unfortunately the winds were
blowing up to 40km an hour.
The slings were attached to the undercarriage and
tail, then the lift began. Despite the strong winds
and multiple obstacles, the crane operator lowered
the aircraft onto the road not only without a scratch,
but without even disturbing a gum leaf on the way
down. Chris and his wife were so impressed with the
skilled operation they both gave a standing ovation
followed by a ‘Wayne’s World – we’re not worthy’
bow.
The entire operation from the time the crane arrived
to the time it left was only 45 minutes. The fuselage
was then trailered to Chris’s fathers’ hangar at
Wedderburn airfield (a careful 2 hour drive south).
Once Chris and his family moved into their new
house and settled, Chris had to trailer the aircraft to
its new location where he will complete it. He says it
was a most interesting journey avoiding wandering
semi trailer drivers trying to take photos out of their
left window on mobile phones!
A short stop was made about 10 minutes from home
to prepare mentally for the 1km long bush track
driveway, whereupon the aircraft attracted the
attention of a mini-bus load of young women who
stopped to have their photo taken in front of the
Maltese cross painted “Spitfire”…... yes folks, they
called it a “Spitfire”.
Wing construction
The deck outside the shed, The crane in place & ready
20 meters above the road. for the delicate operation.
The plastic covered fuse being lifted off the decking.
On the trailer just before being driven to Wedderburn
CONTACT – Issue 1
Lower wing construction is coming along (see picture
next page). Ribs are made for the other lower wing
and top wing which he hopes to have finished by the
end of the year. With a wingspan of 9.05 metres
(29.75 feet), this will certainly take up a considerable
amount of space in Chris’ shed.
The wing structure is based around a single main
spar and two auxiliary spars. The ribs are ply rather
than the original planks of solid linden wood, with
ash cap strips. Generally the structure is very lightly
built and with a single spar it is somewhat flexible.
The leading edge is sheeted in 1.5mm ply which ties
the very complicated (cambered and washed out)
wingtip bow, to the wing itself.
A single bolt and housed pin secure the spar to the
fuselage although Chris will also use a 1917 variation
that provides for a second bolt to secure the leading
edge. The original aircraft was reported to suffer
from lower wing failures and modern structural
www.tavas.com.au
Page 5
analysis reports flutter to be a significant risk, even
within the upper operational speed of the aircraft.
Chris is planning to add additional mass to the inside
of the leading edge to preclude flutter from
occurring at such speeds.
as they don’t look like the original, he will most likely
swap or sell them and get one that is more accurate.
He just needs to cover the seat cushion and then it
and the finished controls can all be installed, while
waiting for the aluminium and phenolic pulley
sheaves to be manufactured.
The fuel tank has been built and requires welding
before being installed with all of the plumbing. The
tank is built from aluminium rather than soldered
brass sheet, not because of cost but rather
serviceability and sturdiness.
Engine
Original Mercedes D.III engines aren’t easy to come
by and many of the aero engines available for this
type of aircraft either don’t have enough power or
enough torque to turn an accurate propeller and
provide the critical performance equivalent to the
original D.Va. So after a lot of research, Chris settled
on a converted auto engine, the Chevrolet 292.
The interior of the D.Va at this stage.
It’s a 4.8 litre, straight 6 which will be fitted with an
internal inline spur gearbox with a 2.17 to 1
reduction. Dyno tests performed in the USA, showed
the engine produces 184 hp at 3146 rpm (1450 at
the prop) and gives around 560 foot pounds torque,
which will swing a full size 2800mm prop and give
climb and speed performance equivalent to the
D.Va’s of 1917, albeit with reverse prop rotation.
To keep the look of the original Mercedes, Chris will
manufacture an engine cover that will look like the
exposed top of the original engine.
Instruments
Making the exterior look original is one thing, but
many replicas fall down in authenticity with modern
instruments and interiors. Chris however, is putting
as much time and effort into the inside as he has
with the exterior.
He has obtained some original instrument cases (one
believed to be from a crashed Albatros) and will
either restore them or use them to create faithful
replicas. He has a fuel gauge, an Airspeed meter, a
brass faced altimeter and a couple of compasses, but
CONTACT – Issue 1
The one question Chris is asked most is “What colour
scheme will you finish it in?” The simple answer is
you’ll know when you see it, because Chris hasn’t
settled on a scheme yet and figures he still has
plenty of time to do so, so is not rushing into it. He
has expressed that he has no intention of using a
well known “Aces” scheme but will use something
that includes a few splashes of colour to make the
green and lilac camouflage a little more visible in the
circuit.
Many builders are also curious to know - what does
his wife think of his decade long project? She has
supported him throughout (Chris reckons this is
because she has blocked out how much it all costs),
knowing it’s what makes him happy and that it
“keeps him off the streets at night”.
Congratulations Chris. This is a very impressive
project, even more so as it is your first build.
We will be following the completion of this project
with great interest and will keep our members
updated with his progress.
www.tavas.com.au
Page 6
FIGHTER COMPARISON
Albatros
Vs
Both aircraft underwent many improvements and
variants during the war. As a basic comparison we
look here at the Albatros D.III (whose wings were
interchangeable with the D.Va) and the Nieuport 17.
ALBATROS D.VIII
7.33 m (24 ft 0 in)
955 kg (2,105 lb)
23.6 m² (254 ft²)
37.5 kg/m² (7.67 lb/ft²)
0.13 kW/kg (0.081 hp/lb)
94 knots
NIEUPORT 17
Length:
MTOW:
Wing area:
Wing loading:
Power/weight:
Max speed:
One advantage was its two fixed, forward−facing
7.62mm Spandau machine guns, synchronized to fire
between the revolving blades of the propeller.
The Albatros fighters were among the first biplanes
to be armed in this way and may be thought of as
setting a trend in fighter design which was to last for
the next two decades.
BASIC DATA –
Length:
MTOW:
Wing area:
Wing loading:
Power/weight:
Max speed:
Nieuport
5.80 m (19 ft 0 in)
560 kg (1,232 lb)
14.75 m² (158.8 ft²)
37.9 kg/m² (7.77 lb/ft²)
0.15 kW/kg (0.09 hp/lb)
96 knots
The Albatros was a larger and heavier aircraft and
not as maneuverable as the Nieuports. Its wingspan
was almost 3 feet longer than the French fighter.
Although the D.III was heavier, had more wing area
and a more powerful engine than the Nieuport, the
values of the wing loading and the power loading for
the two aircraft are not greatly different. Also, the
values of the zero−lift drag coefficient and the
maximum lift-drag ratio are about the same.
These two aircraft can therefore be considered to
have about equal aerodynamic efficiency and
accordingly, to exhibit about the same performance
characteristics. In fact, the maximum speeds are
about the same although the altitudes at which the
max speeds were obtained are somewhat different.
Since, for small altitude variations, the decrease in
drag that accompanies the reduction in air density is
about offset by the reduction in power with altitude,
the speed comparison of the two aircraft is valid.
The Albatross had more power than the Nieuport
(160hp compared to 110), but this was not enough
to offset its extra weight and so the Nieuport had a
slightly better power to weight ratio.
Values of the time required to climb to various
altitudes are also about the same for the two aircraft
at lower altitudes, however the climbing capability
of the Albatros is superior to that of the Nieuport
above 10 000 feet.
The Albatros was a great fighter for its time, with its
greatest limitation being the wing spar failure, but
combat pilots learn to operate within the confines of
an aircrafts weakness and play to its strengths.
That, plus the heavier armament of the Albatros is
no doubt responsible for the generally accepted
opinion that it was a more effective fighter than a
Nieuport.
CONTACT – Issue 1
www.tavas.com.au
Page 7
FROM THE COCKPIT
SOPWITH PUP
Entering service in mid 1916, the Sopwith Pup was
initially a huge success and much admired by those
who flew it. The Pup's light weight and generous
wing area gave it a good rate of climb. Agility was
enhanced by aileron surfaces being fitted on both
upper and lower wings. The Pup had half the
horsepower and armament of the Albatross D.III, but
was much more maneuverable, especially above
15,000 ft due to its low wing loading.
British Fighter Ace, James McCudden, stated that
"When it came to maneuvering, the Sopwith [Pup]
would turn twice to an Albatros' once ... it was a
remarkably fine machine for general all-round flying.
It was so extremely light and well surfaced that after
a little practice one could almost land it on a tennis
court.” It was this quality that made it so well suited
to beginning ship borne operations of the day.
The leading Australian ace of World War I, Captain
Robert Little DSO, DSC, achieved nine of his 47 kills
while flying the Pup with the Royal Naval Air Service.
On December 1917, a Sopwith Pup pioneered
Australian Naval aviation when it was successfully
launched from the light cruiser HMAS Sydney.
Shortly after the Wars end, eleven Pups were
supplied to the Australian Flying Corps as part of the
Imperial Gift. In 1921, with the formation of the
RAAF, the aircraft were allotted to No 1 Flying
Training School at Point Cook for use as an
intermediate fighter trainer until 1930.
Dave Marshalls Replica Pup.
First ever aircraft landing on a moving ship Sqn Cdr E. H. Dunning landing on HMS Furious
in a Sopwith Pup on the 2nd August 1917.
The Sopwith Pup is significant to Australian aviation
for many reasons. During WW1, it was flown by
Australian Pilots in No. 5, 6 and 8 Training Squadrons
of the Australian Flying Corp and in combat with
Australian pilots serving in British squadrons.
The first combat victory by a pilot flying the Pup was
achieved by Australian Sub-Lieutenant Stanley Goble
while serving with the Royal Naval Air Service on
September 24, 1916. (He went on to become an Air
Vice-Marshal and three-time Chief of Air Staff).
CONTACT – Issue 1
In 1979 the Transavia company started construction
on 2 replica Sopwith Pups. They were both built to
very accurate drawings of the original, but the
fuselage was contructed of welded tube instead of
wood and they were both powered by Armstrong
Siddeley Genet Major radial engines of 145 hp
instead of the 80 hp Le Rhone radial.
One of these aircraft ultimately ended up being
owned by the RAAF museum at Point Cook. The
other was purchased partially built by Ron Jackson in
1982.
Ron started work part time on the aircraft in 1983
and finished it on October 13th 1992. The aircraft
was covered with Ceconite and painted in the
traditional colours of the AFC.
www.tavas.com.au
Page 8
Although this pilot had plenty of time on Stearmans,
the much slower landing speed and desire to float
on landing, meant that the Pup landed long, in the
long grass and caught a hidden fence and flipped on
its back, resulting in more serious damage to much
of the aircraft.
Despite these setbacks, Dave is very keen to get the
aircraft airborne again as he states that this is an
incredibly enjoyable aircraft to fly, free of vices.
The Sopwith Pup at Riddell airfield
At the start of Easter in 1993, Ron decided to fly the
Pup to the Mangalore Airshow, however he didn’t
make it. A design fault with both Pup replicas was
that the fuel tank was not properly pressurised
resulting in the engine ‘hiccupping’ on occasion at
full power.
Due to the Pup having a tail skid and no brakes, Dave
says that ground handling is an issue, as it can be
difficult to turn on the ground at times. Having a
wing walker whilst taxing is beneficial. Taxing in any
sort of cross wind is not recommended as it can be
easy to ground strike a wing tip in a turn.
And that’s exactly what happened that day, at that
crucial moment after takeoff - and Ron went into the
trees at the far end of the strip. This resulted in
considerable damage to the lower wing, engine
mount, undercarriage and prop.
Barry Bishton repaired the aircraft and a forward
facing vent was installed in the fuel tank to provide
pressurisation, which fixed the engine problem.
Takeoffs are relatively simple, with the aircraft easily
tracking straight on the ground and there is plenty of
power to get it airborne in a short distance.
In fact Dave says that it does have too much power
and that most flying is done at half throttle, but even
then it requires some forward stick pressure to
maintain straight and level as there is no elevator
trim on this aircraft.
With 4 ailerons, the roll rate is quick, but not
twitchy. There is no adverse yaw tendency and it is
light in pitch. All the controls are light and well
balanced.
This is a light aircraft. Even though the replica has an
empty weight 100kgs heavier than the original, the
MTOW is the same at 558kgs. With a wing area of
254 sq ft, this gives a very low wing loading, more in
line with some ultralight aircraft. This can potentially
catch people out as Dave found when he lent the
Pup to a mate to fly on the 4th of Feb 2009.
CONTACT – Issue 1
The pilot sits quite high in this Pup, which gives him
good visibility, but more exposure to the airflow.
However Dave claims you are a lot less buffeted in
the cockpit of the Pup than you are in the rear seat
of a Tigermoth or Stearman.
The overall performance of the aircraft, as already
mentioned, is more in keeping with an ultralight
aircraft with slow climb, cruise and landing speeds,
very similar to the original, but the RoC is higher.
www.tavas.com.au
Page 9
The incredible looking and great handling Sopwith Pup lined up and ready for take off at Riddells Creek Airfield
All things considered, this is a very accurate looking
and flying replica and is a credit to the men who
built and finished it.
Sadly, Ron Jackson passed away in 2009, and so the
Pup has a lot of sentimental value to Dave, who will
keep it flying in Rons memory.
If you are interested in building your own Sopwith
Pup with the least hassle and expense, you might
want to consider Rob Baslees Airdrome kits, with the
Sopwith Pup deluxe kit costing only US$12,495 –
www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/sopwithpup.html
There is a short video on youtube of Ron Jackson
flying the Pup in a low, slow flyby. Click on the link to
see it – www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn8Pzsjjjhc
Dave Marshall is also in the process of building an
accurate Fokker DR1 reproduction, with an original
Le Rhone 110hp Rotary up front. The reconstruction
of that engine will be an article in a future issue of
Contact, as will the DR1 when Dave finally gets time
to continue work on it.
Rob Baslee kit built Sopwith Pup (Rotec powered)
That’s all, for this our first issue. The next newsletter is due mid 2012.
We are looking for contributions for future newsletters. If you would like to submit an article on any facet of WW1
aviation in Australia, please contact us with your suggestion.
If you have any news, photos or information of vintage aviation in Australia, or would just like to give us feedback
about the website or the newsletter, please share it with us by emailing us at [email protected]
Until then,
Build light and strong - and fly safe.
CONTACT – Issue 1
www.tavas.com.au
Page 10