Beaufighter found on the beach

I think the aviation requirements differ depending on whether it's a restoration or a replica. There's certainly been debates on how much original aircraft is required to be called a restoration as opposed to a replica.

If you restored a Sopwith Camel you could use a rotary engine. i doubt you'd be able to do that with a replica no matter how 'authentic' it is.
Actually, I think you have that 180 out, or maybe it's your use of the word 'could', which offers a choice. A restoration needs to be true to the original (as practically possible) while a replica is a 'look like'.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think you have that 180 out, or maybe it's your use of the word 'could', which offers a choice. A restoration needs to be true to the original (as practically possible) while a replica is a 'looks like'.
On a tangent, in motor racing, a similar 'logic' applies.
many of the 'classics' from the 60s have been/had been rebuilt so many times their originality is in question, as body parts, chassis sections, panels, engines etc were swapped between vehicles, or used in other projects.
So much so, that some Le Mans cars are like relics from the Cross, with 2 or three 'authentic' versions around. And factory records show yes, they do contain a lot of 'original bits, but whether those exact bits were on the car at the time they won a race is unproveable!
 
On a tangent, in motor racing, a similar 'logic' applies.
many of the 'classics' from the 60s have been/had been rebuilt so many times their originality is in question, as body parts, chassis sections, panels, engines etc were swapped between vehicles, or used in other projects.
So much so, that some Le Mans cars are like relics from the Cross, with 2 or three 'authentic' versions around. And factory records show yes, they do contain a lot of 'original bits, but whether those exact bits were on the car at the time they won a race is unproveable!
Yep, Trigger's broom.
 

SecurityGeek

Old-Salt
I'm not judging. It was a war crime then as it is now.
Ah, the 21st century black and white view of the modern "surgical" combat zone. You seem very certain that the personnel in that boat were all poor shipwrecked merchant seamen and not armed soldiers who may have been engaging the attack aircraft. All that from a few seconds of very grainy B/W film.
You also seem to believe that any troops who escaped from their destroyed vessel would not have attempted to continue with their mission to reinforce Jap forces engaging the allies near to their destination. That was the reason for the mass air attack on the Japanese convoy to destroy the convoy and eliminate those reinforcements.

A definition of combatant (my bold):

"Notably, in international armed conflicts governed by Additional Protocol I, a combatant distinguishes himself sufficiently if he carries his arms openly:
  1. during each military engagement; and
  2. during such time as he is visible to the adversary while engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
 
I'm not judging. It was a war crime then as it is now.
I agree...

...but in this film it might not be - the Japanese troops who were tasked to land from the transports would've gone ashore in things like the Daihatsu-class landing craft (which a couple of the 'lifeboats' appear to resemble) and utility boats which we (the UK) would've regarded as being the sort of boat used for a run ashore by a party of eager matelots, not for landing armed troops, and which certainly resemble some of the boats we see being strafed.

I know the commentator - who I really thought was going to get a reference to slitty eyes into the narration at a couple of points - mentions lifeboats, but it's quite possible that these are troops who've left the transports, quite likely earlier than planned, heading for their intended destination. Distinguishing between a lifeboat and many of the Japanese landing craft/boats would be difficult at the sort of attack speeds.

Also, a B-17 crew had been shot down and then used as target practice as they baled out fairly early on in proceedings during the battle, so you can imagine that many of the Allied aircrew, knowing of this, would've regarded all the small boats they saw as part of the landing force and thus legitimate targets, assuming that they'd stopped to think about it.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I agree...

...but in this film it might not be - the Japanese troops who were tasked to land from the transports would've gone ashore in things like the Daihatsu-class landing craft (which a couple of the 'lifeboats' appear to resemble) and utility boats which we (the UK) would've regarded as being the sort of boat used for a run ashore by a party of eager matelots, not for landing armed troops, and which certainly resemble some of the boats we see being strafed.

I know the commentator - who I really thought was going to get a reference to slitty eyes into the narration at a couple of points - mentions lifeboats, but it's quite possible that these are troops who've left the transports, quite likely earlier than planned, heading for their intended destination. Distinguishing between a lifeboat and many of the Japanese landing craft/boats would be difficult at the sort of attack speeds.

Also, a B-17 crew had been shot down and then used as target practice as they baled out fairly early on in proceedings during the battle, so you can imagine that many of the Allied aircrew, knowing of this, would've regarded all the small boats they saw as part of the landing force and thus legitimate targets, assuming that they'd stopped to think about it.
Yes but sat here at home, in a comfy chair with my feet up 75 odd years later clearly this was terrible!
 
Yes but sat here at home, in a comfy chair with my feet up 75 odd years later clearly this was terrible!
As someone who once responded to a student's question 'Was dropping the second atom bomb necessary?' with 'I'm of the view the b*stards were lucky we only had two available', ¹, I'm afraid I can't quite share the concern, merely agree with the fact that, legally-speaking, f_c is correct...


¹You could say that sort of thing when the student's grandad had a Burma Star amongst his medal rack and the recently-retired professor of economic history was renowned for talking about his time in the Far East 'tracking the Japs' on his radar set...
 

Chef

LE
Actually, I think you have that 180 out, or maybe it's your use of the word 'could', which offers a choice. A restoration needs to be true to the original (as practically possible) while a replica is a 'look like'.
It looked ok when I wrote it but it is ambiguous.

I believe that rotary engines are not acceptable in a modern aircraft.

So it would be permissible to fit one in a restoration.

It would be forbidden to use one in a replica.

That looks better.
 
It looked ok when I wrote it but it is ambiguous.

I believe that rotary engines are not acceptable in a modern aircraft.

So it would be permissible to fit one in a restoration.

It would be forbidden to use one in a replica.

That looks better.
As long as you think so!
 
It looked ok when I wrote it but it is ambiguous.

I believe that rotary engines are not acceptable in a modern aircraft.

So it would be permissible to fit one in a restoration.

It would be forbidden to use one in a replica.

That looks better.
The Vintage Aviator NZ, restore, reverse engineer engines, airframes. The modern replicas they build are as close to the originals, as is possible. The only concessions they make are fuels, lubricants and electrics.
 
I believe that rotary engines are not acceptable in a modern aircraft.
There is one point I haven’t researched, rotary engine’s such as Bentley and LeRhone, had a total loss lubrication system.
They used Caster Oil, you see photos of the aircrew plastered in the stuff.
Im pretty sure modern environmentalists would throw wabbleys, so they must have stopped it somehow!
 
There is one point I haven’t researched, rotary engine’s such as Bentley and LeRhone, had a total loss lubrication system.
They used Caster Oil, you see photos of the aircrew plastered in the stuff.
Im pretty sure modern environmentalists would throw wabbleys, so they must have stopped it somehow!
Castor oil did exactly what it is reputed to do.
Add open cockpit.
So brown trousers were essential.
 

Chef

LE
There is one point I haven’t researched, rotary engine’s such as Bentley and LeRhone, had a total loss lubrication system.
They used Caster Oil, you see photos of the aircrew plastered in the stuff.
Im pretty sure modern environmentalists would throw wabbleys, so they must have stopped it somehow!
A few years back we were puzzling over how you get fuel into the cylinders on a rotary engine. As the RAF museum was nearby we asked there and although we couldn't work it out from a cut away instructional engine they took my address and a few weeks later a bundle of photocopied articles arrived. Which was nice of them.

The petrol vapour is sent into the crankcase and thence to the cylinders. Another reason for using castor oil is it doesn't react with the petrol.

'Castrol' oil derives its name from the addition of castor oil to their product.
 
One made a very brief cameo appearance in Ice Cold In Alex. I think it was one if the target tugs out of Luqa. Last I saw was an Aussie one being restored at Duxford. I understand it's been shelved and sold.
Last time I visited (last year) they were still working on the Beaufighter, however they have not got the correct engines to put it back in the air. They have sourced a pair, but these currently are not for sale. Until then it is a project very much on hold although minor tinkering is still being performed as time and man-hours permit.

My father was a war-time Beaufighter pilot, hence my interest in this aircraft. I have been visiting Duxford now for over 25 years to watch the "progress" of this beautiful aircraft.
 
Last time I visited (last year) they were still working on the Beaufighter, however they have not got the correct engines to put it back in the air. They have sourced a pair, but these currently are not for sale. Until then it is a project very much on hold although minor tinkering is still being performed as time and man-hours permit.

My father was a war-time Beaufighter pilot, hence my interest in this aircraft. I have been visiting Duxford now for over 25 years to watch the "progress" of this beautiful aircraft.
These engines you mention are in Australia, their owned by the group restoring a Beaufighter. They were obtained from NZ, which I believe were part of the spares stock for the Bristol Frieghters operated by the RNZAF.
 
These engines you mention are in Australia, their owned by the group restoring a Beaufighter. They were obtained from NZ, which I believe were part of the spares stock for the Bristol Frieghters operated by the RNZAF.
When I asked about the then rumoured find of engines, the engineers were very non-specific about the source, only that the correct Bristol Hercules versions had been found and they were discussing possibilities of obtaining the pair. They do have a pair of Bristol Hercules engines but the wrong marque of them.
 

Latest Threads

Top