How the future can revive the past

But not when one is making the aircraft themselves....a high speed 3D printer could make the aircraft and effectively repair the damage by remaking the damaged piece/s...this would bring the cost down to the "constituents" or materials needed to make the aircraft (Plastic and metal) and the power needed to operate the 3D machine...so VERY cheap...that's one of the BIG deals with this new tech...cheap and easy manufacture!

 

That is true........but for me personally I would hate to destroy something so beautiful or put it at risk. I would watch other do that, but I wouldn't!

 

I fear replica/Restored Aircraft will never be 'inexpensive', no matter how good printing may become.
As LWD alludes to, type/Work/Quality/Safety approval is perhaps the greatest barrier to more interesting flying machines in the air (probably rightly so). There's a few that can theoretically run with a bit of work, or are currently displayed on the odd taxi run, but are still millions away from the quality inspection and testing required of key parts to even get close to being allowed up.
Can see 3D prints being used for the odd bits & bobs - ancillary stuff - but as soon as it's 'flight critical' parts it's going to remain very expensive metal printing, machining, or both.

Raises the thought as to how much any replica is worth investing in, though. So many current restorations cling to a shadow of true authenticity with understandable grandad's axe levels of parts replacement. Not sure I need to see the compromises of modern engines etc. reducing that 'real' thing any more.
The Stormbird 262s are a fine thing (& Messerschmitt approved), but they're still not really 262s. (Allen planning to restore a real one? Proper engines etc.?)
Watched a programme about that German Doctor's Dreidecker replica. Thought it very good, understood the safety choice of using modern fabric covering, but then lost interest when they explained it didn't have a proper rotary engine - 3D-printed pots hiding a modern Lycoming... Fine, but sort of made it a very impressive toy a little too far from a convincing representation of the Red Baron's final steed.
www.dreidecker.co.uk - About me


I like your list.
Would be interesting to see 'survivors' in the middle of the numbers too.
Always surprises me only a single complete Typhoon survives (very nice of the Americans to give it back to the RAF).
Two others (that I know of) being hopefully, one day, returned to flight, though.
Hawker Typhoon RB396 » Restoration
Hawker Typhoon JP843 Restoration
Something I would very much like to see & hear one day.

 

An interesting "generational" view of material goods...my Grandparents didn't throw anything away having experienced the results of the "Great depression" - waste not want not...we having been moving towards a desposable world since then...but even "we" understand the value of things...imagine if something could be replaced quickly, simply and cheaply..? Your car, your phone...a TV used to be used for a decade or more by a family, now they are cheap enough to buy a new one every two or three years...and we think nothing of disposing of the old one for a new "better" tv...your generation has grown up with the disposable thinking, yet you display some old values still...yours is a transitional generation...you will be appalled by your kids's attitudes to things im sure! Haha...showing your age.

 

I think you are definitely right in saying it will probably never be inexpensive, but it will reduce the cost which is enough for some to pursue the task. You are also correct in saying that all of the replicas and remakes aren't truly authentic, but for me personally 98% authentic is a whole lot better than no flying examples at all. Regarding the list, do you mean models that survived the war, or survived the scrap initially?

 

I think you underestimate the technology as IS today but certainly as it is moving toward Von Poop...these machines can achieve "exactness" in shaping...the material used will decide strength - it might surprise you that 3D printing is/will be used to make many REAL aircraft parts - These will be as good or better than can currently be achieved, especially in terms of consistency...whatever the requirement needed, the machine could make...from scratch...simultaneously laying plastic and metal where needed..."Can see 3D prints being used for the odd bits & bobs - ancillary stuff - but as soon as it's 'flight critical' parts it's going to remain very expensive metal printing, machining, or both" - Can be used and should be used for these odd bods...all one needs is a blueprint for the computer/machine to work off...a laser scanner can help to create ones own blueprints if for some reason you cant find one on the net or you want to create your own "odd bod" custimisations...
As I have said earlier, some parts for an aircraft may not be suitable for a "current" printer only because it doesn't "lay" in the material required, these parts would make up a small percentage of material needed...and my point about making half scale version of WW2 aircraft is that one doesn't need the "special" materials for flight...the engine for example wouldnt create the temperatures or need the strength of a REAL WW2 combat aircraft...of course jets are a different kettle of fish...but im confident even scaled down version of them could be created without the special materials...these would be for fun, not war.

 

I've vaguely followed 3D printing with metals, and I'm not going to deny there's some clever bastards out there, but every impression I've got is that aviation is 'special'. The first parts only approved this year (?) and the materials required still being well beyond what most other fields demand to gain certification.
The interest in it re modern planes seems to be more about convenience and avoiding anything being grounded for too long, or having to keep too many stock parts in a field where efficiency is everything and time costs are stratospheric.
Not convinced it'll ever translate to smaller projects.

Costs a fortune to have parts machined etc by expert engineers for your Lancaster or typhoon, but I suspect it will always cost more to do it in this new way where every single part or new process will require extensive testing and approval.
Can definitely see there being 3D sintering etc all over the shop eventually, but most areas don't have the same standards required in aviation. Every nut and bolt coming under the magnifying glass.

 

This technology is new, and so are the methods of testing and ultimately approving them, but I think overtime it will save time and money......time. Thankfully there is a lot of it, so nobody has to rush the process.

 

I understand your thoughts...but my impression is that whatever can be/must be machined can be matched easily by the 3D printer...even if the copies are made from an original machined piece...im not sure where you think it will be deficient. Whatever standard can be met (eventually) by the machine and met easily...the only weakness I can see are parts that are made from "special" metals, those that need extra strength or heat resistance etc...Still can be done by the 3D machine, but only if its able to print in these special metals...so a "special" machine would have to be independently produced to print these pieces...or still machined and "put in" during the process...
The smaller RC aircraft will still be under the same rules and regs that "normal" large scale RCs are today...in terms of flight restrictions etc etc...

 

I think you are absolutely right CAC, it would only take one inspection after a parts creation to see if it is in fact capable of doing the job, after that it should be priority to make sure you have the metals needed and the printer is maintained. I think 3D printers have much more potential that people are willing to admit. They could build aircraft parts, and even full blown aircraft on an industrial scale, not just warbirds (But even warbirds maybe?)/

 

That's my thinking mate...we aren't there yet...but in (short) time...

 

Now some ballsy and rich aviation expert or company should run with this idea, companies are willing to pay more for robots (in this case 3D printers) than skilled labor to decrease prices and increase productivity. Fast food is doing it, car companies are doing it, and medical companies are doing it too. I think the Aviation industry would be foolish not to do the same, it's hard to admit, and accept, but it's the future.

 

I think the aircraft companies are FULLY on board with the idea...we all know what they are capable of to reduce costs and increase profits, robots and printing and automation are in their sites for sure...I think part of the problem today is the size of the printer needed and public perception...and the fact that the tech is still in its fledgling stage.
Car companies will/may show the way first...and then upscale it to aircraft.
Think of the potential in space exploration...not needing to transport large heavy equipment/materials...they could land on a planet or moon and use the materials right there to build machines and buildings...

 

There needs to be a "Tesla" aviation corporation that despite the lack of knowledge and expertise goes ahead and gambles. Tesla did that with electric cars, and now they are a multi-billion dollar business. In terms of 3D printing, I have no knowledge whatsoever if there is a single aircraft company that is using the technology yet, whoever starts first will get a significant head start as you said. Bravo with your idea on space exploration as well, there is just another possibility!

 

Public perception is paramount with aviation travel...im not sure there will be a "brave" company...indeed if bravery is needed then the tech is not ready...I think the military and car manufacture will probably show the way...by the time it gets to aircraft people will be more educated and trusting of the technology...or the aircraft companies will simply proceed without any big announcement, the percentage printed becoming greater year after year until most of the aircraft is printed...

 

I think you are probably right, it will be more than a decade I would assume before this technology even becomes prevalent in all facets of manufacturing. I totally agree that consumer approval is also a huge indicator of how large this change could be.

 

Just because you can 3D print a material in metal doesn't mean that you can do it with specific alloys or that the part is as strong as say a forged part and that's without getting into heat treating. How it responds to use (vibration, shock, flexing, etc) is an open question as well. For a sub scale drone I see minimal issues for a full size piloted version not so much. Add passengers especially paying ones and ...

3D printers also have a reputation of being rather temperamental so far. Maybe it's just the hobbyist version but from what I've read many require constant tinkering to keep running well and their are issues with how fine of detail they can reproduce. I think many of these issues will be solved in the not to distant future but they can't be ignored at this point.

 

[QUOTE=" I think many of these issues will be solved in the not to distant future but they can't be ignored at this point.[/QUOTE]
I think you are right about that lwd, it will take time to perfect the many imperfections.