Been some time since we had one of these quizes.
Moth family??
Lou
Well I guess I really can't tell at this stage exactly what aircraft that is. But I must guess that it definitely is not of the Moth Family. But I'm really posting at this time because of a thought that has been in mind for quite some time. Your photograph of an aircraft, Mark, has had me baffled for sometime. I believe it is a De Haviland Puss Moth. Its registration also has me baffled. Could you please enlighten myself and the Group, if I should not be the only one ignorant of the history behind your chosen photo, as to your choice of accompanying photo.
Thanks.
Cliff.
Lou,
Not giving hints yet.
Cliff,
It's my restored Skybirds Puss Moth in the markings of CF-AGO, the first Puss Moth in N. America. See link:
http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/SMF/index.php?topic=590.0
Thanks Mark for the reference to your prior very informative piece on the history of your Puss Moth that you've presented as your signature photo. Of course I've read it before but I admit to having forgoten its substance over time. In the meantime, I believe the description of your restoration is well worth a permanent place in our "technique" section. The remark concerning the wings falling off is really of primary concern and is thought to be a fault in the death of Bert Henkler a long distance flier a way back then - the '20s or '30s. This latter bit plus some very good 3views - after I check it out - I'll post for you and others and was the matter that I had been intending to draw attention to for sometime.
Cliff.
Well 'V' centre section struts ? having a guess to get the ball rolling,is it a Heath Parasol ? it certainly looks to be a very pretty design of the light aircraft category.
Barry.
Not a Heath Parasol.
Vickers Vimy engine arrangement ? totally different thinking.
Barry.
Not a Vimy or Virginia or Vernon (I think that's the whole family).
Mark
Caudron Luciole ?
Barry.
No, but nice try!
Blackburn B.2 ?
Barry.
Sorry again Barry.
Hirtenberg HS.9A ?
Barry.
I believe it is a Moth of some description. A two seater, side by side version. I think that the tail is of the conventional De Havilland type. But the fuel tank on the top wing appears to be smaller than normal. And that's my two cents for what it's worth.
Cliff.
PS. Obviously a home built. Obvious because it appears to be metal covered.
What about the Pietenpol Aircamper ? something keeps saying parasol to me ?
Barry.
Cliff,
The color photo of the metal fuselage machine shows the Blackburn B.2 suggested by Barry. But you're correct, it is a Moth of some description.....actually Lou suggested it first but it was an incomplete designation so I let the game go on for a bit. Now tell us which Moth it is!!!
Barry,
Not the Hirtenberg or Pietenpol.
Back to the books! And by the way, while looking through some older xeroxed copies from the, believe it was 1926 issue of Flight, I found a reference to the Moth Three - which apparently was a forerunner of the De Havilland Puss Moth. It even had 3views of the Moth Three which in place of 3views of the Puss Moth could pretty well stand in place for the more famous Puss Moth of Jim Mollison and Bert Hinkler fame. More later when I get it all sorted out.
Cliff.
Lets get DH,83C Fox Moth out of the way ?
Barry.
This is the best guess I can come up with. Its only a guess but after trying desperately to consult sources and having come this far - the library - I'll say that it is a version of A Thruxton Jackaroo. This is an aircraft that was derived from the DH82A Tiger Moth. It had various seating arrangements from a single seat to three or in some cases four seats.
Cliff.
Not a Fox Moth or a Jackaroo.
RWD.8 ? back to parasols again.
Barry.
Not the RWD Barry. It's a Moth as already mentioned...you just have to figure out which Moth and another hint: it's a VERY rare Moth.
Mark,
Is it a DH60M Metal Moth?
Regards
Will
Is it the DH.50 Giant Moth ?
Barry.
Hurray for Will!
Yes, it's a D.H.60M but like none other 60M. Sometimes called a D.H.60M(R). this is the famous G-AAXG (c/n 1542) built as a racing mount for Alan S. Butler, Chairman of de Havillands, for the 1930 King's Cup (came 2nd) and the 1930 Round Europe touring competition. As built, it had closed cockpits. It went to France soon after and was raced as F-AJZB by Edouard A. Bret to victory in the Coupe Zenith race of 1930. It went to New Zealand before the war and stayed there as ZK-AEJ until a couple of years ago when long time owner Gerald Grocott sold it. It is now back in the UK and has taken up it's original registration.
It has numerous differences from a standard D.H.60M. The fuselage is faired with extra stringers, the cabane struts are non-standard to reduce their length. The Gipsy II engine is lowered a couple of inches and the cowling is one-of-a-kind. The long exhaust pipe has been shortened and exits on the bottom of the fuselage.
As an avid Moth fan, I have over 100 photos of this airplane, many from Mr. Grocott himself. It is my intention to one day build this, the most beautiful of the Gipsy Moths as a R/C model.
Mark it is back in the UK and based on an airstrip a mere 6 miles from where I live ! it certainly has had quite a bit of history to it and a few rebuilds as well.
Now go and find another tricky picture for us to have a crack at ! that one certainly wound me up.
Barry.
Thanks Mark,
That was a real challenge. I couldn't find it in any of the few books with Moth photos I have, and had to squint at hundreds of google images before stumbling on a photo at the right angle to show that distinctive cabane structure and louvres. The front end of G-AAXG looks rakish but the extra stringers on the side make her look a bit portly - I think the standard DH60M looks nicer.
I wonder how the wings fold back on G-AAXG as she doesn't have all the struts alongside the fuselage like a standard Moth to hold the wing-bays in place as far as I can see?
Regards
Will
Being a racer, it would not have carried the jury struts outside, the wings do fold though as shown. Note the small gravity tank as well. If you study long enough you can find all sorts of small differences in G-AAXG. I have the fuselage, vertical tail and undercarriage plan drawn for my "someday" model. Unfortunately I have several plans in such an unfinished state. Wish I could retire and work at Barry's rate of knots.
Mark your choice was a real teaser,those struts really made it a challenge.
See if you can come up with another to tax the old grey matter ?
Barry.
Congratulations Will. I must admit that I was mostly guessing. Mark indeed did provide a challenge but, like yourself, I looked into the few sources concerning DH Moths that I've got and really found nothing. And myself a past owner of a Tiger Moth! Good grief! How the years go by.
In the meantime addressing this primarily to Mark who has expressed a longtime interest in Moths or rather DH aircraft, could you please provide us with the essential difference between the Moth Three and the Puss Moth.
Cliff
Cliff,
I believe the Moth Three was just an early name for the Puss Moth. DH had been naming their Moths by engine type, Cirrus Moth, Hermes Moth, Gipsy Moth, Genet Moth etc. The new monoplane also had a Gipsy engine so that naming scheme couldn't continue. Certainly the prototype D.H.80 with wooden fuselage didn't carry any name and possibly that situation carried over into the early production D.H.80a with welded steel tube fuselage. Perhaps the press came up with Moth Three to differentiate it from the older D.H.60 Moth series, the Three signifying it as a three seater. I only really know of it being called the Moth Three in the Flight article of early 1930 which introduced the new model to the public. We do know the new type was called Puss Moth by the time of the fourth production machine (CF-AGO, which came to Canada as a co. demonstrator). As far as differences, I only know the very earliest examples had a smaller vertical tail. How long the small vertical tail remained in production, I don't know.
Thanks Mark. That is really enlightening because, primarily, I would like to do a Puss Moth but as yet the only plans I have - and those that I believe you referred to - was from Flight. They are as you know very detailed 3views.
But whether or not they are, at least in part, an accurate representation of the Puss Moth is not known. However, to this point they are the best that I have been able to come up with.
Cliff.
Mark, you are indeed a great source of info on De Havilland aircraft. Your knowledge in this area is such that I may call upon you again sometime if you don't mind.
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/ww2planes/ww2-de-havilland/de-havilland-dh-80-puss-moth.png
Cliff, in my opinion the Flight 3-view is quite good and probably more than enough for solid model purposes. You can access the Flight files thru this link: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/1930.html Type in "Moth Three" and run a search to find pages of detail.
Thanks Lou for the 3views of the Puss Moth. Now, and even though I shouldn't be even yet thinking of building, the problem of scale presents itself again.
Cliff.
Mark. Thanks very much for that site. It's extremly informative and one that I think all members will gain from.
Cliff.