Jump to content

DH.50 info


Anthony in NZ

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone

 

The thought of a DH.50 model really interests me.  I have for a very long time desired to build a model of this plane, particularly the one sole example operated by the NZPAF.  I now have a friend interested as well who has good CAD experience and we are both looking at the ideal of converting the Wingnut Wings AMC DH.9.

 

I have started a new thread as suggested by John Adam as we were going off topic on the DH-60 thread.

 

Does anyone know a source for accurate plans? Interior shots...anything that might be helpful?

 

Here is the NZPAF one...I think it ended up in Australia?

DH.50_zpshfigwbod.jpg

 

Kind regards

Anthony

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea Anthony, it sounds very cool! In case you've not visited NZDF Serials, they have this to say about Ol' 135:

 

Built by De Havillands to Air Ministry Contract No 71B 225/26.
First flew at Stag Lane in early 1927. 
Arrived at Lyttleton on board "Remuera" on Thursday 31 March 1927 for the NZPAF who intended to use it for survey work. 
It was assembled at Wigram and fitted with an Eagle VIII camera which was aimed through 2 doors cut in the floor of the aircraft's fuselage. 
The aircraft proved to not be a stable enough platform for photography and as a result spent most of it's time on communications duties. 
Operated with the serial 135. 
It was hired to a company named Air Travel between 06 November 1930 and 12 April 1931 in an abortive attempt to run an airline service between Christchurch and Dunedin. 
At the end of this time the aircraft had flown 259 hours on the route. 
Overturned at Wigram after landing there on 29 April 1931. 
Ultimately exported to New Guinea in 1933 and entered the Australian Register as VH-UQX on 04 May 1933 with Holdens Air Transport Services, Sydney. 
To Guinea Airways New Guinea. 
Damaged on landing at Ramu on 21 March 1937 when the aircraft swung into long grass and crashed off the airfield.. 
Expected to be repaired by 30 June 1937 but the aircraft was struck off the register on 03 May 1937.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this came up, I've been finding what little there is available. Any drawings I've got, I have been over laying them on my light board and in my drawing program.  So far every one differs in some way.  Using common sense and typical DH usage of production parts I've worked out a broad outline.

 

The wings are slightly modified (at the roots) DH 4 or 9 (Not 9 A, as this wing has a broader chord).  As to Arthur Orde-Hulmes statement in British Commercial aircraft that the prototype had a standard DH 9 rudder, this is not totally true. The DH 50 has a quite small fin and the balance part of the rudder is therefore shorter. This is to match the narrower chord tailplane of the DH 50. The fact that the rudder used had RAF rudder stripes suggests that a 'modified' 9 rudder was used with a shortened  balance area. This would be be a simple mod by shortening the balance and re doping the patched fabric with the appropriate  stripe colour. However I'm sceptical.

 

However when the DH 9 rudder is overlaid onto a simple DH company side view drawing sourced in an Australian publication the rear part of the DH 9 rudder is slightly too big. The original drawing is qualified by being from a very faded DH blueprint source and it might have been wrongly over lined. The dichotomy here is that I've found other DH blueprint general GA's to be not totally trustworthy and that other drawings such as from Flight, might have started out as accurate but by the time the ?%**y printers have made them "fit", errors can creep in. So far I have no information from a contemporary Aeroplane magazine. I'll go with a modified DH 9 rudder.  The cabin windows also don't match. 

 

I have found two very useful cabin side views of the Cobham aeroplane, including one from a contemporary foreign source which is remarkably similar to a truncated one published in Flight which does have the tail feathers on. These usefully show the cabin layout for the Cobham machine.

 

I've made the case for DH stock parts a few times as DH myth is often backed up by fact which has been miss-interpreted at a later date. Examples are the DH 83 which I solved a little while ago and the DH 84 which is always wrongly drawn and patterned with wing ribs parallel to the fuselage centre line and not perpendicular to the main spars, a la Tiger Moth as they should be.

 

More a none.

 

John

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, k5054nz said:

Great idea Anthony, it sounds very cool! In case you've not visited NZDF Serials, they have this to say about Ol' 135:

 

Built by De Havillands to Air Ministry Contract No 71B 225/26.
First flew at Stag Lane in early 1927. 
Arrived at Lyttleton on board "Remuera" on Thursday 31 March 1927 for the NZPAF who intended to use it for survey work. 
It was assembled at Wigram and fitted with an Eagle VIII camera which was aimed through 2 doors cut in the floor of the aircraft's fuselage. 
The aircraft proved to not be a stable enough platform for photography and as a result spent most of it's time on communications duties. 
Operated with the serial 135. 
It was hired to a company named Air Travel between 06 November 1930 and 12 April 1931 in an abortive attempt to run an airline service between Christchurch and Dunedin. 
At the end of this time the aircraft had flown 259 hours on the route. 
Overturned at Wigram after landing there on 29 April 1931. 
Ultimately exported to New Guinea in 1933 and entered the Australian Register as VH-UQX on 04 May 1933 with Holdens Air Transport Services, Sydney. 
To Guinea Airways New Guinea. 
Damaged on landing at Ramu on 21 March 1937 when the aircraft swung into long grass and crashed off the airfield.. 
Expected to be repaired by 30 June 1937 but the aircraft was struck off the register on 03 May 1937.

Hey Zac, interesting stuff buddy!  Thanks for finding that out.  I should book a visit to RNZAF Museum Wigram and see what they have in their archives...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another small point. It would appear that the under-carriage rake differs depending which engine is fitted. This is quite common and the Wapiti is another aircraft where this happens. The DH 50 fuselage is approx 4.5" wider at the wing roots than the DH 9 and more elbow room was made by having bulging "verandas" either side of the cabin. 

 

I have most of the Av News plans but I can't find a pointer to the DH 50.

 

Can anyone let me know the date and Volume numbers.

 

John (Adams)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above are the two sketches I referred too. The lower one is from Flight, but when scaled to fit other drawings the wing chord is too narrow. I'm also encountering a few other dimensional problems with drawings of the DH 9, again probably caused by printers.

I have an original set of rigging notes for the DH 9 and I'm going by those details.  I'll get there.

 

John

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting finds.... I am just looking at my AMC DH.9 and it seems the wings probably wont present much of an issue except for printing a new centre section fuel tank (taking into account the 4.5 inch wider fuse).  The fin and rudder are (probably correct?).  The undercarriage may be an issue if building a non Puma engine machine, due to the rake?

 

Which brings us on to the fuse.  I wonder if the front radiator is DH.4?  Possibly not actually.....

Scroll to the bottom of this link, there are some good detail photo's there

http://www.goodall.com.au/australian-aviation/west-australian-airways-1/westaustralianairways.html

 

The cockpit appears now at the rear gunners position as well John?

 

I am thinking that the top fuse section needs removing, and the lower half widening,  then a cabin could be made with the top off and a new rear decking made....sounds easy LOL

 

This is great stuff, thanks to all  those contributing so far!

 

Cheers

Anthony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Anthony,

Coincidentally my WNW DH9 arrived yesterday for just such a conversion...one of the Qantas ones in my case.

Decades ago while trawling the library for my uni thesis I stumbled across a long-ish contemporary article on the DH50 which had drawings, interiors, etc.

Great articles as they generally covered everything in depth and detail and had lots of oddball subjects...the Zeppelin Staaken E4/20 for example.

I have forgotten the name of the publicationin the five intervening decades (yikes!) and I had been planning to return and track it down in the near future.

I will move it up my priorities and get there asap and share any results...

Regards,

David M

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Anthony,

It is indeed I.

Thinking about the DH50 rang a small bell in my head and I think my file was leant to one of my mates who actually made one, albeit in 1:48.

I will buzz him to see if he still has it...

I am scheduled to raid the library next week, as soon as the NYE cracker watching and bubbly have worn off.

Interesting thought to use the WNW lower fuse widened to suit; I figured it was a relatively straight forward scratchbuild but on seeing the kit bits I think you may be right.

It will depend on how the interior is finished, unlined military style or prettied up for civilian use.

Much to discover!

Best regards,

David Muir

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this is also the same David who kindly sent me some Fox Moth photos. I have still not been able to follow up on the Fox drawings due to my long term cancer treatment and other commitments over the last year.

 

I have started the drawings for the 50, but the fuselage sections are quite complicated.  As are the shape of the external gondolas to give more arm room. The wings in fact are based directly on the DH 9, but they were modified by the introduction of differential ailerons, so unlike the DH 4/9 there are no external wires and pulleys.

The under-carriage is not the same as on the bombers and neither are the radiators.

I think that the fuselages share some minor components but the major difference is the top longerons of the DH 50 are straight.

 

One source of  drawings might be the Norman Eastaff collection held by the Author Jan Geelen in New Zealand as there was a proposed book on the early DH Airliners to follow Magnificent Enterprise about the Moths.

 

John

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John,

It is indeed I, again.

Don't worry about the DH83 drawings, they will keep and health comes first.

As it happens I have been distracted this year by my wife's illness and have not been giving modelling much thought.

Interesting information on the fuselage and good to know the WNW 9 is a sensible starting point.

Now if WNW would only do a 504 I could stop dreaming of doing a 547 to go with the 50...

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I had a feeling it was you!

 

Oh yes, an Avro 504 would be awesome.....

 

Now back to the DH.50 before I get myself too sidetracked LOL.  I should be able to locate Janic Geelen here in NZ, I used to have his email and ph number.  Let me do some digging.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2018 at 12:21 AM, Anthony in NZ said:

Matt, that sounds good mate.  At least it is a starting point and then any inaccuracies can be pointed out and potentially delt with.

 

Cheers and thanks

Anthony 

Hi Anthony. The drawing is by Colin Owers and is in Aviation News   from 1992 or 3. If you'd still like a copy, message me with your postal address and I'll get one off to you.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up re the Aviation News drawing I've just dug out my copy. I'm now analyzing them on my light board. The wing section shown is wrong for a start as the real section was RAF 15 and the 50 J lower front fuselage is too curved.

They do not show up that there's an easy trap ready for the unwary to fall into. The  DH 50/50 A, had two wing spans and several OA lengths, some due to the different engines used and the also the difference of the prototype DH 50 from the 50 A production machines. The drawing in the Flight article is well dimensioned but it is only a one off. The Collin Owers drawings in Av News like many AV News drawings suffer from the abysmal printers collages.

 

The type number system is also confusing. The 50 J can mean either a Jaguar engined type or one fitted with a Jupiter. but the OA lengths differ. A 50 A can be  an aircraft fitted with a Puma or a  Siddeley Nimbus (shorter by only 1")  or one built in Czechoslovakia. Again the dimensions differ.  I think that the difference in length between the prototype and the main 50 A fuselages is in the rear fuselage. It's difficult but we are working from such poor material.

 

I've heard back from the Qantas Founders Museum but unfortunately they have very little on the DH 50A as the replica was designed and made by outside sources.

 

All for now.

 

John

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies that this is so bitty, but as very little seemed to fit from the various sources, it got a bit head scratching. It was my previous comment re the different overall lengths which made the little grey cells start buzzing as to where exactly the problem lay. At last I think I have it. I had looked for information in my two volume edition by A.J. Jackson in his great work British Civil Aircraft but a double check in the three volume edition was a further comment in which he says that the DH 50 A had a longer Cabin and more splayed struts.

 

I then found a similar statement in Arthur Ord-Hume's book in which he added that the centre section was widened. This would account for the slightly increased wing span of the 50 A of 42' 11.5". This suggests that the cabin was also widened as well as lengthened.

 

I think at last it's all coming together and the over lays are making sense. I feel the detective work is beginning to pay off.  I like being a defective. 🤔

 

John

  • Like 5
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...