OA & T,
Of course you are correct. All aircraft suffer from corrosion in one form or another. Certainly, the type of corrosion experienced in the original supplied mainplanes met all the requirements of Exfoliation corrosion;
"Exfoliation corrosion is a special form of intergranular corrosion which occurs when the grains are flattened by heavy deformation during hot or cold rolling, and where no recrystallization has occurred. Exfoliation is characteristic for the 2000 (Al-Cu), 5000 (Al-Mg), and 7000 (Al-Zn-Mg) series alloys which have grain boundary precipitation or depleted grain boundary regions." Credits to Keytometals.com.
Your reference to the Nimrod, and it's associated corrosion problems are directly related to the aircrafts operating environment, salt water, and despite the wash at the end of the sortie, ultimately proved not up to defeating Mr Atmospheric corrosion;
Atmospheric corrosion is defined as the corrosion or degradation of material exposed to the air and its pollutants rather than immersed in a liquid. This has been identified as one of the oldest forms of corrosion and has been reported to account for more failures in terms of cost and tonnage than any other single environment. Many authors classify atmospheric corrosion under categories of dry, damp, and wet, thus emphasizing the different mechanisms of attack under increasing humidity or moisture.
Corrosivity of the atmosphere to metals varies greatly from one geographic location to another, depending on such weather factors as wind direction, precipitation and temperature changes, amount and type of urban and industrial pollutants, and proximity to natural bodies of water. Service life may also be affected by the design of the structure if weather conditions cause repeated moisture condensation in unsealed crevices or in channels with no provision for drainage. Credits Keytometals.com
There's a huge difference in what was experienced with Alberts first wings, and the "usual run of the mill" corrosion problems. I'm sure that many might have different opinions, but having been involved in the very expensive attempts by the "RAF to repair a lost cause", I honestly feel that better quality control in producing the material might well have elicited a more favourable outcome. I'm pretty sure that we have now done this subject to death (I hope so), I'm sure that many operators are reading this and saying "what is he blathering on about?".
I look forward to Chickenlover, AA62 and all those others who, unlike me, saw fit to take a decent camera down route with them. Meanwhile, Gan looks worthy of a paid visit, though a posting there in the 70s would have found some resistance.
A question for the drivers, no doubt one that will be ignored as usual. Having jumped in the back of many a different airframe, heading down route, and, having some experience in flying gliders, I wonder if pilots were aware of any peculiarities of any particular aircraft (Trembling Two for example (XV222))? I know I have flown different gliders of the same designation, that certainly "felt" different in handling. So, did our pilots maintain a note of different aircraft within the fleet? We're the SF designated airframes truly bent ? I'm sure that many might be interested in the handling qualities of Albert, me for one, and only those who operated them regularly can offer any material on that.
Smudge
