Restoration
(a bear of little brain)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restoration
If someone is restoring a vintage aircraft to its original does anyone know what sort of criteria are used when deciding what level to restore it to? I am thinking mainly of safety criteria.
The sort of thing I am wondering about is suppose I found a Mk1 Shytalk rusting gently away in a barn and decided to restore it. I then find that when the Mk1 was originally introduced it was found that there was a design fault which meant that, occasionally, the left wing fell off on take-off. A modification was introduced to correct this, with the modified aircraft becoming the Mk2. In this case, obviously, restoration would include the mod (so there would be no chance of a Mk1 ever being restored). However if the difference between the Mk1 and the Mk2 was a different design of ashtray there would be no need for the mod and I could happily restore my Mk1.
Somewhere between the two must the point where mods must be applied but is there an official definition? I would imagine that if the mod was directly for safety (gluing the wing on better) it would be a must but would something which, for example, lowered pilot fatigue (and was therefore an indirect safety aid) be mandatory?.
The sort of thing I am wondering about is suppose I found a Mk1 Shytalk rusting gently away in a barn and decided to restore it. I then find that when the Mk1 was originally introduced it was found that there was a design fault which meant that, occasionally, the left wing fell off on take-off. A modification was introduced to correct this, with the modified aircraft becoming the Mk2. In this case, obviously, restoration would include the mod (so there would be no chance of a Mk1 ever being restored). However if the difference between the Mk1 and the Mk2 was a different design of ashtray there would be no need for the mod and I could happily restore my Mk1.
Somewhere between the two must the point where mods must be applied but is there an official definition? I would imagine that if the mod was directly for safety (gluing the wing on better) it would be a must but would something which, for example, lowered pilot fatigue (and was therefore an indirect safety aid) be mandatory?.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
"Mk1 Shytalk rusting gently away in a barn"
'Ere, steady on - I'm not that far gone just yet!
'Ere, steady on - I'm not that far gone just yet!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it depends on whether or not the barn is a listed building? You may have to restore the barn to its 'original ' condition and take out the new UPVC windows.
Either way, I'd get rid of the rusty aircraft hulk.
Either way, I'd get rid of the rusty aircraft hulk.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Edge of the fens
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a difficult one to get any kind of definitive answer on. My personal view is that you are restoring the aeroplane's identity, which would originally be a 'Mark whatever', although you may in retrospect be incorporating some safety mods which were only found in later marks.
Case in point - I used to be involved on a Beaufighter 1F restoration. Beau 1's had the original flat tailplane, and were notorious for having a pronounced, and often lethal, take off swing. This was also the case with the Merlin-engined mark II, but by the time the mark VI came along, those nice chaps at Bristols had designed a new tailplane with a 12 degree dihedral. She'd still swing a bit, but nowhere near as badly as the early Beaus, and the dihedral made the swing easier to catch and counter. End result - less dead Beau crews, and an aeroplane that went on to become a firm favourite with maritime strike boys over the North Sea, and Aussie mudmovers out in the Far East.
Now, when it came to restoring our Beau 1, we had a dilemma. Build an original-spec flat tail to retain authenticity, or compromise on historical accuracy and do her with a dihedral tail instead?
Safety wins hands down every time. So if and when that particular aeroplane ever flies again, expect to see a Beaufighter 1F with a Mk VI tail.
Case in point - I used to be involved on a Beaufighter 1F restoration. Beau 1's had the original flat tailplane, and were notorious for having a pronounced, and often lethal, take off swing. This was also the case with the Merlin-engined mark II, but by the time the mark VI came along, those nice chaps at Bristols had designed a new tailplane with a 12 degree dihedral. She'd still swing a bit, but nowhere near as badly as the early Beaus, and the dihedral made the swing easier to catch and counter. End result - less dead Beau crews, and an aeroplane that went on to become a firm favourite with maritime strike boys over the North Sea, and Aussie mudmovers out in the Far East.
Now, when it came to restoring our Beau 1, we had a dilemma. Build an original-spec flat tail to retain authenticity, or compromise on historical accuracy and do her with a dihedral tail instead?
Safety wins hands down every time. So if and when that particular aeroplane ever flies again, expect to see a Beaufighter 1F with a Mk VI tail.
(a bear of little brain)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ta Beauman. I shall look forward to seeing it.
And, ShyTorque, I was referring to an aircraft designed for people who speak quietly, not those who turn away in embarrassment.
And, ShyTorque, I was referring to an aircraft designed for people who speak quietly, not those who turn away in embarrassment.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
As it says on the tin: "Avoid Imitations" 
Always best to go for the stronger modern glue. And don't forget that sensible pilots NEVER fly the 'A' model of anything!
Always best to go for the stronger modern glue. And don't forget that sensible pilots NEVER fly the 'A' model of anything!
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.......................And don't forget that sensible pilots NEVER fly the 'A' model of anything!
then again..............................
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Basingstoke
Age: 35
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask yourself a question.
Do you think that writing to your solicitor to issue a writ against a defunct aviation company, because you chose to restore and fly an aeroplane that was inherently dangerous, is going to win you any credibility points, anywhere in the world with anyone?
Please pass me a glass of whatever it is you are drinking.
(imagine scenario: man calls insurance company - "hello, I have just restored a ShyTalk, y'know the ones the wings fall off of, and I was flying it and the wing fell off - can't imagine how - so will you pay out on insurance . . . ")
If you are going to fly it, make sure it is safe. If it isn't, don't fly it. If you do and you crash and die please don't call me and complain as I will be busy doing something else.
Do you think that writing to your solicitor to issue a writ against a defunct aviation company, because you chose to restore and fly an aeroplane that was inherently dangerous, is going to win you any credibility points, anywhere in the world with anyone?
Please pass me a glass of whatever it is you are drinking.
(imagine scenario: man calls insurance company - "hello, I have just restored a ShyTalk, y'know the ones the wings fall off of, and I was flying it and the wing fell off - can't imagine how - so will you pay out on insurance . . . ")
If you are going to fly it, make sure it is safe. If it isn't, don't fly it. If you do and you crash and die please don't call me and complain as I will be busy doing something else.
High Flying Bird
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Old Sarum ish
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were to rebuild with the intention of flying, it would need to pass an inspection and receive a Permit to Fly (or equivalent). No self-respecting inspector (try saying that after you've had a few) is going to give you the certificate if the wings are only held on with one screw and a length of string, even if that was the original spec'.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Covering the Commonwealth
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice open question!
Simple answer is that anywhere you rebuild something (or build a replica) you'll have to have it certified. Each country has different criteria, but someone wants to know you've got an aeroplane with the wings screwed on proper like. In the USA there is the 'Experimental' category, into which fall a lot of unusual aircraft, like W.W.II heavy metal that wouldn't be certified under a more normal set of modern expectations of airplanes. But they are still checked for wing attachment.
To take a couple of real life examples - The Germans got inventive and risk-comfortable at the end of W.W.II for some reason, and designed and built the Messerschmitt Me262, Me163 and the Bachem Ba349 Natter. The 262 engines had a scarilly short TBE (time before explosion) so even a modern build 262 engine is unlikely to get built and used in an airframe. However, the 262 airframe is fine - so there is, today, the first of a batch of replica 262s flying in the USA, powered by a pair of modern American apple-pie J-79 engines.
The Me163 was rocket powered, and quite a nasty little joker as a result. The aerodynamics were interesting. Upshot was that the smart money said we'd never see a 163 fly. Wrong. Some Germans got it together and built a glider version (just like the glider pre-production 163s) and flew it.
Then there's the rocket powered Bachem Natter. I don't think we'll see one of those in the air, as you'd have to be seriously in Goterdamerungungung to see it as any way worthwhile. (But I thought the 163 was a bit mad...)
The clever chaps in Colditz built the famous glider in the roof which never flew. But a replica did, after being checked out by an inspector and lots of care to make sure the wings stayed on (they did, and the IWM Lambeth had it on show in THEIR roof a few years ago!)
In other words, there's few limits to human inginuety, and someone'll look at your aircraft to say if you are alowed to try and fly it. How do they know it'll be OK? You come up with enough paper with enough numbers that are convincing enough. The currency kind you'll have used on the rebuild, so you'll need to provide stress analysis and historical stuff...
HTH
Simple answer is that anywhere you rebuild something (or build a replica) you'll have to have it certified. Each country has different criteria, but someone wants to know you've got an aeroplane with the wings screwed on proper like. In the USA there is the 'Experimental' category, into which fall a lot of unusual aircraft, like W.W.II heavy metal that wouldn't be certified under a more normal set of modern expectations of airplanes. But they are still checked for wing attachment.
To take a couple of real life examples - The Germans got inventive and risk-comfortable at the end of W.W.II for some reason, and designed and built the Messerschmitt Me262, Me163 and the Bachem Ba349 Natter. The 262 engines had a scarilly short TBE (time before explosion) so even a modern build 262 engine is unlikely to get built and used in an airframe. However, the 262 airframe is fine - so there is, today, the first of a batch of replica 262s flying in the USA, powered by a pair of modern American apple-pie J-79 engines.
The Me163 was rocket powered, and quite a nasty little joker as a result. The aerodynamics were interesting. Upshot was that the smart money said we'd never see a 163 fly. Wrong. Some Germans got it together and built a glider version (just like the glider pre-production 163s) and flew it.
Then there's the rocket powered Bachem Natter. I don't think we'll see one of those in the air, as you'd have to be seriously in Goterdamerungungung to see it as any way worthwhile. (But I thought the 163 was a bit mad...)
The clever chaps in Colditz built the famous glider in the roof which never flew. But a replica did, after being checked out by an inspector and lots of care to make sure the wings stayed on (they did, and the IWM Lambeth had it on show in THEIR roof a few years ago!)
In other words, there's few limits to human inginuety, and someone'll look at your aircraft to say if you are alowed to try and fly it. How do they know it'll be OK? You come up with enough paper with enough numbers that are convincing enough. The currency kind you'll have used on the rebuild, so you'll need to provide stress analysis and historical stuff...
HTH
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... replica 262s flying in the USA, powered by a pair of modern American apple-pie J-79 engines.
Actually I think they are CJ610's (from old Learjets) which are close cousins to J85's (the J79's little brother).
And - by FAA definition - only Willy Messerschmidt could build a REPLICA 262. The ones built in the colonies are called REPRODUCTIONS.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Covering the Commonwealth
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooops.
Wrong engines!
'Replica' is a perfectly good term, used for non-original aircraft, in ordinary conversation, ta. If you want precision, you pay for the journalism.
I wasn't aware that Ohio was a part of any Great Reich?
(Note to self - don't bother next time.)
Wrong engines!
'Replica' is a perfectly good term, used for non-original aircraft, in ordinary conversation, ta. If you want precision, you pay for the journalism.
I wasn't aware that Ohio was a part of any Great Reich?
(Note to self - don't bother next time.)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of German immigrants (& Swiss & Austrian too) around the mid-nineteenth century. Thus a lot of German tradition (breweries, saengerfests, bratwurst...), culture (Amish & Mennonites) and machine tool makers.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancaster PA474 was used for flight testing the Midge wing, which was mounted vertically in the location of the mid-upper turret. To better equip it for this flight testing role, the aircraft was modified to improve directional stability by fitting the somewhat larger Lincoln fins and rudders. That was its condition when it arrived at Waddington in 1965 and we volunteers 'restored' it without putting Lancaster fins back on. As far as I can tell it still has the Lincoln fins until today. Is it a genuine restoration?
I think it is. You do your best with what you have. As long as its airworthy.
I think it is. You do your best with what you have. As long as its airworthy.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the murky depths
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me262 project, and others: www.stormbirds.com
Hope it manages to answer some of the questions here
FD
Hope it manages to answer some of the questions here
FD
