|
Lefty
12,287 posts
71 months
|
Eric Mc said: In the UK, very few museums operate flyable aircraft. Most of the warbirds flying in the UK are operated by private companies or indviduals. The main exception is, of course, the BBMF.
RR299 was owned and flown by BAe. Oh I realise that, but what I meant was giving up an airframe for a nut and bolt rebuild? Obviously a costly and time consuming exercise but presumabley easier and cheaper (and faster) than a scratch-build?
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,260 posts
134 months
|
With a mainly wooden airframe, probably not.
Research the saga of the Shutleworth Trust's lengthy rebuild of the mainly all wood De Havilland DH88 Comet G-ACSS.
|
|
|
aeropilot
7,005 posts
96 months
|
Lefty said: You would think that any museum would be delighted to have one of their aurcraft returned to flying status. Any idea why they wouldn't put an airframe up for restoration? Nope. Museum philosophy, just about everywhere, is preservation with minimum risk attached, which isn't about flying anything. You also have to remember, that at least 2 examples of the Mosquito, currently in museums, have gone from an airworthy status to being grounded and put into a museum as a static, never to fly again exhibit. Lefty said: Am I right in thinking that a restoration wouldn't need the same level of certification as a ground-up new build? Not nesseccarily, as Mosquito wood structure isn't easy to check for glue delamination. Lot's of if's and but's with this route as well. Lefty said: And, presumably, in a museum piece, all or most of the metal parts would "just" need to be tested (NDT?) and recommissioned rather than fabbed from scratch? Exactly.
|
|
|
Mike Biddle
41 posts
63 months
|
I have had the priveledge on a couple of occassions to have a beer with a mosquito pathfinder hero, squadron leader Tommy Broome DFC and BAR.
Unusual for a squadron leader he was a navigator, not a pilot, and had all kinds of interesting stories to tell, and facts like the petrol consumption of a lancaster etc.
There is a biography available, very interesting read.
Sadly, he has now passed away at the age of 95.
|
|
|
srob
6,487 posts
107 months
|
aeropilot said: A combination of lack of available parts and/or a suitably available starting project being the main one. There isn't a Mosquito project or airframe outside of a museum that is currently available, and only about 3 that are actually in private hands.
A new build would need an identity to satisfy the CAA, and the new build woodwork would need to satisfy the CAA and BAe (as DA) and there would be a sticking point in that respect, as Glyn Powells new builds use a modern epoxy glue for a start, and may or may not satisfy BAe in terms of integrety.
Even if that hurdle could be overcome, there is the small matter of lack of available parts, Jerry Yagen FB.26, and Glyn's own project have swallowed most of the commercially available remaining useable Mossie parts (and they are both short of some bits still).....and on top of that, Glyn has said he doesn't want to take on another project as he is in his late 70's and wants to concentrate on his own project to see it finished.
So......as I said, the reality, is that seeing Jerry's FB.26 here (if he does bring it here) will almost certainley be the only chance of ever seeing a Mossie in UK again. Surely the missing parts could simply be made/re-made? Or would they have to be tested as 'new' components to be allowed to be used in a flying plane?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,260 posts
134 months
|
srob said: Surely the missing parts could simply be made/re-made? Or would they have to be tested as 'new' components to be allowed to be used in a flying plane? Nothing in aviation is ever "simply made". TYhe standards of components in aircraft are set very high and all important pieces, including "simple" nuts and bolts, are made to exact and demanding specifications.
|
|
|
srob
6,487 posts
107 months
|
Eric Mc said: Nothing in aviation is ever "simply made". TYhe standards of components in aircraft are set very high and all important pieces, including "simple" nuts and bolts, are made to exact and demanding specifications. That's kind of what I was hinting at really. If the parts are re-made, with all due respect to those that made them originally they'd be made of much better materials now, and to much tighter tolerances. So would a 'new' piece - made to an old design - have to go through more stringent tests than an 'old' part that is being recommissioned for use again having been standing for 50 years?
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,260 posts
134 months
|
srob said: Eric Mc said: Nothing in aviation is ever "simply made". TYhe standards of components in aircraft are set very high and all important pieces, including "simple" nuts and bolts, are made to exact and demanding specifications. That's kind of what I was hinting at really. If the parts are re-made, with all due respect to those that made them originally they'd be made of much better materials now, and to much tighter tolerances. So would a 'new' piece - made to an old design - have to go through more stringent tests than an 'old' part that is being recommissioned for use again having been standing for 50 years? Yes. It would need to meet the current standards. A few years ago, I was reading about the restoration of an Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik. The restorer commented that the cable runs to the tail mounted elevators were originally exposed and rubbed off internal stringers. Over time, the cable would have frayed and eventually snapped - with probably disastrous consequences. This was deemed acceptable to the original builders as it would have been asssumed that the aircraft would have crashed, been shot down or retired before the cable had time to fray badly enough. The average life of a WW2 aircraft was 9 months. That is obviously no good if you want to keep a preserved aircarft flying for many years. So, the cable runs had to be redesigned and placed inside slide tubes to protect them.
|
|
|
Apache
38,248 posts
153 months
|
Even the 1/24 scale Airfix Mossie can't capture the subtle shape of that canopy
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,260 posts
134 months
|
It's quite complex, with a lot of underglazing structural framework. I don't think ANY kit manufacturer has got this right yet.
|
|
|
Tango13
2,605 posts
45 months
|
Eric Mc said: Nothing in aviation is ever "simply made". TYhe standards of components in aircraft are set very high and all important pieces, including "simple" nuts and bolts, are made to exact and demanding specifications.  Not worked in engineering much have you Eric? The only difference between aircraft parts and run of the mill engineered parts is the amount of paperwork generated. I've made screws for aircraft where the slot was slightly too deep, the inspectors comment... 'They can get a f  king consession and move their screwdrivers a bit closer' Drawings were issued with tolerences of +0 -.0018 in soft plastic, almost impossible due to humidity and tempreature fluctuations, the MD's comment... 'Use tolerence of the Day' A comment from an ex Bae inspector was that 'Airbusses are just as poorly built as Boeings but our paperwork is better than theirs' When the Skunk Works had problems with the Have Blues' engines getting too hot they fashioned a heat shield by cutting the side out of a filing cabinet.
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,274 posts
134 months
|
|
|
Ayahuasca
16,065 posts
148 months
|
I wonder if it would be possible to make a Mosquito out of aluminium.
|
|
|
srob
6,487 posts
107 months
|
Eric Mc said: Yes. It would need to meet the current standards.
A few years ago, I was reading about the restoration of an Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik. The restorer commented that the cable runs to the tail mounted elevators were originally exposed and rubbed off internal stringers. Over time, the cable would have frayed and eventually snapped - with probably disastrous consequences. This was deemed acceptable to the original builders as it would have been asssumed that the aircraft would have crashed, been shot down or retired before the cable had time to fray badly enough. The average life of a WW2 aircraft was 9 months.
That is obviously no good if you want to keep a preserved aircarft flying for many years. So, the cable runs had to be redesigned and placed inside slide tubes to protect them. I understand that. I was wondering whether a replacement part for an old aircraft would have to be tested as a new part - I assume parts for a new plane would have to be stress analysed, destructive tested etc - or whether you could 'simply' make one and bolt it in the place of the old one so long as it's to the same design? In other words, if you wanted to re-make a bracket for your WW2 fighter plane, would you have to make ten so that the rest could be tested?! If it is the case that you'd have to have it tested as a new part, how does that work with parts on planes that have been flying ever since they were current models? Is the design re-checked to make sure all functionality and stresses are still ok or is it assumed that as it's still flying, it's ok?! I'm just curious really, I work in reverse engineering and know it's not that big a job to create a CAD model from a physical part that could be re-made. And we're currently rebuilding a 1920s motorbike that a good number of parts are being re-made, so I know it's not prohibitively expensive to get bits made as one-offs, or a small batch 
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,260 posts
134 months
|
Don't know enough about the full certification process - and I expect its different depending on whether it is operated by the military (such as the BOBMF) or privately. There are also different categories of licensing depending on the nature of the aircraft. It will also vary from country to country.
|
|
|
Apache
38,248 posts
153 months
|
I'd be interested in how they replaced the electrical bits and pieces, I doubt they still set up carbon pile regulators
|
|
|
Yertis
11,704 posts
135 months
|
Ayahuasca said: I wonder if it would be possible to make a Mosquito out of aluminium. Or GRP / composite type stuff.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,260 posts
134 months
|
How about this for a Mossie copy? 
|
|
|
Ayahuasca
16,065 posts
148 months
|
Eric Mc said: How about this for a Mossie copy? Argentine IAe 24 Calquin. Still made of wood though.
|
|
|
Ayahuasca
16,065 posts
148 months
|
Eric Mc said: How about this for a Mossie copy? Argentine IAe 24 Calquin. Still made of wood though.
|
|
