New Arrival TFC Duxford 29May 09

I think it’s abvious to all involved in this thread that we can’t come up with an answer that satisfies all & sundry until we find out what the serial # on the carb is…. 😉

Hopefully, I’ll now go down in history as having coined the expression “Triggers broom” for restorations!!!

Ha ha ha !
Read through a few more threads it comes up twenty times a day. Like this boring debate.

Aren’t we getting into the realm of “Triggers’ broom” here?
In “active service” many aircraft were repaired after crash landings, battle damage etc. If the “spares” provided actually encompass ALL the aircraft components, then like the broom they could be “5 new handles and 7 new brushes” in its lifetime, but it still retains it’s original identity.
Had this come directly from say the RAF with all these spare parts, wings, engines, fuselages, cockpits and whatever, would we be having this debate? I fancy someone would do the maths, say “I’ve bought 4 Fury’s and have enough spares for 4 more, lucky me”.
I understand the concern over provenance and that it now seems that we have WG655 wings in NZ that could conceivable be mated to a “spares” fuselage that may not have its own serial; and a cockpit from WG655 still in US, so again after mating with other spare “anonymous” components we could have 3 airframes all claiming to have a bit of WG655, but all parties would be aware of the issues involved in one claiming the identity.
If a Hercules can virtually be brand new and not a 40 year old “original” airframe after replacement of all major components, its still on the RAF fleet as being what it started as.
Let’s not get heated over this, the point has been well made that a restoration should use original components where possible, but I’d rather have warbirds restored to safe flying condition with “new metal” rather than rely on 50 or 60 year old parts if that keeps them flying. Once they can no longer fly, then restore them to original condition without retractable tail wheel, as on the ground authenticity won’t be putting lives at risk.
Hopefully, I’ll now go down in history as having coined the expression “Triggers broom” for restorations!!!

They dont like the young chpas getting it wrong

Having read with intrest the various experts disscussing the whys and wherefors of this Sea Fury how many of you actually know what has happened to this aircraft and what qualifies you to say what it should have and what it should be etc etc:diablo:

Nope, I’m not an expert (I even say in my post I’m talking tosh) however there are experts on this forum (they’re usually the grumpy ones)

welcome to the forum

Baz

P.S. For Christsake use a spell checker or the English expert will get you:D

Having read with intrest the various experts disscussing the whys and wherefors of this Sea Fury how many of you actually know what has happened to this aircraft and what qualifies you to say what it should have and what it should be etc etc:diablo:

if we are talking about ‘Ballast’, then that would make me the No.1 Candidate!!!:D

I think (not that it matters) that it is brilliant that so much original Hawker material was acquired with the Iraqi Furies…..this is/would be a dream to a spit rebuilder….it basically makes the rebuilt Furies more ‘original’ than many other rebuilt aircraft types (where originality in this case means original vintage Hawker material!).

Given that not all of the original aircraft, it is great to see a Sea Fury (especially a twin sticker) resurrected and so ‘originally’ (refer the reader to my above posting).

I for one will be jolly happy to see her fly (and Monsieur Jacqhard’s too!).
I would be even happier to provide ballast in the back seat if required!!!!:)

Bruce and Cometguymk1

This is all part of the aircrafts developmentlife so is historic. Careful or we might get a thread stating that the Mossie Prototype isn’t in fact W4050 but W4051:eek:

One thread about identity crisis is enjoyable but the general tenure on this forum regarding this topic is getting annoying.:mad:

Cheers

Cees

the Proto Mossie had alot of changes of engines etc aswell.

I think its fair to assume that some part of the original has been used in the rebuild.

As I say, operational aircraft have to be treated quite differently from preserved ones.

To go to a real extreme, the prototype Mosquito had the entire fuselage replaced in service. So, is it still the prototype?

Bruce

So it wouldn’t surprise me if we see 2 fury’s with the same serial in the future.

Is this unusual?

I’m sure we’ve seen many JEJ Spitfire 9s around over the years, though not being a number collector I can’t say I have ever noticed the serials they have flown on.

Moggy

It is quite reasonable to suggest that during a major service/overhaul, an aircraft would receive different wings, centre section, engines and so on. It certainly happened with the Lancaster during the war, where the cockpit retained the identity, but all else was added to the ‘melting pot’. It also definitely happened with the Chipmunk more recently, where the fuselage retained the identity.

exactly, but here another cockpit section was taken from another aircraft while the real cockpitsection with the identity was right next to it. So it wouldn’t surprise me if we see 2 fury’s with the same serial in the future.

Its worth pointing out that when the Iraqi aircraft were recovered back in the 70’s, that they came with a large spares cache, which included wings, centre sections, fuselage parts and others.

There is insufficient value in a flyable Sea Fury to rebuild all of the metal components in the way that has been done with Spitfires and P-51’s. However, the majority of the Sea Fury rebuilds you see today have drawn heavily on those stocks of original parts, and have a very large percentage of original Hawker material in them.

It is quite reasonable to suggest that during a major service/overhaul, an aircraft would receive different wings, centre section, engines and so on. It certainly happened with the Lancaster during the war, where the cockpit retained the identity, but all else was added to the ‘melting pot’. It also definitely happened with the Chipmunk more recently, where the fuselage retained the identity.

I have seen examples of Spitfires carrying wings and other parts from other aircraft, having been through the repair organisations; elsewhere ‘Mark12’ details an account of a surviving aircraft that has recived 90%+ replacement fuselage material whilst it was in service.

We have to draw the line between static preservation, where it is desirable to maintain the status quo, and operational service where it is desirable to keep an aircraft flying in the most cost effective way possible. The line between them is blurred where it comes to rebuilds, but in this case, it seems to be the case that standard industry practice has been followed – an aircraft has been wheeled in, and an aircraft wheeled out, albeit with a lot of new, shiny, original Hawker parts.

Bruce

I wonder why you would ask this question, do you really think i’d have access to that kind of information, would anyone on here?

wouldn’t surprise me……

Is there a service repair scheme for the Sea Fury that entails the removal of the cockpit, wings, centre section and rear fuselage?

I wonder why you would ask this question, do you really think i’d have access to that kind of information, would anyone on here?

As for you lot who find it all unnaceptable ,then write to TFC and see what response you get.

Hear hear. I can understand venting your frustration/concerns in a public forum, but if one really cares deeply about a certain issue then get in touch with the individual/group/collection involved! All it’ll cost is some time and a stamp/internet connection.

Not having ever seen a Sea Fury, nor been to Duxford (and not likely to for some time), I can only look on in envy as another representative example is set to return to skies over her home shores, and ESPECIALLY behind a Centaurus. Great work TFC 🙂

:):) what an absolute pile of tommy rot nothing last’s forever enjoy TFC while you can for oneday everything that is now flyable will be grounded or in some other country flying for their enjoyment…..maybe not this year or next or in a decade or fifty years but one day it will happen…Then again Mr Grey could decide that he does’nt want to share his toys anymore move them all to Switzerland or werever put them all in a hangar and go flying with them when it takes his fancy….someone on this thread wondered if Mr Grey reads this forum i for one recon he probably will and does regularly if i were him reading this thread i would think what a bunch of *******:dev2:

It’s not about the tailwheel. If you hear they used wings, tail and front fuselage of other furies to make this one, What exactly is left of WG655? Nothing. The front fuselage/cockpit section was right there, so I don’t see why they would take another section. Now we have an aircraft that is sold and marketed as being fury “WG655” while there isn’t any part of that serial in it! Even worse, front fuselage, tail, wings of WG655 still exist in other places. If I buy a specific serial and I research it’s history, I would be very disappointed to find out I bought something it isn’t. Why not be honest and sell it as the serial the front fuselage actually is? I find this deceit criminal.

So if this aircraft had it’s accident/ coming together with trees whilst still in service in the Navy and they carted all the bits off to a M.U and decided to rebuild it out of components of other aircraft they had going spare, would you still believe it wasn’t the same aircraft and worthy of some other identity?

I’ve worked on still in service aircraft (C-130 ,40 years old though!) that in one major servicing has gone back out with a different set of wings, tailplane, 4 engines, and a rudder all donated from another aircraft in the fleet, previously in it’s life it’s had a new centre wing, just about all the main systems components have been replaced (air conditioning, undercarriage, flight control hyd packs etc ,etc ), all that’s left original is the main fuselage, of which the plugs are newer from when it was stretched and every bit of major load bearing structure has been replaced!

So all you are left with that’s original is an identity, some of the skins and frames!

This Sea Fury has crashed and has been rebuilt out of other Sea Fury components that are currently serviceable. Its original components at the moment, aren’t serviceable, and some of them may never become serviceable again.
An aircraft’s identity is in effect, just a collection of serial numbered, interchangeable components, most of which may well be replaced over it’s operational life but in this instance, have been replaced in one go after a crash.

Re the Legends crowd, I think it’s easy to over estimate how important the enthusasts market is in terms of percentage. For example, we often moan about the quality of the commentary and forget that it’s not actually aimed at us, it’s aimed at Jo Public, they out number us and they bring in the real bucks. Many, if not all of us, will have overheard some real gaffs from people standing next to us that clearly show that their basic warbird knowledge is lacking. But I would like to hear from anyone who thinks that an airshow could survive purely on the enthusasists market.
On your second point, I totally agree that history is important and discussions on forums like this are testament to that (I never claimed that issues like this should not be discussed, just not worried about). But if I want to inspire my son (or anyone elses child for that matter) to learn more about 20th Century history, what will do the job best. A static rebuild, accurate to the finest degree or a flying warbird with some details lost and, heaven forbid, even the wrong serial on the side. There is more to history that counting rivets . It’s about keeping history alive and remembering people: not chunks of metal. Shows like Legends and men like Mr Grey play their part. And I will always be thankful (and not critical) for their efforts

Yep I’ll go with that