B-17 gets a polish

For me, the very best way of preserving/restoring aircrafts is what the Fleet Air Arm Museum did with its Corsair and its Martlet.

.

When I first saw KD-431 I was blown away, I spent ages down there walking around her, but since then my thoughts have changed. While in service, she never looked quite like she does now either and while the “strip down” has bought out lots of information about manufacture, colours etc, I can’t help but wonder if now it has all been exposed, if an accurate scheme would now be appropropriate to apply? Then again, when I get my own Corsair……

Yep James is right: anything that’s new, shiny or technologically advanced (in Australia this can be anything from a time-travel machine to a electric toaster oven)

“Mate, this new microwave’s the grouse. Look, it does roast beef, pasta, the works! Pretty schmick, eh?!”

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schmick

1. I say this in Australia to mean anything sick, cool, tight or excellent.
Usually the item is new, shiny, fresh and mad bling-bling style.

It seems to be used here in Australia only to refer to a very well turned out truck or other motor vehicle.
The Toyota Coaster that Colin is setting up as a demo vehicle is pretty darn schmick.

FN

Could you be so kind as to translate ‘schmick for me please.

In a nutshell. Pretty darn schmick for mine!

I did wonder about this; aren’t aircraft skinned in ‘Alclad’ and isn’t there a danger that polishing will remove the (very thin) outer coating of corrosion resistant pure aluminium?

Hello, allow me to introduce myself, Yvan Lacroix, one of the leads on polishing the B17.

Unlike polishing paint, a good aluminum polish does not remove metal, but displaces it, only removing the oxidation. In polishing Fuddy Duddy, our goal was preservation, we did not go after removing scratches or deep defects, we removed all ravages of corrosion, and brought out a nice shine. Fuddy Duddy proudly wears the scars of 65 years of loyal service, while at the same time presenting a beautiful shine to those visiting the Lyons Air Museum.

General Lyons has created a nice museum/hanger for his aircraft, and now they will no longer see the effects of foul weather, as they are in a climate controlled environment.

Polished aeroplanes fly faster and by quite a few knots. Painted aeroplanes are a lot heaver as well.

A big negative on polished aircraft…..is that you remove metal every time you polish it.

I did wonder about this; aren’t aircraft skinned in ‘Alclad’ and isn’t there a danger that polishing will remove the (very thin) outer coating of corrosion resistant pure aluminium?

Of course, there are the American Airlines BAe 146’s, which, when polished effectively scrapped them…

Go on…

For me, the very best way of preserving/restoring aircrafts is what the Fleet Air Arm Museum did with its Corsair and its Martlet.

Which you can do with some metal surfaces…it wouldn’t be possible for interior, fabric tops, tires, etc.
I don’t mind half-shabby/worn paint, but when other items become unserviceable, it’s time to get them replaced.

When it comes to cars, I really don’t want to sit on a 90 year-old leather seat with stuffing coming out of craks/rips…especially if it’s main function for the last half-century has been a breeding ground for rodents.

Also, in the world of cars, you have guys that purposefully keep or treat cars shabby to tell everyone “I have so much money, I can afford to keep a valuable car looking like this.” A late British politician comes to mind, he had photos taken of his large dogs sitting atop the bonnet of his unrestored vintage Bentleys.

My point is, there has got to be a happy medium. And I don’t think polishing a B-17 crosses that line…especially since it will spend some of its life outside (as an example, when on tour, the Collings and EAA B-17s sit outside. Most General aviation fields don’t have free hangars that large to put a visiting aircraft in). Nor am I going to fault aircraft like the Sally B having modern paint when they spend most of their lives outdoors.

But on the other hand, you wouldn’t want to trust your life and go flying in an aircraft that looks knackered and uncared for…

“….with people preserving paint and interior that really should be replacedc. “

For me, the very best way of preserving/restoring aircrafts is what the Fleet Air Arm Museum did with its Corsair and its Martlet.

It’s simple, I’ve no pleasure to look at an authentic aircraft, which nevertheless looks like some kind of fiberglass replica.

Funny you should mention this. It was finally realised not too long ago that of the stunning classic cars at Pebble Beach (THE Concours show in the U.S.) many of the entrants were what was termed “over-restored”.

My “other ” hobby is classic/vintage cars so I get alll the magazines and watch auction results….so I have an opinion on this.
Over the last 5-10 years, people have recognozed the issue of “Over restoration” and you see cars at Pebble Beach looking a bit more realistic in keeping with the materials and practices of the era the cars was made.
In fact, sometimes it looks like the subject is going too far the other way, with people preserving paint and interior that really should be replacedc.
A 1915 (IIRC) Oldsmobile recently solf for more than $1 million, in large part because it was so original. The problem is, it had no paint, the interior was in tatters, the brass radiator might…or might not hold water, the top long gone, and the tires were mere fossils of their former selves.
All that’s fine it you want to look at it, but to be a functioning auto, a lot of that will need to be replaces…for operational reasons rather than appearance.

So yes, you can have a warbird or any plane with a vintage appearance but if you wantto fly it, you’d be wise to have modern avionics, brakes, engine mods, and who knkows, maybe some fresh paint and fabric too.

The Americans do the same thing with their classic cars and over-restore them to a finish that would be just too expensive on a production model, even a Ferrari or Bentley. My personal view is that the patina on the OFMC Spitfire MH434 is absolutely right as it looks as though it is in regular front line service.

Funny you should mention this. It was finally realised not too long ago that of the stunning classic cars at Pebble Beach (THE Concours show in the U.S.) many of the entrants were what was termed “over-restored”. In other words, pieces were chromed that shouldn’t have been, cast iron pieces had been ground smooth and powder-coated when they were originally brush-painted in their raw state….you get the picture. Now I can’t say for sure what the outcome of this lightning-bolt of realisation was, but I do know it was accepted that ‘concours’ trophies were being awarded to vehicles that were indeed completely at odds with the definition of concours.

However, I’d sure as ******y rather have those folks spend that money restoring those beautiful pieces of history that way rather than sending them to the crusher.

I doubt very much whether Delta’s “Ship 41” looked as stunning in the 30’s as it does now. But what a beautiful aircraft! What an amazing restoration!

I once watched, not too long ago, a self-proclaimed ‘officiando’ and ‘enthusiast’ refuse to get on a vintage steam train because it was pulling the wrong era carriages, in his opinion, and he thus proceeded to hold court with his disciples on ‘everything that is wrong with the steam enthusiasts of today’.

He failed to see the ecstatic, laughing faces of families as they steamed out of the station for a one-hour glimpse of times past. Jerk-off.

Of course, there are the American Airlines BAe 146’s, which, when polished effectively scrapped them…..

I don’t get it, this passion on US aircrafts for über-polishing, making in the end the aircrafts look no more like mean war machines but like funny big toys.

Maybe since it’s not flying combat, they’re thinking along the lines of peacetime maintenance for the 17. These 17s pre-Pearl Harbor, seem to have a nice shine to them too.

The question you might ask is why would someone NOT take care of their million dollar airplane, when they’ve got the time? 🙂

Making them look dirty to try and replicate the look of round the clock bomber ops, seems just as silly to me.

so when the time came to strip the aircraft he decide to grind down the rivets along the wings in order to have a flush finish!

I was looking at a T6 recently that had a bunch of rivets on the wings sanded down during paint prep…

A big plus for naked airplanes is reduced weight which equals fuel savings . A good paint job will preserve better that polishing ever could…….gloss paint will always protect better that flat paint. A big negative on polished aircraft, (especially older ones that have always been polished), is that you remove metal every time you polish it. I’ve seen planes that have been polished regularly to very high standards with reduced rivet heads and skin thickness! To each their own for this one!

The Heston Racer was to have any scratches over .0005″ removed from it’s leading edges:eek: Now that’s polished!

Alloy brings up a good point too about finely removing layers of metal, especially the rivet heads!

I do recall a story here in Australia from 15yrs ago or so where an aircraft (I believe it belonged to a parachute club, but i cant remember what it was), I think it was getting repainted by the owner, so when the time came to strip the aircraft he decide to grind down the rivets along the wings in order to have a flush finish!

After it got painted and inspected by the local aircraft engineer, it promptly got grounded!

To paint or not to paint is always a two edged sword.

If an aircraft is to be hangered for its entire life, then the paint will last a long time and not be exposed to the elements. However a painted aircraft which sits out in the rain and sun will fade very quickly. Once the paint deterioates, water and humidity will get under the paint and start corrosion.

An aircraft with no paint, if left out in a dry environment is quite safe. Even if it rains a few times, the water has no place to hide from the sun and quickly dries out.

The only problem would be the leading edges of the wings and tailplane, where erosion caused by dirt, dust etc…

I knew this would turn into a “we do it better that the U.S.” thread. Come on, be honest, there are inaccurate warbirds everywhere..and always will be because they are owned by people who have their own tastes and choices.
But unless you have a warbird, don’t complain about it..or if you do…try not to generalize.

Slipperysam and BlueRobin have it right, it’s probably good for the airframe and will fade in a awhile.
It certainly doesn’t hurt…while probably making it faster & reduce fuel burn.

I agree – not my personal taste, then again its preserved, being looked after (obviously) flying (even better) so no problem at all.

Frankly, look at this beauty and tell me after I’m wrong ;-))))

http://www.aafo.com/prints_D_L/art/Happy_Jack%27s_AAFO_Print1.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fun_flying/2817551027/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrygaydosz/2736742258/sizes/o/

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/aircraft-names-2232-2.html

Authentic finishes, applied with respect to the real thing are so much better than “fun” rich dentist glossy “I can do what I want with my money” toys.

A big plus for naked airplanes is reduced weight which equals fuel savings . A good paint job will preserve better that polishing ever could…….gloss paint will always protect better that flat paint. A big negative on polished aircraft, (especially older ones that have always been polished), is that you remove metal every time you polish it. I’ve seen planes that have been polished regularly to very high standards with reduced rivet heads and skin thickness! To each their own for this one!

The Heston Racer was to have any scratches over .0005″ removed from it’s leading edges:eek: Now that’s polished!