Museum Aircraft-flyable?

http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html.

Welcome to the Forum and a great first post stilettoman!:)

If you have time, read the link about flying and maintaining a ten engined bomber. I liked the comment that 380 B.36’s equalled the cost of a new aircraft carrier (and would be preferable, in the Navy’s opinion!).

realistically given enough money, and the right base from which to fly i would say that all aircraft in museums could fly again (could being the operative word) SR-71, IF the monumental amount of money to get it flying again, (realistically in the region of hundreds of millions to keep it in the air) the us government would never allow it. personally i would love to see the TSR.2 fly again this will never, realistically happen due to one of the two survivors being basically a gutted hulk (XR222, compare pics of XR222’s undercarriage to that of XR220) XR220 is a unique (in being basically complete) and immensely complex aircraft. again there are virtually no spares for this type so between the two the likelyhood of the SR-71 flying again is more likely that the TSR.2 (which i would prefer) though neither type would be allowed by the caa to operate in this country. going that the TSR.2 is a basically untested prototype, and the SR-71 does more than 2000mph at 100,000ft+ with some immensely powerful and complex engine systems alone (bypass ramjets, and cone shockwave system in the intake:eek: )

So in answer to your question, Theoretically yes it is possible, realistically the likelyhood of flying an aircraft that the us government reitred due to running costs are nil, and, in terms of TSR.2 she wont ever fly again (heard a story about XR219 when she was at shoeburyness, after a few weeks of being stood the bogey on one of the main undercarriage failed, so would probably need a redesign?) unless someone wants to build a new one like the Flug F-190’s

Actually, it wasn’t costs that got the SR-71 retired either time, it was politics and turf wars. In the mid 90s, the cost of bringing some SRs back to flight was around $80 million and the entire restored SR-71 program was running under budget on $33 million per year when it was killed. Basing-wise, you need a 9,200 ft runway, appropriate apron space and someplace to store the JP-7. I agree,though, that it would be hard to bring them back now for a number of reasons.

First, the special sealant used for the fuel tanks is no longer manufactured and DoD would have to request a special dispensation for the manufacturer from some environmental regulations in order for production to restart. Since the AF tried so hard to get rid of the plane, it’s unlikely that such an exemption would be requested. Second, although no preservation work was done on the SRs restored to flight status (or the one that had jusstarted being restored to flight status when the line-item veto hit the program), the fact that they were parked out in the desert made it possible for them to survive the years out there. It’s been longer now since they were grounded again than it was for the first retirement. In addition, they were sent to museums and no longer have that desert “preservation”. They have now deteriorated to the point where it is unlikely they could be made flyable, even by cannibalizing parts from other aircraft (the one exception is the one at the National Air and Space Museum, and no one is going to touch that bird).

Making new structure is not feasible since Robert McNamara ordered all the tooling destroyed in order to try and force USAF to use the F-111 as an interceptor. I do not know if the simulator is still intact somewhere, but the B model is no longer considered economically restorable to flight status. Without the B, you really can’t have a program.

One of the things that made the SR-71 restoration feasible, is that there were scads of spare parts and engines in storage. I don’t know if they still are. In the case of TSR.2, those parts never existed so there’s no way it could come back even f the two survivors hadn’t deteriorated so much.

There are much bigger issues than the legalities of flying old military airplanes. It is one thing to fly a T-6, Spitfire or other relatively simple airplane, but quite another when you start talking about complex high performance airplanes. There were people who talked seriously about keeping a USAF B-36 flyable, as the British do with the Lancaster, Mosquito and some fighters. But anyone who is suggesting this does not have any concept of the complexity involved, and complexity is inherently dangerous.

The most complex airplane ever built was undoubtedly the B-36. To get some concept of the maintenance and operational requirements, I recommend you take the time to read the following account of B-36 operatons

http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html

You can search the web and easily find info on several B-36 crashes, some caused by engine fires and other airplane-related issues. These airplanes were dangerous enough when they were new, had the entire resources of the government and the manufacturers supporting them, large maintenance crews and shops, an extensive program of training flight crews and flying regularly. To fly something like this today, scrounging for antique parts with volunteer labor and weekend pilots would be foolhardy. I would guess that all of the maintenance and operations resources for all the airplanes operating at Duxford would not be nearly adequate for safely operating a B-36.

Thank you everybody for your replies-they are all very informative and I have learned much new information. It seems like it’s not only the issue of if it’s ABLE to fly, but also if it’s ALLOWED to fly. So a static aircraft might theoretically be capable of flying with work done to it, but if the parts aren’t certified and every little part inspected, then it really doesn’t matter because the authorities won’t let it take to the air.

the parts dont necessarily have to be certified. it depends on the aircraft and if the OEM still exisits. But everything would have to be inspected and passed for flight by the maintenance outfit (whom the CAA are happy with to hold the CAP632 maintenance permit), if no OEM exists anymore. As Lindys lad points out, even a minter of a museum example would be stripped bare for inspection.

incredibly, you dont have to do any of this with an EXPERIMENTAL in the states. You can throw it all back together, slap an EXP sticker on it, have your FAA guy come around and rubber stamp it if hes happy that it all looks above board. Its an interesting point though, because you would summise that there would be cowboy outfits all over the place flying ropey old crates around in US not fit for flight. Yet from my experience out there, whilst you do see some iffy looking light aircraft about, its seems the freedom actually appears to encourage the operators to be extra careful and switched on with fast stuff, perhaps they are just generally much more clued up due to the freedom with the A+P self maintenance style?

I know it’s not the UK but a good example of a flying museum is Temora Aviation Museum in Australia.

Wardie

Thank you everybody for your replies-they are all very informative and I have learned much new information. It seems like it’s not only the issue of if it’s ABLE to fly, but also if it’s ALLOWED to fly. So a static aircraft might theoretically be capable of flying with work done to it, but if the parts aren’t certified and every little part inspected, then it really doesn’t matter because the authorities won’t let it take to the air.

I think that my point was that for a museum aircraft to fly, it would have to be thoroughly inspected to the point of stripping it down, NDT, X-Ray, certification of all parts, etc. It would be a huge task, even for something which LOOKS pristine….

I think that this is the main point.

If bdn12 would like to respond to these well thought out reponses, I’m sure we’d welcome his views based on the contents of this thread. I’m sure that there are some projects that would welcome some financial input as well.

“For the CAA to issue a permit for flight, each part used must have tracability to the manufacturer.”

It’s not that simple. It depends on the complexity category, the permit type, and who the OEM was. The CAP632 for ex millitary, can allow the operating company to use their own discretion. eg in the case of flying hunters, and Sea Vixen, The DA for most of the parts don’t exist anymore, so the permit allows the operator to inspect and cert their own parts. That is why such aircraft often fly around with hard to find bits sourced from grounded museum aircraft, Vixen pylons for instance.

My error on permit aircraft… I’m more used to EASA 145 governed heavies…
That said, for items which would prevent flight, such as spars and major fuse components, surely a new DA must be sought. Air Atlantique hold the DA for the Shackleton.

I think that my point was that for a museum aircraft to fly, it would have to be thoroughly inspected to the point of stripping it down, NDT, X-Ray, certification of all parts, etc. It would be a huge task, even for something which LOOKS pristine….

“For the CAA to issue a permit for flight, each part used must have tracability to the manufacturer.”

It’s not that simple. It depends on the complexity category, the permit type, and who the OEM was. The CAP632 for ex millitary, can allow the operating company to use their own discretion. eg in the case of flying hunters, and Sea Vixen, The DA for most of the parts don’t exist anymore, so the permit allows the operator to inspect and cert their own parts. That is why such aircraft often fly around with hard to find bits sourced from grounded museum aircraft, Vixen pylons for instance.

The reality of museum operations is that for the cost of flying one aeroplane you can put a roof over many. Whilst it is a most noble aspiration to want to keep old aeroplanes flying, we need to get away from the mind set that it must be done in every case regardless of cost, for there are times when it just doesn’t make sense.

Also, think about things which you can’t see. Think of an externally restored aircraft under contract to a large museum.

The company WILL put out a quality product at the end of the restoration – a fine example of a rare type, 100% authentic, etc. There is no doubt that the restorers are of suitable quality. The main difference between a static restoration and a flyable one is the certificate of conformity of all the parts.

Companies such as LAS provide the industry with consumables complete with CofC. They charge industry rates, BUT each rivet that they supply can be traced back to manufacturer.

I could supply a box of rivets which would be the exact same item, but without the CofC at 1/3 the price.

For the CAA to issue a permit for flight, each part used must have tracability to the manufacturer.

If I had a restoration company speciallising in STATIC restorations, I would have no problems using the non-CofC consumables to keep costs down. If that aircraft was to fly again, all of the non original parts would have to be individually inspected and probably replaced with airworthy, tracable items, to the original drawings with the consent of the design authority.

In short, no matter how pristine a static aircraft looks, it will still have to be stripped to the bare bones before being allowed to fly.

Are airframes currently stored as 3 dimensional 1:1 representations of some specific point in time capable of returning to flight, in short yes most if not all can but would anyone want to expend that amount of time, effort and money in doing so, doubtful.

What is I am certain going to become a classic article of best practice can be seen currently with the return to flight of XH558 while at the other end of the scale in recent history is Concorde, but before considering this one should examine the timeline that is invoked once an airframes withdrawal from service is announced, as it is that timeline that will at some point in the future determine the viability of turning what is essentially a static exhibit back into a working airframe capable of licensed flight.

Once the decision to withdraw has been made a large number of things happen that have on the surface nothing to do directly with the airframe, the support infrastructure that provisioned that particular airframe with everything required from parts through maintenance staff too aircrew begins the process of being dismantled, contracts are cancelled supplies begin too dwindle and training stops, mostly this is planned well in advance so that at the date of withdrawal little if anything is left for disposal except the airframe which in essence is essentially scrap though may still be currently in top condition and working as designed.

With the Vulcan fleet a similar timeline ran it’s course leaving in the final days only XH558 in flying condition though as has since been discovered barely, very few spares and very few staff certified to operate and maintain the aircraft, the fact that it is back in the air today however is based on decisions made long before that by people that had the foresight to consider that one day a Vulcan might once again be allowed to fly in UK skies, as such what spares were available were placed in storage, the airframe itself was protected and maintained and plans were made to obtain the required permissions and finance to allow all of this too culminate in a once more flyable airframe.

Concorde however was not blessed in this manner and it’s demise was always planned to be as permanent as the current owners could possibly make it, spares were sold for scrap, or auctioned off, and the airframes were vandalised in a manner that would ensure they were never financially capable of flight again, though not in so far as to effect the overall long term exhibiting of them as possible advertising for the company or the final host venues.

Most withdrawn airframes fall somewhere between these two extremes and only in the case of simple construction types is there much hope of resurrection, complex airframes either military or civil have little hope unless the decision too do so is taken and incorporated in the original withdrawal planning process to ensure that spares and materials are available for future owners too purchase or obtain sufficient to accomplish a return to flight, so if you fancy flying a retired Raptor or 737 get planning today.

There is also the risk factor – think Bristol Bulldog.
If there are several aircraft of one type still around, we can afford to lose one. If a unique aircraft is lost in a crash, then that’s it for all time.

May I suggest that you pay a visit to Duxford and the Shuttleworth Collection to see how much time, effort and, most importantly, money is spent restoring aircraft and keeping the in the air. There is no point in restoring something to airworthy condition if you don’t have the money to operate it and keep it in that condition.

HEAR HEAR!!!

May I suggest that you pay a visit to Duxford and the Shuttleworth Collection to see how much time, effort and, most importantly, money is spent restoring aircraft and keeping the in the air. There is no point in restoring something to airworthy condition if you don’t have the money to operate it and keep it in that condition.

Aircraft are VERY complex bits of machinery. This means, more things likely to be a problem the longer it has sat around. Rubber seals, joints, hoses and tubing break down, metal corrodes and stresses. Say you take a car and just “park it” for 30 years. Do you think you can just top off the fuel, change the oil, put in a battery add some new tires and off you go? More likely, change all the belts and hoses as well, check for corrosion IN the engine, carefully disassemble and reassemble EVERYTHING that moves. Then test drive it. If there is a problem, pull over and call a truck. With aircraft, multiply every complexity by at least 10, and then again, you can’t just pull over and wait for a tow!

Lots of time and LOTS of money can make almost anything fly. Spares are a problem and custom parts would have to be fabricated. Last but not least, find someone brave enough or Crazy enough to test fly it!

I have read that museums like the NMUSAF and the RAF museum keep their aircraft in pristine condition. Would these aircraft be able to fly again? In the USAF Museum, many of the aircraft were just flown in, then drained of the fluids and put in the museum. I don’t see why any aircraft kept indoors wouldn’t be capable of taking to the air again. Of course, it would cost a lot of money, but I think it would be possible. What are your thoughts? (I’m not only talking about WWII aircraft, how about jets like the SR-71 or TSR.2)

realistically given enough money, and the right base from which to fly i would say that all aircraft in museums could fly again (could being the operative word) SR-71, IF the monumental amount of money to get it flying again, (realistically in the region of hundreds of millions to keep it in the air) the us government would never allow it. personally i would love to see the TSR.2 fly again this will never, realistically happen due to one of the two survivors being basically a gutted hulk (XR222, compare pics of XR222’s undercarriage to that of XR220) XR220 is a unique (in being basically complete) and immensely complex aircraft. again there are virtually no spares for this type so between the two the likelyhood of the SR-71 flying again is more likely that the TSR.2 (which i would prefer) though neither type would be allowed by the caa to operate in this country. going that the TSR.2 is a basically untested prototype, and the SR-71 does more than 2000mph at 100,000ft+ with some immensely powerful and complex engine systems alone (bypass ramjets, and cone shockwave system in the intake:eek: )

So in answer to your question, Theoretically yes it is possible, realistically the likelyhood of flying an aircraft that the us government reitred due to running costs are nil, and, in terms of TSR.2 she wont ever fly again (heard a story about XR219 when she was at shoeburyness, after a few weeks of being stood the bogey on one of the main undercarriage failed, so would probably need a redesign?) unless someone wants to build a new one like the Flug F-190’s