109 found in lake

Reading it again.. yes, I would propose drilling all the rivets out.. that is certainly something I have done in my limited experience, and I did think that was a fairly normal thing to do.

Well I am in the percentage of preserve and leave as is, flyers dont have bullet holes, and other combat wounds.

Surely the best way to reach all areas is a chemical bath of some sort.

I suppose the last scenario, getting into every area, was what I was thinking.. no more of a ball-ache than building a new whatever-it-is. With the bonus that this isn’t a new whatever-it-is, if that is what is important to one, (rather than restoration at best, or helping a millionaire to play Biggles at worst). But I do take your point about bare aluminium, and about treatment destroying the ‘original’ appearance of the item. As I say, I am a touch naive, but not ignorant as to the ways (and inevitability) of corrosion. After all, I do own a thirty year old VW van 🙂

Edit.. That was tongue-in-cheek. I have also been around bits of corroding aircraft aluminium since I was 12. My naivety comes from never having been faced with the proposition of a whole one!

‘Naive to an extent, but.. is it not possible to ‘deep conserve’ by complete disassembly, treatment, essential replacement and reassembly? What is the plan with the RAFM Dornier.. and come to that the Halifax? Are these professionals actually attempting the impossible? ‘

Right -so in the case of bare aluminium where its clearly oxidising what treatment do you propose? The traditional method has been alocrom and then a primer followed by a surface finish. There are other options i.e to anodise -however you might not be keen on the 109 looking like something from the top shelf of Halfords !

As to the ‘complete’ disassembly – do you propose to drill all the rivets out as I am certain there will be areas where there is little or no anti corrosion treatment that are inaccesssible by any other method .

Then you have the problem of dissimilar metals – yes you can treat steel components -however that treatment will make the items look new.

So in the case of the Halifax -you can slow corrosion -but thats all unless you get into every area where corrosion can occur and treat.

Vampirefan has pretty much hit the nail on the head! The issues are that the clock didnt stop ticking in 1940 or whenever it was built. Corrosion has been occuring to this airframe steadiliy since. It might appear slow but its certainly there !

I don’t think that it’s possible to stop the corrosion clock entirely. Within the next 50 to 100 years, many preserved airframes may need a second round of conservation efforts. The NASM seems to be planning for this by ensuring that current restoration work can be reversed by future researchers if needed or if improved restoration techniques are invented.

My turn at making a hysterical post:

The loss of the Biggin A-26 is pertinent as a moment of pilot error (or possibly mechanical failure in the cockpit) cost us a historic aircraft. The same could happen to this aircraft, and then the world would be short of one BF 109, purely because some old boy with a clean flying record misjudged his altitude before attempting a roll, or because he pegs out in the cockpit (as might have happened to that P51 pilot at Reno), or because something becomes unfastened and chucks it into a spin (cue handwringing). All of this to keep a small, anti-social clique of Rain Man types with telephoto lenses and step ladders from getting upset because the noisy, darting Messerschmitt overhead is really a Buchon? Come on!

Millions of people watch Downton Abbey. My father must be one of the tiny minority that gets actively upset when BR Standard Mk1 coaches show up, purely because they aren’t period correct.

I also disagree with the notion that younger enthusiasts will come along and ensure that ‘these things’ continue. Where are these younger enthusiasts? Certainly not on here! To stay on the subject of age, the relatively advanced age of the pilots involved would appear to be a common theme with the loss of historic aircraft. The Soplata Corsair was flown by a 66 year old man when it crashed. Jimmy Leeward was 74 when he crashed that P51 thing at Reno. Charlie Schwenker was 64 when he crashed that Stearman at Dayton. We are dealing with a hobby that is predominantly practiced by, and funded by, elderly men who are not being readily replaced by younger talent, sadly. Or is it only the older pilots crashing? I don’t see any younger talent on Warbird Information Exchange either, for the record.

Sorry to all for straying off topic. But the NTSB investigation into the Jimmy Leeward accident at Reno was very thorough and has long since shown that this accident was mechanical failure. The reports are complete with photos and laboratory analysis of the recovered flight control components, and with photos of accident sequence time-aligned to the hundredth of a second and showing the compromised flight controls. Nothing in the report faults the age of the pilot and there is no suggestion in the reports that he suffered a heart attack. Those who keep perpetuating that myth would do better to actually read the report documents.

Naive to an extent, but.. is it not possible to ‘deep conserve’ by complete disassembly, treatment, essential replacement and reassembly? What is the plan with the RAFM Dornier.. and come to that the Halifax? Are these professionals actually attempting the impossible?

Vampirefan has pretty much hit the nail on the head! The issues are that the clock didnt stop ticking in 1940 or whenever it was built. Corrosion has been occuring to this airframe steadiliy since. It might appear slow but its certainly there !

The post about a recovered airframe on display and unrestored has generated an interesting response.In particular the input from those who work on airframes and engines adds to our knowledge. I am a long time enthusiast and fly in light aircraft for my job however the engineering side is of interest. Keep the posts coming and help dispel the many myths which abound around conservation,restoration and maintenance issues.

Restore or conserve?

Always a difficult call as to whether to restore or conserve an item. However, with an item as complex as an airframe, in the long term the answer can only be restore.

Even if dismantled down to its major airframe section components without any un-necessary drilling of rivets or disassembly, there will still remain hundreds of inaccessible locations where the insidious effects of corrosion will continue to develop un-checked. Without correct disassembly this aeroplane, along with “Swamp Ghost” and many others, will simply corrode away from within to the point that the precious original material which could have been saved and preserved if the job were done correctly to begin with, will in a number of years have decayed to a point whereby replacement will be essential.

There is a great deal of naivety on the long term effects of corrosion and decay on an airframe. Simply ignoring its presence will not cure the situation. There has to be positive and deep-reaching activity to halt the decay (to whatever extent that is ever possible), and that cannot be achieved without proper disassembly and corrosion control. To believe otherwise and opting for the (initially at least) easy option is simply burying ones head in the sand.

I was 19 when I went to the IWM and wanted to see if they needed someone who was mid study on a BCAR license – it was full time and unpaid, and I took it. From then on it was meeting people and building experience. Now I’m 32, I mainly do 1930-1960s vintage GA and a few WW2 types for individuals. It’s effort and a willingness to travel that helps, plus a certain element of balls to ask those that own if they are in need of your acquired experience. There is a lot of rejection though…

FB

That’s easy Matt, I joined the RAF! It was full of antiques back then, Chipmunks, Buccs, Phantoms, Victors et al! I was lucky to spend time on the Reds, and BBMF (and lots of other things), before I knocked on TFC’s door as a volunteer. The owners wanted me on board permanently, but it’s just a bit too far south for me, and the RAF came first.

Thanks Circus. I think the one question on any younger enthusiast’s lips would be.. how did you get to work on historic aeroplanes at 18? I would have sold my Granny for that! (Matt, 45)

Meddle, I’m a mere 41, and have spent the last 23 years fixing UK’s fly able aeroplanes. Restoration, rebuild, repair, line operations, depth maintenance, scheduled servicings, modifications etc etc. I’m that younger guy and there are hundreds like me.

The pilots who fly warbirds are generally older because they’ve worked a lifetime to afford the finer things in life. That said, there is a new crop of warbird pilots, just go and look in the pilots tent at Legends. The thing is, if you’ve spent millions on your toy and are capable of flying it, surely you’re going to have a go? And the age of some of these guys is a mark of experience.
Incidentally you refer to filling of metal if that 109 if it were restored. We don’t use body filler on flying aeroplanes, so I don’t know why you thought that?
(This post is more from the heart and less tongue in cheek).

Um, I’m only 43 🙂

Yeah Jim, You’re way older than Conrad Huffstutler, you old fogey!

Andy Scott (still not 50! 😀 )

Meddle, my post was tongue in cheek.
Trumpet, surely this airframe is already decayed?

So it isn’t going to fly anyway then —–not unless you are going to pretty much destroy it to get rid of the decaying bits.If it can be preserved then it should be.

Um, I’m only 43 🙂

Meddle, my post was tongue in cheek.
Trumpet, surely this airframe is already decayed?

Preserve this 109 and stop any decay of the airframe.I went to the Fleet air arm Museum last week and one of the most interesting airframes for me was the Corsair with all it’s different paint and markings that been uncovered and unrestored.
http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/corsair-kd-431/2-4-18.aspx