Congrats to Solent Sky

As this paperwork is currently up to date, wouldn’t it be worth Solent Sky continuing with maintaining that in their subsequent work, to allow the possibility of a future flying restoration when one of us wins the Lottery? Like someone else said, we should never say never when it comes to old aeroplanes!

GASML, unfortunately, outside of the control of an A8-20 organisation this is very unlikely I fear. Solent Sky now have to decide what to do with it, perhaps they will leave it as it is or maybe construct mock-up /replica wings and engine pod. It would be better not to ‘disturb’ the CAA authorised work already done if there is the remotest chance of a re-start some time in the future.

Copies of all the original drawings (hundreds of them) are with the project, what do you think we were working from?

There would not be any unsolvable problems in obtaining a Permit to Fly,

Certainly no reflection on what you were doing Mk V, I take my hat off to you for what you achieved, both on the restoration and the necessary research.

My, much simpler, projects prove more than tough enough and expensive enough for me!

The CAA inspected the re-build many times, everything done was under the supervision of and was signed off by a licenced engineer. All new materials were from CAA approved sources and to original/equivelant specs etc etc.,

As this paperwork is currently up to date, wouldn’t it be worth Solent Sky continuing with maintaining that in their subsequent work, to allow the possibility of a future flying restoration when one of us wins the Lottery? Like someone else said, we should never say never when it comes to old aeroplanes!

Mmmmm.

Better not try and land on the water line that. Yr boots flip you over.

Thanks Mark!

If I may add a PS?

Solent Sky get my support with their project.

I’ve already written, offering copies of my Walrus files (though they’ve got more than enough, I’d say) and if you have Walrus stuff to share, give them a shout. (Or me – I’m always up for copies of Walrus info!)

TIA

What might have been.

Here is a shot of the Seagull in Oz prior to the trade with the RAFMus for the Spitfire XVI.

Mark

Photo from the then owner Hockey Treloar

Then factor in the certification issues, particularly with a UK CAA Certificate or Permit and you’re looking at a small fortune in cash and a lot of persuasion required. Imagine the panic when the CAA ask for original drawings or stress calculations – and they will!

Copies of all the original drawings (hundreds of them) are with the project, what do you think we were working from? Stress calcs only need to be done when there is a change or modification from the original design. The aircraft is/was G registered, the CAA inspected the re-build many times, everything done was under the supervision of and was signed off by a licenced engineer. All new materials were from CAA approved sources and to original/equivelant specs etc etc.

There would not be any unsolvable problems in obtaining a Permit to Fly,

Can’t be bothered to read all the posts (too many words!),

Don’t be such a faint-heart! You might learn something. I certainly do. 😉

First point. I don’t think anyone was ever suggesting that a Walrus was going to fly in the UK under anything except a permit to fly. That does not rule out a flying restoration.

There was never a suggestion by anybody that it was a financially sensible proposition – it couldn’t be, like so much vintage aviation, it depended on a lot of heart before common sense. That does not make it an impossible or stupid project; these two suggestions are not fair.

If D1ck Melton had wished to ‘gift’ the aircraft to an organisation to rebuild and operate it, we would probably have seen it in the skies. The details of the proposal are confidential, so I can’t and won’t name names. He didn’t want to gift it and chose to sell it. That’s a different motivation to the younger man who got the project to where it is today – a change in personal circumstances made a change in motivation. We’ve all been there, sometimes it’s buying on ebay, sometimes it’s selling. 😉 Had Charles Church lived, one of the many side benefits would likely have been a flying Walrus.

JDK- The spread of Walrus is four in total . The fact is that the museums that have them are perfectly entitled to have them and they are all different in their histories which makes them all the richer. It’s not a matter of how many do we need static.

Paxman says “Answer the question, David!” 😀

There have been three clear opportunities for interested parties to acquire Walrus/Seagul over the last fourty years to rebuild and fly. Does the fact that hasn’t happened tell you something? There isn’t a demand for a flying example.

No, we haven’t been lucky in our circumstances. As I outlined earlier, there’s at least three occasions when we could have had a flying Walrus (and Seagull has two ‘l’s) – if A2-4 had not crashed in the 60s; if D1ck had got more Walrus stuff earlier, and if Charles Church had lived. It’s crystal ball stuff, sure, but none of it is impossible or futile which is the attitude I object to. It’s not a popular aircraft – it’s what we might call marginal interest (like an Antarctic Otter, perhaps!) but for instance there’s been a lot more luck for the Fairey Swordfish and the Westland Lysander – they’re not so different.

There were only ever three Walruses – the fact there is now four is due to D1ck Melton gathering bits to make a kit to rebuild to fly. G-RNLI was a chopped-up and gutted fuselage. He didn’t take the restoration all the way, which is the pity. D1ck and the volunteers who worked on G-RNLI were the demand for a flying Walrus. It is ONLY thanks to the demand for a flying Walrus that Solent Sky were able to buy one.

When I interviewed John Romain, he pointed out that the fact that the Blenheim rebuilds had been to fly the aeroplane meant that is why they happened at all. If the intent had been for a static Blenheim, then those Bollys wouldn’t have been brought from Canada, and the IWM would be missing a Bolly for Airspace as well. Don’t tell me that the Blenheim project was ‘impossible’. Or that it should be ‘financially viable’ or go on a Public Transport C of A.

We are not the continental USA – there just isn’t the demand for amphibians which can earn their keep. Companies in the USA produced perfectly workable machines and examples of the Seabee have made it to the U.K but in tiny numbers – I cannot see how any British amphibian producer could have foreseen any market for anything more than they had already built for the military.

No, no, you miss the point, David. 😉 British amphibians (including the Walrus) simply were awful compared to the US designs aftter W.W.II. Grumman ran rings around Supermarine and Shorts on the light amphibian market. If the British designs had been good enough, they’d have captured enough market share. The UK needed the money, but with stunners like (another fave of mine but a disaster) the Short Sealand and the Supermarine Sea Otter and the Supermarine Seagull ASR you’d have had to be mad to buy British. The Indians, Yugoslavians and Norwegeans bought Sealands and boy, they regretted it. That was the best the British aero-industry could come up with.

The number of Walrus surviving isn’t ever likely to increase and I feel that Mr Melton allowed more than enough time for a suitor to come forward and buy her. Great as it would be to see a Walrus fly – there is a massive void between wishing it could happen and actually being in the position of funding it.

You are quite right, and I absolutely agree. I explored all the avenues I could in my small way, and it wasn’t going to happen. That is, excepting a valiant offer by the Kiwis.

As for the Seagul V – I think it’s largely overlooked in the RAFM collection and I still feel she belongs back where she flew . Certainly she was built in the U.K but her history is the difference and that’s Australia. I was perfectly aware of the salvage of HD874 from Heard Island and I applaud her rebuild . There is room in Australia for more than one of the species and I am sure you are more than aware that the Australian museum scene is vibrant enough to do it . I somewhat doubt that the wreck of HD874 would have been left derelict if the Seagul had been returned.

First off, you haven’t also offered to ‘return’ the Fleet Air Arm Museum’s Irish Air Corps Walrus to where that belongs… 😉

It’s a matter of opinion, but I don’t think that Australia can support the rebuild of two of the type. The Museums and collections we do have are great, but the scope of them is significantly smaller than the UK. I’m in Australia, and I’ve talked to museum curators at the RAAF Museum, Powerhouse (Syndey), the Australian War Memorial, Temora, and Morrabbin about the challenges they face. Another Walrus wouldn’t be on, IMHO.

The disposal of Australia’s avaition heritage in the 60’s and 70’s is well recorded and something of which I am aware of . Times have changed over there and it’s decidely for the better. Out of interest where you in Australia in the 1960’s to witness it? Or are your observations based on other people’s recollection and the press?

I was resident in Australia between 1966 and 1972, since you ask. I will admit that at the age of five and under my powers of analysis weren’t perfect. 😀 More to the point, my statements are based with interviews with people directly involved at various institutions and widely respected people involved in Australian aviation, as well as a couple of widely unrespected people too; followed by analysis. It’s called research. :rolleyes: I’m not sure I’m right, but I’m sure I’ve got a good understanding of the situation. You’ve not provided any data to change any views.

The certification is a factor. How many Walrus have been on a Public Transport C of A in the U.K ? I think the difficulties of operating a Walrus on anything other than a Permit to Fly are obvious. To certify it in a way in which it could earn it’s keep would be difficult and costly.

where did the PT CofA idea come from? It was NEVER the intention. Where did this obsession with it taking joy rides in the UK come from? Over eighteen Walruses were registered in the UK, so there WAS a civilian precident – always useful and sometimes vital for warbirds aiming for a Permit to Fly. You might accept D1ck knew what he was doing?

She is indeed a fairly simple machine to rebuild – however that ‘simple’ translates into pure and simple money. There isn’t a Walrus flying and not likely to be one so maybe you can have as much knowledge on how ‘easy’ it is to do but without either doing it yourself or having the financial backing to pay for it to be done it’s academic.

Sadly true. However we clearly agree that trying to preserve important aircraft is worthwhile, in whatever ways each of us can.

As for me doing something – well with hunting for the prototype Dove in the Cape Verde Islands and helping to return the BAS Otter from Deception Island on the edge of Antarctica do you feel that I have been lacking in application?

I’d rather hear about these projects than argue the toss over what might have been. A new thread David?

As a personal project, it was/is one of the best out there. Had it continued in the hands of Mr Melton, it would have been flying by now, and the costs would likely have been absorbed into the company during ‘slack’ time, and with volunteer labour. However as an enthusiast/volunteer based project, the timescale would be pretty long – probably 10 years to see it complete, plus it would still require a fairly large injection of cash for materials to see it through.

I agree, and it’s the acknowledgement of expertise and quality that you’ve made that is important to recognise. This wasn’t some dreamer in a shed. This is an opportunity lost.

Technically there is no reason why a Walrus couldn’t be rebuilt to flying condition, but the cost of the rebuild and subsequent maintenance will cost an absolute shedload.

Cost of rebuild would be high. Bruce’s figures seem sensible to me. Cost of maintenance? Shouldn’t be excessive, fuel, overhaul etc wouldn’t be cheap, but the engine is (basically) a known quantity and it’s a 1930s stressed skin constriction with fabric covered wings – provided hangarage was used (and the wings fold!) it shouldn’t be too expensive. Cheaper than a Lysander or as cheap as a Swordfish – both of which have been operated in private hands – in Belgium and Canada respectively. Insurance would be a joker, as we know, and if you bent it – Owch. The Sabena Old Timers’ Lysander illustrates that point.

My apologies if I’ve gone on – I respect David’s point of view and expertise, and the Walrus is (just one) type I’m passionate about and have bothered to research. Even if Walruses leave you cold, there’s still lessons to learnt from every area of vintage aviation.

Thankfully the Walrus was there when it was needed in the North Sea, the English Channel, the Med and the Far East. It’s a pity that we’ve now left the Walrus in the hangar, not flying.

I congratulate Solent Sky for securing the airframe, they won the bidding on the day and have a fantastic aircraft to show on static. But all this talk about it now being “safe” makes it sound as if you Poms all thought it was in some great danger by going to New Zealand. I cannot see why. It’s in no more danger than any other warbird that flies anywhere in the world.

Dave – I worked in the restoration team for six years and I for one had no problem with it going to New Zealand. I am sorry it has not worked out that way.

JDK- There have been three clear opportunities for interested parties to acquire Walrus/Seagul over the last fourty years to rebuild and fly. Does the fact that hasn’t happened tell you something?

The certification is a factor. How many Walrus have been on a Public Transport C of A in the U.K ? I think the difficulties of operating a Walrus on anything other than a Permit to Fly are obvious. To certify it in a way in which it could earn it’s keep would be difficult and costly.

I think these two items from David sadly sum up the challenge ahead of anyone even hoping to take up a challenge on this scale.

Technically there is no reason why a Walrus couldn’t be rebuilt to flying condition, but the cost of the rebuild and subsequent maintenance will cost an absolute shedload.

Then factor in the certification issues, particularly with a UK CAA Certificate or Permit and you’re looking at a small fortune in cash and a lot of persuasion required. Imagine the panic when the CAA ask for original drawings or stress calculations – and they will!

I would love to see and hear a ‘Shagbat’ in the air, but unless one of us is preparared and able to divvy up half a million pounds or so – let’s be realistic, enjoy what we’ve got and at least congratuate those involved on all their hard work so far.

I’ve never met D1ck Melton, but I take my hat off to him for starting a wonderful project. One thought though. Maybe Solent Sky might ensure that they maintain sufficient paperwork and reporting on their rebuild and parts used, to allow a later ‘retrospective rebuild’ to flying condition sometime in the future?

Slightly off topic I know but surely moving the P111 would be a major headache as it is effectively a single piece aircraft?

Incidentally, the commercial value of the project was clearly a stalling point to the New Zealanders who wished to buy her…

Bruce

Yes. Solent Sky could offer more for the airframe because their after-purchase outlay for a static restoration would be much less than the money required to get it flying.

Dave,

There was also a bid to restore it to fly in the UK, by at least one organisation. I agree with you regarding the exchange rate issue – its why you have a warbird industry and we dont. There is no question regarding the expertise of the engineeers you have in New Zealand.

Having a commercial value is one reason why it has attracted so little interest; not the only one perhaps, but it is one of them. You are quite correct, as an enthusiast project, it would be a great one, but it was not to be. Incidentally, the commercial value of the project was clearly a stalling point to the New Zealanders who wished to buy her…

It is ‘Safe’ in that it is now with an organisation who will complete her. It would be no less ‘safe’ in New Zealand.

If the pound continues to gain strength against other currencies, it is a sure fire thing that other projects will go to NZ. There is absolutely no question of that. Thing is, whilst it remains strong, no-one else can actually afford to buy the flying aircraft…

Bruce

You chaps seem to forget that this was not going to be restored in Britain had the flying project deal been done. If it had come to NZ it was to be restored in Christchurch by a highly skilled and dedicated team of warbirds owners and engineers, with proven track records and total dedication. Restoration rates are much cheaper here than in the UK or US, yet the work is as good. And I believe there was to be sponsorship in the restoration by a well known aircraft engineering firm too, with a great track record for helping out on warbird projects. So the astronomical costs you perceieve are probably quite wrong in real terms.

And why does it need a market value? I don’t think they were restoring it to sell onwards. They wanted desperately to see the type flying again. They are enthusiasts before they are businessmen as far as I’m aware. There was a hell of a lot of interest in this project within New Zealand and the financial backing was there I’m told. The aircraft type was as much part of our history as the RAF’s. Both our Navy and Air Force flew the type. Many people were interested in securing its flying future.

I congratulate Solent Sky for securing the airframe, they won the bidding on the day and have a fantastic aircraft to show on static. But all this talk about it now being “safe” makes it sound as if you Poms all thought it was in some great danger by going to New Zealand. I cannot see why. It’s in no more danger than any other warbird that flies anywhere in the world.

Yes, you have it forever (perhaps) in the museum, but we’ve all lost the opportunity to see and experience it flying. You could have seen it at your beloved Flying Legends if it had gone to the NZ consortium, as well as at Wanaka and probably Oshkosh other airshows round the world, as it was always the aim for the NZ’ers to take it on a world tour once it was in the air. Oh well, your loss and ours.

The good thing is, with the funds they’d already raised, the New Zealanders are now looking at securing at least one – maybe more aircraft to make up for the lost deal. So you better watch out for your other beloved warbirds…

As for me doing something – well with hunting for the prototype Dove in the Cape Verde Islands and helping to return the BAS Otter from Deception Island on the edge of Antarctica do you feel that I have been lacking in application?

David.

You have been terribly remiss. Surely you could have done something on your day off? 🙂

With regards to the P111, would the Boulton Paul Heritage Centre be interested in keeping and restoring this aircraft? Even if only on a loan basis? I admit that I know little of the aircraft and therefore its significance fails to inspire me. I suppose that’s a large part of the problem.

Regards,

kev35

Clearly an emotive subject for some here.

Although I can see everybodys point of view, I would say that from a purely business point of view, the Walrus was not a viable project. Even with the fuselage done, I would guess that there could be up to 700K more to spend to get the aircraft in the air, using even the lowest rates around in the industry. The £35 mentioned elsewhere is the cheapest I have heard lately. Typical rates are £40 to £50 per hour commercial rates.

As a personal project, it was/is one of the best out there. Had it continued in the hands of Mr Melton, it would have been flying by now, and the costs would likely have been absorbed into the company during ‘slack’ time, and with volunteer labour. However as an enthusiast/volunteer based project, the timescale would be pretty long – probably 10 years to see it complete, plus it would still require a fairly large injection of cash for materials to see it through.

Solent Sky are building an impressive portfolio of Supermarine aircraft, and this is a wholly appropriate place for the aircraft to go. I fully support the efforts of various museums to properly represent their local aircraft builder, and it isnt exactly easy to find examples of surviving Supermarine aircraft these days. I am spoilt; one cant cross the street without finding surviving de Havilland aircraft, but it takes a different kind of energy to improve a collection such as this.

I do understand the disappointment, but the aircraft has been for sale for at least five years without a deal being concluded. As I write this, it is just half a mile from me (though I havent seen it close up!). I do know that there was at least one serious interested party in the UK that wished to fly it, but who presumably couldnt make the sums work.

Well done Solent Sky – more power to you.

Bruce

Can’t be bothered to read all the posts (too many words!), I am pleased that Solent Sky have this fantastic project back again….fantastic work by Dick Melton. Highly relevant to the Solent area.

At the end of the day whether an aircraft will fly again relies on many things, without the correct combination, it won’t happen. Period.These are enthusiasm, spares support and money.
ISTR that the Walrus project was ‘available’ for sometime. The fact that noone jumped in to acquire the project and fly it…is sadly a representation of its position in the eyes of those with the magic 3 ingredients. I would love to see this fantastic aircraft fly again….but as it won’t, I am delighted it will be in Hants!!

JDK- The spread of Walrus is four in total . The fact is that the museums that have them are perfectly entitled to have them and they are all different in their histories which makes them all the richer. It’s not a matter of how many do we need static. There have been three clear opportunities for interested parties to acquire Walrus/Seagul over the last fourty years to rebuild and fly. Does the fact that hasn’t happened tell you something? There isn’t a demand for a flying example.
We have to put this in the perspective that there wasn’t in the late fourties and fifties a call for small civil amphibians in the U.K in any numbers. Surely if there was we would have an example of the capable Sea Otter flying in the U.K. We are not the continental USA – there just isn’t the demand for amphibians which can earn their keep. Companies in the USA
produced perfectly workable machines and examples of the Seabee have made it to the U.K but in tiny numbers – I cannot see how any British
amphibian producer could have foreseen any market for anything more than they had already built for the military.
The number of Walrus surviving isn’t ever likely to increase and I feel that Mr Melton allowed more than enough time for a suitor to come forward and buy her.Great as it would be to see a Walrus fly – there is a massive void between wishing it could happen and actually being in the position of funding it.
As for the Seagul V – I think it’s largely overlooked in the RAFM collection and I still feel she belongs back where she flew . Certainly she was built in the U.K but her history is the difference and that’s Australia. I was perfectly aware of the salvage of HD874 from Heard Island and I applaud her rebuild . There is room in Australia for more than one of the species and I am sure you are more than aware that the Australian museum scene is vibrant enough to do it . I somewhat doubt that the wreck of HD874 would have been left derelict if the Seagul had been returned.
The disposal of Australia’s avaition heritage in the 60’s and 70’s is well recorded and something of which I am aware of . Times have changed over there and it’s decidely for the better. Out of interest where you in Australia in the 1960’s to witness it? Or are your observations based on other people’s recollection and the press?
The certification is a factor. How many Walrus have been on a Public Transport C of A in the U.K ? I think the difficulties of operating a Walrus on anything other than a Permit to Fly are obvious. To certify it in a way in which it could earn it’s keep would be difficult and costly.
Aircraft are rebuilt and flown for a variety of reasons – some of which are not immediately clear. It’s a fact however that a Tiger Moth bought in the 1970’s for a few thousand is now worth an amount more. Investments do go up and down but historic aircraft have for a long time been on an even keel. There are plenty of warbirds which give great pleasure to their owners but they are rarely sold vastly under their market value so that tends to indicate that there is some tangiable gain to be had inspite of the high cost of ownership.
Non of this detracts from Mr Melton’s ownership of her. He was aware of his age when he started it and how long the project would take. It wasn’t a matter of being ten years younger and finishing it. The project has been a labour of love to him and he has been rewarded for that. He made the decision to sell her to a life of being grounded so maybe knowing the work involved to get her flying he examined who was in the market for her and made his judgement on their ability to finish it in a way that fitted his criteria
-one of the befenits of owning something and being able to decide who will care for it best.
You mention that Mark V knows more about the Walrus than I do – well erm where does that leave us? She is indeed a fairly simple machine to rebuild – however that ‘simple’ translates into pure and simple money. There isn’t a Walrus flying and not likely to be one so maybe you can have as much knowledge on how ‘easy’ it is to do but without either doing it yourself
or having the financial backing to pay for it to be done it’s academic.
Separately I will deal with your comments Kev. The Boulton Paul P111A is unique . It arrived at Coventry in the mid 1970’s and has been kept outside since.
She currently has a steel tube supporting her nose due to damage to her nose leg.
Since her arrival other aircraft have arrived and been housed. The Sea Harrier springs to mind immediately – the Boulton Paul is decidedly local in build and incredibly relevant to the area. The Sea Harrier is fascinating from the point of view of vertical flight but can we deem that a Sea Harrier is more deserving of hangarage?
There is the interest to do something significant with the P111A but it needs a meeting of minds between the groups concerned. The Boulton Paul is a national artifact and I have been more than vocal about it in the past. What do you suggest?
Kev- as you say they are doing their best – is there a little more that could be done?
I applaud the efforts to get machines alive at Coventry with regard to the Canberra ,
Hunter and Sea Vixen – we do however have one P111A only and it’s a matter of concern to many.
As for me doing something – well with hunting for the prototype Dove in the Cape Verde Islands and helping to return the BAS Otter from Deception Island on the edge of Antarctica do you feel that I have been lacking in application?

Bloody auto-censor! You have to call him Richard Melton!! :diablo:

Why? Dick Melton is how he is known. 😉

Thanks due to the Webbie.

Moggy

You’d have to trade or pay. What have you got? 😉

A small wad of McDonalds vouchers, half a dozen crumpled copies of a well known UK aviation magazine or three pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence, in cash!!

I agree with Mark V. I reckon it’s the love and dedication toward a project that makes people generate the money to bring it to fruition. Carolyn Grace spring to mind? she scrapes by and no-one can deny that it is the love of the aircraft and how it came to be restored which drives that project on.

If love and dedication are not enough and not important perhaps David should never again mention his beloved Boulton Paul that he complains about MAM. If he is that concerned perhaps he should do something about it? God knows, MAM do their best.

As for the Walrus? I’m grateful it’s safe and disappointed I will never see it in the air. Perhaps JDK is right. How many ‘safe’ static examples do we need of a type before our expectations lead us to believe it is time we saw one in the air?

Edited it to add: Boston? Yes please!

Regards,

kev35

would love a Boston please Aussies….

You’d have to trade or pay. What have you got? 😉

Well I agree with David – would love a Boston please Aussies….

Not sure about the complete non starter bit though!!