Congrats to Solent Sky

I think the acquisition of the Walrus was a great result for Solent Sky. The machine is genuine ex RAF and deserved to be preserved in the U.K. The spread in terms of Yeovilton-Hendon and Southampton is entirely appropriate and in no way excessive.

We disagree again David. One static, safe in good hands is good. Two is safer, three is more than enough, and one of those could (in both senses) be a flier. That, IMHO, is a waste. Southampton will get my support, though. It’s a matter of opinion as to how many static airframes are needed, so we’ll agree to disagree here. Four grounded, none flying, is too many for me. How many gounded Walrii do you think we need before we should ‘allow’ for a flier?

What does strike me as amazing is why the Aussies let the Seagul V go to the U.K when even in the late 1960’s it could have been considered a national treasure. I would be more than happy to see her returned to Australia – in return for a Boston!

Different times allow for different actions. You clearly aren’t au fait with the attitude to vintage aviation and aircraft in Australia in the ’60s, who owned it, and what the deal was. (Some of which smelled a bit even in the attitudes of the times, but resulted in Australia getting a Spitfire XVI, then, as now regarded by many (not me) as more valuable than a Walrus or Seagull). You’ve also chosen to overlook the fact that the RAAF Museum has a Walrus (not a Seagull V) on display. It has important Australian history, and was recovered in the 80s from the Antarctic and rebuilt over the last ten years. Personally, I’m pleased that Seagull V A2-4 is on display at Hendon, and I don’t want it to come to Australia. Interestingly, it’s probable that the RAAF Museum aircraft would be a stored wreck if A2-4 had stayed in Aus. We’d be another Walrus down. A2-4 has got British history (it was built there) and the ‘all aircraft belong only in their country of origin/use/etc’ teorem is self evidentally absurd – but keeps poping up. Should Ireland have the FAAM Walrus back?! That’s where it’s ‘from’. :rolleyes:

There may well be a growth in the Boston market. If the Poms are good they may get one – well after after PNG though. 😉

The simple reality was that to rebuild her sensibly would have happily consumed 1 million. Possibly justifiable on a Spitfire where the return might just be there but on a Walrus completely unrealistic .There isn’t a market that exists for the type and there is never likely to be one. Unless you are prepared to do it for the love of it and never mind the money it was a complete non starter.

If your interested in operating an amphibian the choices can sensibly only be tried and tested commercial types like the Widgeon and Goose. Stray too far from those and certification and spares support evaporates quickly.

Sorry David, that’s a cynical theoretical position usuported by the facts of this, particular, case. I’ll grant you that if you wish to operate an amphibian you should ‘buy American’ (I leave you to draw the conclusions over the quality and thus availability of British amphibians) but that was never the point here. D1ck Melton chose to rebuild a Walrus because he wanted to, and he could do it. The money it cost was irrelevent, to him, as it was a labour of love – it was not, to him a ‘job’ to sell at the end. Most of the labour on the a/c was voluntery, including his own. The parts were collected. There is nothing missing that would stop an airworthy rebuild as I write (I’ve seen it, and the paperwork). It’s a lot more than a meccano set, but it’s perfectly doable.

Without D1ck having scoured to world investing his time and money, there would be no fourth ‘complete’ Walrus. If he had been 10 years younger, he would have rebuilt it to fly and flown it. He wasn’t interested in selling it, or making a return on investment. He wanted to see a Walrus fly. A small select and perhaps illogical group I count myself in, too, but he was able to make his dream real. He just decided to call quits due to age, not cash.

These statements, David, are based on conversations with D1ck and check by others involved, not theoretical pronouncements.

Certification and spares support are an arguement I’ve deployed myself in these sorts of cases. However, specifically, the Walrus is a very simple aircraft, powered by a Pegasus engine. The only ‘system’ worthy of the name is the retractable undercarriage. I’m not an engineer, nor an ‘expert’, but D1ck is one of the very few people alive who know the aircraft a lot better than me – trust me, I’ve talked to all the Walrus experts. You might like to consider from what knowledge Mark V speaks – he knows a lot more about it that you do, I’m afraid.

Certification was, and is, in the UK, perfectly possible (and as far as can be told, elsewhere too). – Someone of D1ck’s experience wouldn’t have proceeded as far as he had and collected the paperwork he did if he was at all unsure. Only time, not money counted against this. The NZ group could have done it. They weren’t given the chance.

Your implication that the exercise was, in effect, a fools errand or a waste of time is insulting, innacurate and also overlooks the fact that thanks to D1ck’s project a good deal of parts sharing and co-operative work was undertaken by the RAAF Museum team. There was also exchanges and support from the RAFM, FAAM and numerous other organisations. I could have written the book (http://www.mmpbooks.biz/books/8391717895/8391717895p.htm) on the Walrus without D1ck’s work, but it’s a lot better a book thanks to his input.

There’s few if any good financial reasons to rebuilding old aircraft to fly. Even Spitfires and Mustangs are poor financial investments from the rebuild perspective (See the ‘Exeter Spitfire’ thread). Your primary statement of the cost benefit analysis is financially true, but the fact that there’s a world full of interesting aircraft flying means it’s not correct. So there must be other reasons.

It’s safe, which is good.

It’s not going to fly – that’s a waste.

Just putting the record streight.

Bit of a duel edged sword this one, great it is staying in the UK but such a shame it will not fly now, especialy with all the great work that has allready been done by **** Melton and his team.

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

The fact is that a great number of aircraft projects have been started in the 1980’s and never finished! When everything was on the up it was fine and people were prepared to settle up at the end of the project in the sure knowledge that they would at least cover their costs. This isn’t happening at the moment with a great number of
projects. The costs are spiralling and anything apart from the interesting and saleable
isn’t getting done.
Sad as it may seem but the cost of owning any aircraft in the U.K is getting increasingly hard to justify for some people .

David, how can you dismiss the project as a non starter because of a lack of commercial viability? If all old aeroplanes were re-built on the basis of commercialism there would be very few in the air today. Love and dedication play a very big part.

I accept that the Walrus does not have the popular appeal or glamour of the Spitfire and the market is limited but there was enough dedication available in 1989 to get her where she is today. I wonder if this will be as forthcoming now that she is to be just another static example, I suspect not.

Mark V – Mr Melton worked wonders on her as his personnel project. However if it wasn’t for his interest there is every chance that at best it would be a
cockpit on display and at worst a caravan.
As for a ‘non starter’ – that’s an entirely true description for it as a project to be done on a commercial basis as my thread outlines. There are simply not the people
around prepared to speculate on a Walrus rebuild that would consume a vast sum of money. As long as Spitfires and the like command the interest and value they do types like the Walrus will remain in the doldrums.

Unless you are prepared to do it for the love of it and never mind the money it was a complete non starter.

That was the entire basis of the project and the only reason it got as far as it did. It was NOT a “non starter” as you rather casually refer to it.

I think the acquisition of the Walrus was a great result for Solent Sky. The machine is genuine ex RAF and deserved to be preserved in the U.K. The spread in terms of Yeovilton-Hendon and Southampton is entirely appropriate
and in no way excessive. What does strike me as amazing is why the Aussies
let the Seagul V go to the U.K when even in the late 1960’s it could have been considered a national treasure. I would be more than happy to see
her returned to Australia – in return for a Boston!
The simple reality was that to rebuild her sensibly would have happily consumed 1 million. Possibly justifiable on a Spitfire where the return might just be there but on a Walrus completely unrealistic .There isn’t a market that exists for the type and there is never likely to be one. Unless you are prepared to do it for the love of it and never mind the money it was a complete non starter.
If your interested in operating an amphibian the choices can sensibly only be tried and tested commercial types like the Widgeon and Goose. Stray too far from those and certification and spares support evaporates quickly.

One wonders where they (Solent Sky) are going to put it. :confused:
The same applies to the Scimitar and Swift.

Congratulations though on the purchase!

Guess what won’t be at Legends. 🙁

I’m pleased for the Southampton folks (who had it some time ago, in collabaration with D Melton) but it’s not a great win as it was an airworthy quality ‘kit’, and the UK already has a Walrus and Seagull V on display – more than enough static IMHO. There is a waste of potential there.

Anyone in britain patting themselves on the back over retaining it might like to reflect that there still is not a single British designed or built marine aircraft flying in the UK. That’s nothing to be proud of for a maritime nation. ‘Super’marine? Clearly Noel Pemberton Billing would think it a damn poor show.

I hope D1ck got a good deal for all his work and collection of Walrus parts over the years (not forgetting those chaps who helped him). Safe hands at least, and they’ve got the nearest thing to a ‘Walrus’ Meccano set that you could hope for. Glue not supplied, reccomended ages 6+.

Oh, and Steve, let’s keep a small grain of hope alive. Remember even Sean Connery as Mr Bond had to say “Never say Never.” 😉

Seconded. Shame to think that we’ll now never see one fly, but very nice to see it going to such an appropriate home given it’s ancestry.

Also in Aeroplane, a very nice article about Jim Pearce’s Fw189, which has been very low profile for a while.

Oh, and some good news articles about the Austrian P47 recovery, Sea Fury WG655’s first post-restoration flight, and the roll-out of the world’s only restored MiG-3. All on the same news page, and strangely all un-reported by our hosts.

Come on FlyPast, you’ve dropped the ball a bit of late chaps…

Pity they could use it as a flying advert for the collection really. Hats off to them and Mr. Melton (& team) for keeping it in the UK.

Bit of a duel edged sword this one, great it is staying in the UK but such a shame it will not fly now, especialy with all the great work that has allready been done by **** Melton and his team.