Could my 1946 Auster be a recycled Spitfire

I had a jeweller melt down a piece of Spitfire in a failed attempt to make my wedding ring.

Despite trying many times, all he got when melting the material was various grades of crud, nothing much that you’d recognise as useable metal. Poor chap was sweating away, sawing bits off a piece of ‘junk’ while his other customers looked on bemused.

It seemed the alloy didn’t take well to being recycled in our case.

Gooday All

What is becoming very clear from this thread is there is a lot of old wives tales around, a distinct lack of hard facts and it is a very interesting topic.

I think my coke can was once a Spitfire, my Auster definately better heritiage, at least a FW190

cheers

Thanks chumpy, I remember the article, but wasn’t sure when.

I’ve dragged it off the shelf. A quick scan shows lots of interesting points, but no mention of actual recycling of alu for aircraft specifically, and the adulteration issue being a significant one. More later if I have time.

There was quite a good article entitled ‘From Aircraft to Ingot’ on the subject of recycled aircraft alloy’s in the January 2004 edition of Aeroplane.

Must be true or they would have printed it!

Some of the answers offered just don’t seem correct.

I think what you mean is the data doesn’t square with what we’d always been told – and thus our belief.

This just doesn’t seem correct. A metal casting for say some wing fittings wouldn’t be thrown in the melting pot with other similar castings and then was NOT used to cast new similar new fittings.

But in W.W.II aero-engineering wasn’t a casting pot bubbling at the side of a hangar, but in all nations a fully developed system able to take bauxite rendered aluminiums for production. There had to be a good reason to change that system for recycled materials, such as genuine shortages and cost-benefits, and from the answers based on fact (rather than ‘I vaguely remember / believe’) that does not seem to be the case. Coupled with the Straight Dope’s highlighting the political and social need for the recycling drive, we have a perfectly reasonable scenario which fits the facts, rather than the myth, which doesn’t.

I think DaveF68’s latter comment summarises my concerns over the assumptions over material being able to maintain it’s entry ‘grade’ on exit from recycling.

Of course, if someone comes up with data showing the hypothesis above to be incorrect (or that there were exceptions, such as, perhaps, in Germany in late 1944) I’ll revise my understanding – rather than hanging onto a view…

Regards,

Gooday

This thread is becoming an eye opener if what has been said is any near true.

That a crashed aeroplane wasn’t used as a source of metal to build a new aeroplane.

This just doesn’t seem correct. A metal casting for say some wing fittings wouldn’t be thrown in the melting pot with other similar castings and then was NOT used to cast new similar new fittings.

Some of the answers offered just don’t seem correct.

cheers

I’d be surprised if much of it was re-manufactured – aircraft grade aluminium alloys come in a variety of different grades (based on thethe amount of hardening, % of trace elements etc involved)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duralumin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alclad

The amount of treatment you wouold need to give to scrap aluminium to purify and ensure the correct %s for trace elements to ensure proper hardening and corrosion resistance would possibly make it cheaper and easier to manufacture new stuff from bauxite.

ISTR that the Northern line Tube was equipped with carriages made from recycled aircraft ?

More like Dexian racking 😉

The Boxkite(Bauxite aluminium ore) reference is a “in” joke as James very kindly arranged a private visit to see the Boxkite on my last trip down under.

John

Very good, John. We’re working very hard not to recycle the Boxkite here!

I took a non aviation enthusiast friend to Old Warden a few years ago who, on seeing the Boxkite couldn’t believe it would fly. He reckoned it was strange shaped recycled shed with the boarding removed from the side panels and some wheels stuck on the bottom. He was very surprised at just how well it does fly with a sympathetic pilot aboard.

Gooday

I was holding an alloy part from my 1946 Auster the other day and the thought occurred that the casting could be from a recycled Spitfire.

With the poms being pretty much short of everything immediately post WW2 would it not make sense to use recovered aircraft alloy to cast new aircraft parts.

what do others think about this crazy notion.

cheers

It probably started out as a recycled saucepan:D

During ww2 if a plane crashed say a spitfire, and was beyond repair, what happened to the materials therein;

Good question. Certainly ‘reduced to produce’ as many instruments etc. could be refurbished, I presume.

It is possible that the metal would be smelted into aircraft grade aluminiums and steels; but given there was a war industry that was hungry for lower grade material, which would be easier and cheaper to supply from the aircraft material, the only reason to spend more money and effort to maintain aircraft grade metal – assuming as we understand that’s a more complex task – is if other supply is more expensive/compromised etc.

If they weren’t recycled back into aeroplanes then are we saying all aeroplanes late in the war were from brand new materials;

In the same was that wooden aircraft require the highest grades and most carefully selected wood, and there’s plenty of other things requiring lower grade material, I’d say probably. Data welcome, though.

Postwar – what were the ecconomic conditions like in England;

Err, pretty bad? ‘Export or Die’, rationing, austerity and no cash reserves. Those redundant aircraft sitting around needed to be turned into cans and cars, for cash and redeveloping a stalled civilian economy. All the romantics weeping for the ‘lost’ warbirds need to remember those warbirds used material and manufacturing that was desperately needed for domestic British (and Australian, and US, etc.) consumption and export cash earnings.

If non-recycled materials weren’t used – why not.

Two part answer, the same as nowdays. Some/most would be, just not for the premium material industries like aircraft. Some wouldn’t be, because the cost benefit wouldn’t be worth it. But as in the Straight Dope discussion and post, I linked to earlier, a critical part of the job was encouraging people to be more frugal and careful, and to believe they were helping the war effort. That’s a distasteful concept for some, but belief is a critical element in winning wars.

It’s a good area to explore, certainly…

Gooday All

OK if its evidence – another series of questions:

regards

Working through the argument logically, I would guess that aircraft alloy scrap could be relatively easily re-used as raw material for aircraft. Hence when it came to the mass scrapping of aircraft postwar, the materials could, perhaps go back into the aircraft ‘pot’.

Mixing those materials with unknown ‘pots and pans’ would not work however.

Hi Bruce, I’m no engineer or metallurgist, but the principle seems simple. If you could ensure only one specific aircraft grade aluminium (no other metals at all, no Mag Alloy rivets for instance), or ensure you could separate out any other metals entirely (skimming or precipitation for instance) then you probably could – assuming the processing of the metal could match an original refinement standard.

However in reality, that seems a higher expectation than most recycle smelting processes I’ve heard of. Certainly the post-war US, UK and Australian aircraft smelters did not operate to that standard.

I’m not aware of any actual evidence to say that happened. Would be interested to see any reliable data though!

forget the pots and pans stuff, that’s a distraction.

My point is “were post war aeroplanes made from WW2 aircraft scrap”, I think the metal from recovered crashed aeroplanes during WW2 was used to build new ones.

I don’t think so. There’s no point arguing it either; it’ll be settled by evidence, or that can be avoided and more mythology developed instead. I’d prefer evidence.

It might possibly be recycled Boxkite (Bauxite)!
John

Very good, John. We’re working very hard not to recycle the Boxkite here!

Regards,

Goooday All

Yes I can choose a much better aeroplane than a Spitfire, I think I will choose a FW 190 !

forget the pots and pans stuff, that’s a distraction.

My point is “were post war aeroplanes made from WW2 aircraft scrap”, I think the metal from recovered crashed aeroplanes during WW2 was used to build new ones.

cheers

Perhaps your Auster could trace its orgins back a little further than Spitfire?

Your Spitfire might, in turn, have been part-built from a smelted Messerschmitt 109….

dunno but I remember reading that many post-war prefabs were made of aviation grade aluminium

Thats an interesting link James.

Working through the argument logically, I would guess that aircraft alloy scrap could be relatively easily re-used as raw material for aircraft. Hence when it came to the mass scrapping of aircraft postwar, the materials could, perhaps go back into the aircraft ‘pot’.

Mixing those materials with unknown ‘pots and pans’ would not work however.

Any thoughts?

Bruce

It might possibly be recycled Boxkite (Bauxite)!
John