Heart or hard metal

I have some odds & sods laying about, I’m using a mainwheel from PA908 as a doorstop in my garage…

I have some odds & sods laying about, I’m using a mainwheel from PA908 as a doorstop in my garage…

Arthur Ruck, a friend of mine many years ago who worked on Canberras at Pershore, told me that the airframes there were all composites of various other Canberras and contained very little of the airframes they’d started life with.

Arthur Ruck, a friend of mine many years ago who worked on Canberras at Pershore, told me that the airframes there were all composites of various other Canberras and contained very little of the airframes they’d started life with.

The whole notion of keeping an a/c airworthy AND original is a contradiction in terms. As Tony has stated, any and all parts can, and usually are replaced, just as they were when the a/c was in service.

The words ‘Trigger’ and ‘Broom Handles’ spring to mind 🙂

The whole notion of keeping an a/c airworthy AND original is a contradiction in terms. As Tony has stated, any and all parts can, and usually are replaced, just as they were when the a/c was in service.

The words ‘Trigger’ and ‘Broom Handles’ spring to mind 🙂

Simples.

If an aircraft is very historic, and you want it preserved in aspic – fine, put it into a museum as a static exhibit. The whole notion of keeping an a/c airworthy AND original is a contradiction in terms. As Tony has stated, any and all parts can, and usually are replaced, just as they were when the a/c was in service.
This is why I’m always so dismissive of the spotty anoraks who criticise ‘Dataplate Specials’. Such a/c give us all we need to see, hear and smell AND allow the more originals to survive in perpetuity. It’s a totally win-win process. In airworthy machines, any replacement parts that are manufactured to drawing and spec ARE effectively ‘original’ for airworthiness purposes (Subject to the usual paper-trail.). As such rebuilds proliferate, the scope for re-manufactured items and assemblies grows too. Modern technology has transformed this process, which would often simply have been prohibitively expensive in the past. Sentimentality and airworthiness don’t really mix…:diablo:

Simples.

If an aircraft is very historic, and you want it preserved in aspic – fine, put it into a museum as a static exhibit. The whole notion of keeping an a/c airworthy AND original is a contradiction in terms. As Tony has stated, any and all parts can, and usually are replaced, just as they were when the a/c was in service.
This is why I’m always so dismissive of the spotty anoraks who criticise ‘Dataplate Specials’. Such a/c give us all we need to see, hear and smell AND allow the more originals to survive in perpetuity. It’s a totally win-win process. In airworthy machines, any replacement parts that are manufactured to drawing and spec ARE effectively ‘original’ for airworthiness purposes (Subject to the usual paper-trail.). As such rebuilds proliferate, the scope for re-manufactured items and assemblies grows too. Modern technology has transformed this process, which would often simply have been prohibitively expensive in the past. Sentimentality and airworthiness don’t really mix…:diablo:

With aircraft a very exacting process is involved in making an aircraft airworthy and a beautiful sight to see and hear. But I personally like the feel and touch of original historic material so what are you heart or hard metal?

Remember when an aircraft gets rebuilt to airworthiness standards the material removed is more often than not kept and not scrapped, it is still there.

Also even though an aircraft may be a historic relic, war service means it may be a shadow of it’s former self, wings.. engines…props…tail surfaces etc may all have been replaced during it’s military service, such is the nature of the beast.

With aircraft a very exacting process is involved in making an aircraft airworthy and a beautiful sight to see and hear. But I personally like the feel and touch of original historic material so what are you heart or hard metal?

Remember when an aircraft gets rebuilt to airworthiness standards the material removed is more often than not kept and not scrapped, it is still there.

Also even though an aircraft may be a historic relic, war service means it may be a shadow of it’s former self, wings.. engines…props…tail surfaces etc may all have been replaced during it’s military service, such is the nature of the beast.

I think Duxfordhawk has got it about right. Maybe we should bear in mind that it is unlikely that many of the Spitfire wrecks that have been rebuilt to fly would have been wanted as museum exhibits. A prime example is the MK1 recently completed at Duxford. The wreck was such a mess that it would have meant little as a museum display.
I know we can get into all the debates about data plate rebuilds but for my money it looks superb, great attention has been paid to the details to make it as near original specification as possible and as a bonus it flies and in time all the new metal becomes “old” metal anyway.
There is a case for keeping some aircraft in museums but all aircraft were designed to fly so there is a good case for keeping some in the sir as well.
Is there anyone else out there who has stood beside aircraft like the Caudron, Hanriot and the later Bleriot at Hendon and wondered just how they looked in the air? True the display cards tell us top speed etc but sight of the Edwardians at Old Warden in the air gives me far more understanding of the vagaries of operating pioneer aeroplanes than any facts and figures on a card ever can just as the sound of WW1 rotaries in the air gives an understanding of the problems of keeping a rotary running that a static aircraft can never convey.

I think Duxfordhawk has got it about right. Maybe we should bear in mind that it is unlikely that many of the Spitfire wrecks that have been rebuilt to fly would have been wanted as museum exhibits. A prime example is the MK1 recently completed at Duxford. The wreck was such a mess that it would have meant little as a museum display.
I know we can get into all the debates about data plate rebuilds but for my money it looks superb, great attention has been paid to the details to make it as near original specification as possible and as a bonus it flies and in time all the new metal becomes “old” metal anyway.
There is a case for keeping some aircraft in museums but all aircraft were designed to fly so there is a good case for keeping some in the sir as well.
Is there anyone else out there who has stood beside aircraft like the Caudron, Hanriot and the later Bleriot at Hendon and wondered just how they looked in the air? True the display cards tell us top speed etc but sight of the Edwardians at Old Warden in the air gives me far more understanding of the vagaries of operating pioneer aeroplanes than any facts and figures on a card ever can just as the sound of WW1 rotaries in the air gives an understanding of the problems of keeping a rotary running that a static aircraft can never convey.

Personally I feel as long as we leave some aircraft im museums and protect the artifacts and relics that way for future generations then I am happy for other airframes to become projects to fly.
I for one would never of been so interested in aircraft had I first not made and airfix model of a Spitfire with my uncle and a very young age and secondly seen Ray Hanna display Spifire MH434 at Biggin Hill when I was 8.

Seeing a aircraft fly can never be subsituted by seeing them statically in terms of the sight the sound even the smell in some cases.
So really for me not everything should fly not everything should be preserved in musuems.

Personally I feel as long as we leave some aircraft im museums and protect the artifacts and relics that way for future generations then I am happy for other airframes to become projects to fly.
I for one would never of been so interested in aircraft had I first not made and airfix model of a Spitfire with my uncle and a very young age and secondly seen Ray Hanna display Spifire MH434 at Biggin Hill when I was 8.

Seeing a aircraft fly can never be subsituted by seeing them statically in terms of the sight the sound even the smell in some cases.
So really for me not everything should fly not everything should be preserved in musuems.