Hunter F6 to be sunk

I posted to challenge the statement that corrosion was accelerated by the lake no more no less.

Ross

Well anybody who ever had structural repairs to do on RN aircraft will argue strongly that any water, except distilled, will accelerate corrosion. But then even distilled water once exposed to the atmosphere will take up compounds to make it act as an electrolyte, for that is the basis of the corrosion. This galvanic corrosion happens when dissimilar metals are immersed in an electrolyte. The dissimilar metals can be in different parts of a structure or within an exposed light alloy material. Light alloy, e.g. L72 (an Alclad), contains particles of copper, and other elements, at the grain boundaries which act like keys to lock the molecules of aluminium in the matrix and thus increase the UTS above that of aluminium. Alclad has outer layers of aluminium to inhibit corrosion. The surface of the aluminium exposed to the atmosphere develops an outer layer of oxide which is impermeable to further galvanic action.

Much time, and money, was spent in the prevention and removal of corrosion products on naval aircraft.

Front line, sea going RN heavy jets were assembled with special compounds used at mating faces to inhibit the ingress of moisture. ISTR that the first SHARs assembled had this protection omitted as the RAF did not require it and some rebuilding was required.

Back in late 1972 a GA11, WV381, to which I had fitted a Harley light mod, had a problem on take off from Lee, I was watching it take off having strapped in the pilot, done the necessary and saluted him out onto the peri’ track. The aircraft spent nearly 48 hours in the Solent. The late November weather was foggy, and only the fin tip was just visible above water and took a bit of locating. When lifted out the aircraft was placed in the AAIU (Air Accident Investigation Unit) also at Lee on Solent.

Some time later I had occasion to visit the aircraft, after considerable pressure on the AAIU management, as part of a survey of GA11 rear pressure bulkheads for a proposed new radio fit on the FRADU fleet, we wanted to fix a common position for the connector that was to be fitted in that bulkhead.

The aircraft was on jacks and trestles. As I climbed the ladder and looked into the cockpit I became aware of a loud crackling noise which at first was puzzling. Then it quickly dawned on me that it was the sound of magnesium alloy fittings, e.g., the grip of the control column and instrument panel supporting structures corroding away. The noise was unmissable it was that loud. Undercarriage struts and wheels were also of magnesium alloy.

Helicopters of 1950s and 1960s vintage had trouble obtaining an operational power to weight ratio so so had a more extensive magnesium alloy structure than heavy jets. Thus such aircraft were always more prone to corrosion. Also ISTR that the wing-rib forgings at the wing fold of aircraft such as the Sea Vixen were of magnesium alloy.

whats with the unusual nose with the perspex in it?

That perspex is glass for the Harley Light behind, similar to that fitted to a GA11 in my Avatar.

WT799 is also an old acquaintance of mine whilst on Heron Flight, RNAS Yeovilton. I recall it having a bird strike on take off in 68 and my being involved in cleaning up the mess from the port undercarriage assembly and bay. I must have fitted a few drag shutes in that bay atop the jet-pipe, could be an awkward sod if not well packed as it was a tight fit.

The Harley light was fitted at NARIU, Lee-on-Solent in 1970. NARIU was the Naval Aircraft Radio Installation Unit by 1972 when I was drafted there from 892 Phantoms it was NATIU – Naval Aircraft Trials Installation Unit based in Overlord hangar.

Mark G, why are you getting personal ? No I did not have the money or inclination to save either, but you seem to have missed the point. There was a chance for someone individually or as a group to do something – no one did. The chap who bought them is not a ‘big buisness man’ from what I’ve seen of him, but is trying to generate an interest in his new buisness venture and in the real world £3500 is not that far from their worth – seen how much a Sea Harrier fetches?
Do I like the idea of any airframe being sunk – NO, but if there was one to choose then the Hunter is one that has less impact on the preservation movement than most. It being well represented both in museums and with flying examples both here in the UK and worldwide.
I fully understand that sinking an aircraft that anyone has a personal affection for is going to raise the hackles, however like it or not we are unable to preserve everything. Indeed if we manage to preserve those airframes already in collections we’ll be doing well (thinks BA collection, Vulcan B1, Beverly etc)
The brutal truth is we can all only influence so much and do our own bit – your efforts on your Hunter being a case in point, who else would try and rebuild a cockpit which was cut into four foot square sections…. I’ll stick to trying to resurect a JP5 cockpit and others will do their bit. Meanwhile every now and then some one will sink an aircraft, blow it up for the TV or paint it in an incorrect scheme, however lets keep a sense of proportion in this case.

Hi Jagx204 Im verry interested in what a Sea Harrier would cost. Can you give me some idea ?

Cheers TASSE.

That’s an authentic Harley light in the nose.
When WT799 was in active service, its light produced a beam so powerful it could be seen at least three miles away.
It hasn’t got a bad range in daylight either 🙂

I recall unintentionally illuminating the WRNS quarters one winter evening whilst carrying out post light and other fits ground tests.

Got some flak for that.:D

I last flew XJ639 on 18 May 1979 at Brawdy – what a shame but all part of the life’s rich pattern I guess! 😡

What was your visual impression of the Viscount/Wessex?

I posted to challenge the statement that corrosion was accelerated by the lake no more no less.

Ross

I admit i have no visual impression of the mentioned aircrafts, however i have worked on a number of corrosion recovery programs and have seen the difference between land stored aircraft and “waterstored” aircraft (they had not been stored, but had ditched).

When you work on aircraft structure, you take great paint to make sure the areas remain dry. This is done because water corrode most aircraft alloys.

You can pick up any aircraft maintenance book and it will tell you, that water (even freshwater) accelerate corrosion. There is really nothing to challenge.

Regards

Both the Viscount and the Wessex are open to entry allowing close inspection of the internal frames and structures. All usable equipment has also been spares recovered allowing more to be seen than usual.

In the absence of NDT surveys I based my comment on visual comparison between comparable age aircraft I have inspected in UK aircraft firedumps/boneyards.

What was your visual impression of the Viscount/Wessex?

My post made a comparison between uninhibited aircraft not those prepared for storage and placed in a desert enviroment. Also I fail to see where I expounded that water was the preferred storage medium given choice.

I posted to challenge the statement that corrosion was accelerated by the lake no more no less.

Ross

Hi David,

I’ve got to pick you up on the “fizzing like an asprin” comment.

I was a dive instructor and took quite a few trainee divers round the

Viscount and Wessex in Stoney Cove. Both are in excellent structural condition and quite comparable with neglected long term external exhibits in shore collections.

Regards
Ross

What do you base that statement on?

Besides the outside of the fuselage, an aircraft consists of quite a number of structural components of various alloys. Most of them are not treated in the same protective manner, as the outside fuselage. While an aircraft might seem more or less intact, you can be sure, that its internal structure is will be damaged considerably.

Seawater can damage an aircraft beyond repair (not restoration), in just a few days.

Freshwater might not be so hard on the alloy, but it would depend on the chemical consistency of the water.

underwater aircraft wrecks do tend to decay slower than those above water given a similar maintenance routine.

Would that be why USAF store aircraft in the desert?

Water is the last place you would want to store an aircraft, even if you might come across a sunshine story now and again.

Really ? So who ~exactly~ are you ?

There’s talking the talk and there’s doing the do, so why not stump up some cash the next time a Hunter comes up for sale (and there will be a next time) and post away to your hearts content for all to see and admire…

:rolleyes:

if i had the financial prowess sure id have bought up those hunters and looked after their future etc,by finances i mean the money and suitable premises to carry out any restoration work as opposed to the large plastic sheet in your back garden, ive worked on many projects aviation over the years and have no need to crow about it through the medium of this forum,the same criteria applies to yourself why arent you the proud owner of said aircraft? i dont intend to dissolve this comment into various diatribes etc,suffice to say if i wasnt pasionate about preserving our aviation heritage id not be commenting on issues like these hunters,im a fully skilled engineer with over forty years practical experience just to set the record straight i know what im talking about end of:cool: 😎 😎

I dont realy want to get into this debate but… The quarry in question was a limestone quarry. I would imagine this to be about as corrosive as it gets.
But I could be wrong 🙂
By the way. If you want a Hunter (and dont want to get wet) go to Hull.
Cheers.
Ben:) .

Hi David,

I’ve got to pick you up on the “fizzing like an asprin” comment.

I was a dive instructor and took quite a few trainee divers round the Viscount and Wessex in Stoney Cove. Both are in excellent structural condition and quite comparable with neglected long term external exhibits in shore collections.

In fresh water, at shallow depth the chemical leaching does not seem to have taken hold so fast as compared to other deep wrecks.

Up until a few months ago I would have agreed from my experience that nothing in salt water round the shores of the UK is worth recovering but it appears that we have one wreck of Norwegian fjord style preservation.

With this in mind I now have to qualify “nothing” to “most” and say that underwater aircraft wrecks do tend to decay slower than those above water given a similar maintenance routine.

Regards
Ross

….however when will you get the chance to buy any hunter these days, for myself if its in one piece and standing its worth the chance ,ive restored some real basket case projects so i dont speak without experience:cool: 😎 😎

Really ? So who ~exactly~ are you ?

There’s talking the talk and there’s doing the do, so why not stump up some cash the next time a Hunter comes up for sale (and there will be a next time) and post away to your hearts content for all to see and admire…

:rolleyes:

Victor – One is underwater in what’s best described as the equivalent of an Asprin in a glass. Therefore it’s not preserved – it fizzing away at a merry rate. The other machine is on the surface as you note. The age old ‘why didn’t you buy them’ adage is meaningless . I can think of a number of groups who would have liked them but the figures were too high. They are simply not worth that money in the condition they are in. It was a complete waste sinking an F.6 Hunter when there are numerous less worth machines which could have been sunk in their place.

there are always plenty of excuses cant afford etc i dont think that either airframe was expensive and judging by the responses, plenty of latent interest in them so why didnt they buy them? simple answer couldnt be bothered its not meaningless its FACT, for eons so called enthusiasts have complained when a piece of classic air heritage is either sold to dubious sourcesor scrapped after a lenghty debate about its merits bottom line is few people really care enough to make the effort and save said item or get thier hands dirty restoring them , i think youre making a mountain etc with regard to water quickly corroding away the alloy,its a long slow process, ive recovered a few large aviation items from watery sites over the years and not found too much evidence of moisture intrusion into the metals integrity as it were. the condition of the airframes isnt in doubt ,however when will you get the chance to buy any hunter these days, for myself if its in one piece and standing its worth the chance ,ive restored some real basket case projects so i dont speak without experience:cool: 😎 😎

Always a shame to see planes being wasted.

BUT, we can hope that a few site divers, takes a shine to aircraft diving, and one day actually brings a lost plane back.

Thats how a large number of pacific wrecks are discovered/retrived.

Victor – One is underwater in what’s best described as the equivalent of an Asprin in a glass. Therefore it’s not preserved – it fizzing away at a merry rate. The other machine is on the surface as you note. The age old ‘why didn’t you buy them’ adage is meaningless . I can think of a number of groups who would have liked them but the figures were too high. They are simply not worth that money in the condition they are in. It was a complete waste sinking an F.6 Hunter when there are numerous less worth machines which could have been sunk in their place.

hunters sunk

im pleased one is being kept atop(WT799) as it were,everytime something like this occurs in the classic aviation movement there are numerous protestors who argue against their new owners plans etc whatever they are,my response is thus,if they are so concerned about their plight why didnt they buy em themselves? eother wat these aircraft are not going to be axed or cut up in any way both are in one piece albeit missing a few oddments etc for myself im happy they have been put to some use and if WT799 is going to get some paint laid on her great!the owner obviously cares enough doesnt he, lets watch this space:cool: 😎 😎

Hi all. I still have a few pics of the T8 on my phone. If some one has the technology to put them on to the computer I would be happy to send them.
Cheers.
Ben.

Called in to have a look today. The aircraft in my uneducated opinion looks in good condition. Some bits and bobs missing, few pieces lying around on the ground. From talking to people there (who by the way were very friendly and helpfull) there are plans to restore the aircraft to a presentable condition. So looks like its staying above water. And why not, its clearly visable from the road and a great draw I am told. I even looked into a basic diving course my self. Took a few pics, but no data cable for phone, sorry:(

Thanks for the info on the light.

Cheers mate,thanks for that:cool: