HURRICANE R4118 ORIGINAL or REPRO?

Hi Captain Slow

“Does anyone know if he finished it or where it ended up would have needed more room for the wings etc.”

I think this one made its way to Hawker Restorations in due course as well, and will become a flyer too.

Excellent post TEXANTOMCAT, I too think Peter Vacher and the restoration team did a fantastic job on R4118, flicked through the book once in a shop and the photo taken when Mr Vacher first saw the airframe showed it was fairly bad then, to rescue it in an even worst state years later and with his team rebuild it as comprehensively as they did. Ironic to think there are more flying Hurricanes now than fifty years ago.
While on the subject, I read an article in Flypast a few years back about a chap who was building ‘the most authentic static Hurricane in existence’ with genuine 1940 first aid pack and all, he had the fuselage in his conservatory! It was a Russian recovered airframe that had been a ‘P**** (I forget the whole serial) serialled Battle Of Britain veteran with a combat kill ( A Bf110) before being rebuilt and sent to Russia with a different serial. The chap rebuilding it manged to acquire the ‘dog kennel’ fairing from Shuttleworth’s Z7105 which needed a new one for it’s rebuild to airworthiness, a fine example of a ‘flyer’ helping a ‘static’. Does anyone know if he finished it or where it ended up would have needed more room for the wings etc.

just to add my penn-orth, I met PV a few years ago before the Hurricane flew – believe you me he really impressed me with how dedicated he was to using the maximum amount of original material in the airframe and his attention to detail was IMHO second to none. It may have something to do with his background in classic Rolls Royces where provenance/originality is also a numero uno priority.

In any event, he hunted high and low (including visiting our little museum) to find even the tiniest of details (IIRC working IFF box, gun camera, correct radio etc) and to echo DC’s comments it is a magnificent achievement which others ought to aspire to. Plus he’s a real gent to boot!

TT

No – the CAA require that there is an identifiable airframe from which to work from. If there isnt, it becomes a new build, and the certification for new aircraft is very different!
Bruce

Seems arbitrary when almost all the airframe may be replaced, but if them’s the rules…

It makes me wonder that if Mr Vacher had purchased the hurricane and had it cleaned repaired and assembled as is instead of a restoration to fly, how many of you that are questioning the use of new material in the rebuild would be crying what a shame it was and why didn’t he restore it to fly?

There undoubtedly would be people calling for that in every case and it may be appropriate, it may not. There is currently a sizeable group of people calling for the Cutty Sark to be restored to seaworthiness and used as a sail training vessel. OTOH it sounds like Peter Vacher has done a superbly sympathetic job. I’ll always tend to the preserving history angle, while others will always be of the ‘all aircraft belong in the air’ persuasion, and as far as I am concerned, Vive la Differance.

It makes me wonder that if Mr Vacher had purchased the hurricane and had it cleaned repaired and assembled as is instead of a restoration to fly, how many of you that are questioning the use of new material in the rebuild would be crying what a shame it was and why didn’t he restore it to fly?
Food for thought….?

Indeed – you cant please all of the people all of the time.

Bruce

Two Can’t we have our cake and eat it?

No – the CAA require that there is an identifiable airframe from which to work from. If there isnt, it becomes a new build, and the certification for new aircraft is very different!

Bruce

It makes me wonder that if Mr Vacher had purchased the hurricane and had it cleaned repaired and assembled as is instead of a restoration to fly, how many of you that are questioning the use of new material in the rebuild would be crying what a shame it was and why didn’t he restore it to fly?
Food for thought….?

IMHO if it looks like a Hurricane, sounds like a Hurricane and flies like a Hurricane, it IS a Hurricane.
Any Aircraft flown continuosly since being built in the 1940’s would probably have many things renewed by now. I would still consider it to be original. The fact that most are left lying around to be rediscovered, restored and reflown is a blip in their flying life.

Two different points here to my mind. The aircraft which have been in constant use since new (say the 1940s for the sake of argument) and those which have been ‘lying around’, virtually complete in a state similar to that in which it was in service.

To my mind, aircaft which are like ‘time capsules’ (Swamp Ghost, for example, or the Fleet Air Arm Museum’s Corsair) should be left as they are, as what they have to tell historians both now and in the future about their life in service is too valuable to ignore. Restored to fly, they become just another flying B17 or Corsair.

I appreciate I may be in a minority here, but I am not particularly bothered if the aircraft I see at airshows are originals or not. As stangman says, if it looks, sounds and flies like a Hurricane, it’s a Hurricane. While there are companies like Hawker Restorations around, we can have utterly delightful (and virtually new) Hurricanes flying around. Do we need to pillage a limited number of historical artefacts? Not to my mind. Can’t we have our cake and eat it?

For the purest originality may always be an issue, however restored will remain the norm for most flying museum pieces. However if some far seeing individual managed to place a supply of Mk I Hurricane’s etc into humidity controlled storage in the mid 1940’s to reappear in the early 21st Century, then I will stand back in amazement.
In the absence of such flying time capsules, we have what we have!

WF:) 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

IMHO if it looks like a Hurricane, sounds like a Hurricane and flies like a Hurricane, it IS a Hurricane.
Any Aircraft flown continuosly since being built in the 1940’s would probably have many things renewed by now. I would still consider it to be original. The fact that most are left lying around to be rediscovered, restored and reflown is a blip in their flying life.

i’ll get me coat

Paul F,

A lengthy and laudible post. You’ve expressed what I’ve often wondered myself. Your point about software is particularly pertinent; I wonder if the museums (particularly national collections) housing Tornados etc have thought of this one?

So should we also consider tools and support eqpt used to service aircraft? For without them, similarly, the aircraft would fail to fly.

Preserving ex-serving personnel in formaldehyde next to their flown/supported type operated would be taking things too far, obviously. Personal memories on audio and video format, however, have often bought to life static exhibits. I once saw a very frank video interview of a Sea Harrier pilot next to the an example of the type at the FAA museum, Yeovilton. Fascinating.

Anyway, back to R1148.

Spot on!

In the case of R4118, I think it is a magnificent piece of work. A well documented and substantially complete airframe went into a workshop, and a flying aircraft left the workshop. It has continuity. The fact of the matter is if we want to see these aircraft flying things have to be re-newed.

Absolutely – Well said dc!

paul F

Its a shame that because of the provenance attached to a lot of stored aircraft parts that have been replaced during restoration, that these aren’t released into the hands of static aircraft builders/restorers. In time when said flying aircraft finishes its flying life, then maybe these parts may become available? I wonder if a disclaimer could be signed by both parties?

In the case of R4118, I think it is a magnificent piece of work. A well documented and substantially complete airframe went into a workshop, and a flying aircraft left the workshop. It has continuity. The fact of the matter is if we want to see these aircraft flying things have to be re-newed.

There are far greater examples of tenuous data-plate “restorations” out there, but it matters not to me, as a correctly made Spitfire/Hurricane is a fine piece of engineering, that evokes a range of emotions when one sees or hears one.

Calculation of “originality” ?

At risk of incurring much flak, firmly wearing my “Devil’s advocate” hat, and also my displaying my “Certificate of advanced pedantics“, just what do figures like “60% original” refer to anyway when used in reference to this sort of project?

Is it 60% by weight of the total “dry” airframe? Or 60% of the total dry airframe minus engine(s) -which might also be considered “consumable” items – they were certainly seen as “replaceable” in the field?

Or,

Are we talking about 60% of the original number of individual components ? And what about sub-component items that themselves comprise more than one individual piece (A radio transmitter unit for example might consist of many dozens of bits and pieces)?

Again, does this figure include the engine(s) and other “consumables” such as brake pads, and do individual rivets or fasteners, control cables etc count as permanent or consumable?

What about (the weight or number of components of) any additional parts that would have been added post manufacture, but prior to service, so as to get the aircraft up to the appropriate service standard…. Do they count as “original” or not? As Bruce has said in regard to the Mosquito prototype at Salisbury Hall (on another thread) – airframes can change over time as mods are added…

At what point does a component warrant inclusion in the “permanent airframe identity” rather than as a consumable? My understanding is that the fuselage of an aircraft “owns” the constructors number (i.e. the identity) and subsequent registration/serial number, and that wings are generally considered as “bolt on” and thus replaceable.

So is the percentage figure to be based on the whole airframe, including consumables, or just on the fuselage, minus all “consumables”? And is it by weight, or by number of component parts?

Going back to “Trigger’s broom” – is the head a consumable item? It is the bristles that wear out, they could theoretically be replaced individually, but the head as a whole is a more appropriate replaceable “unit”. But does the head as a whole consituute the majority of the items by weight ? It certainly does by number of parts!!!

If the argument leaves the handle as the “item” owning the original identity what happens if the handle is changed – is that the point at which the original broom is lost forever? And what does that make the item once a new handle is fitted – a facsimilie? A replica?

When I spoke to one of the guys working at Fantasy of Flight last Easter, I asked the question “What constitutes “Original”?” and his reply was that the US authority on the matter (Smithsonian IIRC) determines an item with “minimum 80%” of original components is original. At the time I didn’t think to ask if this was 80% by weight, or by number of components…

Maybe the only true “original item” is the dataplate marked with the assemblers serial number/Constructors number after all :dev2: :dev2:

Perhaps the first thing that should be done when anyone states “this item is x% original” is to ask then to explain the exact basis of calculation (by weight or by number of individual parts – with/without engine(s) etc), and to what stage of the aircrafts life it refers (e.g. leaving the manufacturing hall, first flight, first entering service, first operational flight, last operational flight, retirement from active service, …. etc etc etc). If they cannot answer this, then maybe they need to be asked to go away and think about it.

And one to consider for the future – does computer code on a fly-by-wire machine constitute a consumable item or not? Without it (which includes any “throttle by wire” digitial engine control system), surely the airframe is just a totally dead 100% scale model of a Panavia Tornado or Eurofighter Typhoon? 😀

Paul F

P.S. I’ve got no answer to this, and don’t claim to know or dare to suggest what the “right answer” may be. Perhaps a simplistic definition for flying exmaples is that “If it was originally built as a Hurricane and it still flies as a Hurricane then it is a Hurricane”. Maybe it’s even harder to define for static restorations/rebuilds/repros?

Clapping

Well said to Tony and to SeaFury..:D Couldn,t have said it better.As long as someone is still around to do what we do then a rich future for the movement will be.;)

Original-Schmiginal

When does an aircraft stop being ‘original’?

When it receives a new mainplane during WWII?
When it receives a new mainplane in the immediate post-war period?
When it receives a new mainplane in 1955? 1965? 1975? etc etc

The Mosquito restorations have got to be good for the restoration industry as a whole. The headaches of smaller part aquisitions in recent years must have been very frustrating (I saw a reasonably complete Mosquito in Canada while flicking through a 2001 edition of A******e M*****y) but hopefully will help restorations of the future. I don’t know how ‘original’ this aircraft is, the New Zealand example looks more or less new-build, but if it’s going to fly, what has to be built as new, will be built.

Keeping to the original spec where possible is good news. There’s a very good book writen by, I think, Robert Mikesh, about restoring aircraft for the NASM. VERY detailed and a goldmine for those interested in how you actually go about restoring aircraft while preserving their ‘originality’ – n.b static exhibits only, but still fascinating. Loads of photos of actual restoration projects.

I don’t mind these ‘original aircraft’ debates re-ocurring. It’s a continuing area of discussion, and there are always new and interesting viewpoints to read. Keep ’em coming.

Some interesting posts here. I am keen to see aircraft fly, but my Hurricane project is testament to the use of discarded parts on a static project. When I started (way back in 1978ish) the flying chaps were kinder in the Hurricane world to allowing scrap parts to be moved on. This has allowed me to rightly claim 85% originality in the cockpit area. About 70% in the rear fuselage. Centre section I have is ‘bish, hoping to get a better one.

To be fair, I did swap potentially airworthy parts for scrap. I would love some of Peter’s ‘scrap’ particularly his wings!!!:) But I would not create a project and then label it the same tail number as a flyer!! True I have alot of material from one particular Hurri, but that aircraft is still flying and is the true one!! Besides mine has a rock steady provenance of its own!:)

I would like to see restorers of airworthy aircraft help us static boys out, but that is unlikely now. Which is a pity for all. I am a firm believer that the world heritage needs flying and static aircraft. With both come sacrifices….a flyer will need parts replenished replaced refurbished to stay safe and airworthy.A static may be alittle tattier….but both essential to remembering the sacrifice, often supreme, that was made to keep us free.

Further to the many words of wisdom above, I would like to add, that I do not believe that the “grandpa’s broom” analogy applies to in depth restoration , for that to be so, the replacement parts need to have been added over a period of years , whilst the broom/ A/C was in use, not all at once having found the broom/AC in an old rotten shed,neglected for 20 years or more.

I think the majority of “unusable” bits from restorations will stay locked up in containers for eternity, I don’t belive that the skins from TD248 would have seen light of day, if the owner new that they would eventually become a “sister “A/C!

Until the way in which new “rebuilds” are received by aviation journalists, and enthusiasts has changed, (for example the eager anticipation of the rebuild to fly of a famous BoB aces Spitfire, that piled into the ground at 400mph+, of which about an ordinary bucketfull of material survives),I will continue to view (with scepticism) any newly finished rebuild to fly.

I believe that the desire to recreate history (or at least personal ownership of) is the driving force, but also think that the CAA are almost equally to blame; I have had various conversations with a specialist engineer, who supplies a large part of the warbird world requirements, and his bottom line is safety, he will never use anything that cannot be shown to be 100% , and of course very little that is 60 years old is.

Maybe what is needed is a new clasification within the permit to fly, allowing for A/C previously aerobatic/high g rated, to be down rated, so that less strain is put on them , and more original structure could be re used.

I think we should clear up a few things here.

I have also read the story of the restoration of R4118, and I think it is fair to say it is a restored original. They used as many parts as they were able to from the original aircraft, and many of the systems. They also went the extra mile to fit a large number of parts that many restorers wouldnt bother with. If we are to be pedantic, there is only one ‘original’ Hurricane currently airworthy – namely PZ865.

It is unfair to say that restorers discard much of the original aircraft when carrying out a restoration. It depends on the restorer, and the owner. It can be the case that original parts can be re-used with much rework – often taking longer than it would to make a new part, hence it is often cheaper and simpler to use the new item.

I was a little surprised to see that a completely new set of wings was built for the Hurricane in question – the rationale being that the material had age hardened to the point that it was no longer usable. If that were the case, it would not only be desirable, but essential, to replace the airframe structure of an aircraft on a regular basis. What price originality then!

In the case of TD248, it was the only aircraft of the initial Historic Flying batch that had the skins kept. The owner at the time passed them into the care of his engineer, who later sold them on. In the case of RW382, all of the original skins were scrapped. These days, it is not uncommon to save the originals for future use as patterns, but one does have to be aware of the sort of thing that has happened in the car industry.

Bruce

Personally I accept that a rebuild to fly inevitably means that substantial parts of the original structure will have to be replaced. I would like to think that any useful parts will then be passed on to static restorations but there should be a record of the provenance of these parts so that no one can use them to create a “fake” real static aeroplane and pass it off as a “new find” with an original identitiy.
There is an old story in historic motor racing of the man who found a derelict Bugatti T35 and had it rebuilt to race. The car had deteriorated so badly that all the bodywork and much of the chassis had to be replaced. Someone visiting the restorer showed an interest in the discarded parts and eventually bought them. Shortly afterwards an article allegedly appeared in a classic car mag heralding the discovery of a previously unknown Bugatti T35. The car was incomplete but part of the original chassis and amost all the original body were intact but in poor condition. One original chassis plate and a new body and chassis later another Bugatti had been added to the historic racing grids. I am not saying this is wrong provided the car is sold on (and continues to be sold on) with documents explaining the history of the rebuild. I can’t speak for the aviation world but it does appear that in the car world this hasn’t always been the case and there are some cars out there (both racing and road cars) with very dodgy provenances. I am for instance aware of one car which was burnt to the ground in a racing accident in the 60’s but someone kept the chassis plate and the car is still around now after a “rebuild”.
Please don’t think I am deriding the restorers. That is far from true. I have derived great pleasure from seeing many aircraft fly which have only got the wind under their wings again thanks to the dedication and efforts of owners who are prepared to pay for the rebuilds and skilled restorers who have taken on the work. We should all be able to understand the reasons for replacing parts but when it comes to reusing discarded parts it would be good if everyone involved kept things honest so that we all know source of parts for any static restoration.