Norway Skua – any progress?

Skua Report

Ok understood I am back on the beach tonight, will get them posted

Ok I will sort them out, what would be the best way to post them as i am quite new to this

Ok.. when you are ready to post any pics scroll down to and click ‘manage attachments’, then you can browse for whatever image you wish to post, and when ready click upload. Hope thats clear, if not do please ask.;)

L2995 report

Ok I will sort them out, what would be the best way to post them as i am quite new to this

I was on a team of RAF divers that surveyed a Skua.

I have the report, photographs and drawings if anybody is intrested.

Yes please.!!!

norway skua

I was on a team of RAF divers that surveyed a Skua, the the Flap held by the son of the pilot was recovered from the shore line. most of the aircraft is in about 20m of water. The engine, wing and cockpit floor can be clearly seen. The EMRU is open so the bomb came off before the crash. As I recall when we started tis project we thought it was a different Skua from the raid, but the parachute harness buckle still in the closed position proved it to be L2995 which stopped the recovery of any bits nand turn into a hands off survey.

I have the report, photographs and drawings if anybody is intrested.

For Spitfire data plate specials, see new thread.

Mark

Both cases are recreations, the Skua is at best a recreation using original parts, it’s difficult to compare a static recreation to an airworthy one.

However if the Skua were being rebuilt to fly, its a reasonable assumption the quantity of materials used would then be s*d all from what was recovered, due to the very poor state, which wouldnt be far behind some Spitfire restorations as quoted before P9373 and AD540, the diffference being a few non structural spacers, brackets etc

The end product in this case, will have far more original material than some flying spitfire recreations, but due to the fact it was a water recovery not as much as some would like.

IIRC Mark 12 said before that Spitfires do not have a dataplate. So you could
look everywhere for one but never find it, as it’s just not there/

Am I correct?
Cheers

Cees

It’s not the fault of the regulators. If you wish to rebuild an historic aircraft there is no problem. If however you wish to start the contruction of new aircraft essentially you are going through the various processes which a manufacturer would of an esentially new machine. This would involve testing of proof aircraft and all the other details to determine the types airworthiness. Basically time consuming and expensive.

But so much of the structure of these “restored” aircraft is new build anyway, which logically rather extinquishes the “originality” as indicated by a salvaged data plate. That replaced material is surely subject to the same rigorous standards as would an acknowledged new build copy.

In the case of the Skua whatever the composite nature it will fit well in a museum as a static example. There are no plans to fly it are there?

I am not trying to divert the thread into the debate like that on the Spitfire one – my view is that there is a place for both static museum restorations, flying originals and flying restorations/reproductions. The problem lies with the polite fiction of the data plate, not the aircraft themselves or their restorers.

It would be lovely if the process was simpler but any flying piece of machinery is a danger unless it meets required standards so I quite sympathise with the official view – so long as it doesn’t become another plaything of rampant OH&S bureaucrats. 🙂

It’s not the fault of the regulators. If you wish to rebuild an historic aircraft there is no problem. If however you wish to start the contruction of new aircraft essentially you are going through the various processes which a manufacturer would of an esentially new machine. This would involve testing of proof aircraft and all the other details to determine the types airworthiness. Basically time consuming and expensive.

Interesting to read about the progress with the Skua. They are clearly working hard to get an aircraft on display but I was interested to note this on their website:

The thin plated aluminium structure is . . . corroded in some places and the parts can only be used as patterns for new ones. However, they are important to preserve because there are no drawings for the Skua anywhere and only very few photographs to guide the rebuild.

and

Most of the aluminium rivets are gone but stainless steel bolts as well as aluminium bolts were used were extra strength were needed. These bolts have to be disconnected without damaging the parts. A lot of care has to go into this process. Because the condition of the structure for the most part can only be used as a pattern

… The internal structure of the fin was very much deteriorated and because of this we already have started to copy this structure.

It strikes me that they are building a composite Skua from the parts of L2896 and L2903 and other parts. But I was most interested to note that they seem to be planning to preserve parts that they have copied. Having a reference collection is part of what being a museum is all about and this is to be applauded.

I don’t know about restoring flying aircraft, but perhaps those who do can say what nornally happens to the left over non-airworthy original material. Is it routinely kept but made available for research, is it locked away out of sight (but preserved) or is it destroyed?

I can understand that owners of valuable aircraft must protect their investment from possible “identity duplication” for want of a better phrase, but is the fault that the regulators have no alternative to the present system which demands an historic identity?

It is time, for the sake of preserving original material, for the regulatory framework to be adapted?

Allan

Not on a public forum…

Oh, hang on, you said it yourself elsewhere; EE606…..

Bruce 😉

I’ll start again.

Please define – “data-plate Spitfire job”.

Mark

I’ll try! The projects I have in mind as examples are AD540, the ‘Blue Peter’ Spitfire (haven’t heard anything about this one for a while), and P9373, the Time Team recovery. Both were to all intents and purposes completely destroyed in very high energy impacts, and it’s very hard to imagine how anything of any significance from either of these wrecks could fly again. Yet after recovery they appear on the G-reg in preparation for restoration to fly. Just perhaps there will be a handful of small sundry parts re-used, but surely there won’t be much more than that??

Mark, I bow to your knowledge on all things Spitfire, and I really don’t wish to cause a scene, but can you assure us firstly that the original wreck of P9373 won’t be ‘lost’ once the airworthy restoration is done, and secondly how much original material will be used in the restoration??

Apologies to one and all for dragging this thread away from the Skua project…

Well, ALL the fliers have data plates (or identities to be precise) don’t they?:D

I’ll start again.

Please define – “data-plate Spitfire job”.

Mark

Looks to me this aircraft was corroded like hell but they are trying to preserve and re-use what they can. Nice restoration!

Steady on chaps – I couldn’t even see an intact fin on the recovery pics. I think a lot more of this aircraft will be preserved than you think, maybe the fin remains were tackled first becuase they were so poor.

The Browning is amazing!

Great work

Out of interest, please cite me a few examples. 🙂

Well, ALL the fliers have data plates (or identities to be precise) don’t they?:D

As for provenance, well there will still be alot of the original aircraft in the rebuild by the sound of things, so I don’t think there’s a case for comparing this project with an airworthy data-plate Spitfire job.

…

Out of interest, please cite me a few examples. 🙂

Mark

Thanks Ant, for correcting some of my presumptions.

It’s important to remember in this case, and very encouraging to see, that the parts that won’t go back into the rebuild are still to be kept for reference. There’s therefore no loss or waste of original material. It also has to be remembered that even though she has now been recovered, a large number of parts will continue to corrode despite the best preservation efforts. The replicating of badly corroded parts while we still have them is vital to ensuring that we have the information for future reference. This may be the last chance we have to glean this information, and a complete static exhibit will come from it. It’s a win-win situation to my mind.

As for provenance, well there will still be alot of the original aircraft in the rebuild by the sound of things, so I don’t think there’s a case for comparing this project with an airworthy data-plate Spitfire job.

Just my tuppence (if that!) worth…