Supermarine Walrus to fly.. fantastic.

if any of you know me from roundwood please get in touch. i now live in spain.

I remember you very well John – Private Message (PM) sent 🙂

this is the first time ihave writen on any blog, if this is what its called,as you all may gather i am not a great computer user. to all that are interested in walrus g.rnli. i worked on this aircraft from oct 1989-1994. it first came to us at the charles church hanger at roundwood to dick melton. as most of you know it came to us as a caravan. so the rebuild began with taking out all of the extra floor and roof to bring the two halves together from bow to mid fuselage. from then the work begain. i do have a complete photo album of the rebuild to probably as it is today. if any of you know me from roundwood please get in touch. i now live in spain. tel 0034 968686263.ps does it matter how it is rebuilt as long as it is, to fly and not stuck in a museum.

Welcome to the forum John. No thats exactly my opinion too. It doesn’t matter at all as long as she gets the chance to fly again, and i for one am eagerly waiting for any updates on her progress/situation.

walrus rebuild

this is the first time ihave writen on any blog, if this is what its called,as you all may gather i am not a great computer user. to all that are interested in walrus g.rnli. i worked on this aircraft from oct 1989-1994. it first came to us at the charles church hanger at roundwood to dick melton. as most of you know it came to us as a caravan. so the rebuild began with taking out all of the extra floor and roof to bring the two halves together from bow to mid fuselage. from then the work begain. i do have a complete photo album of the rebuild to probably as it is today. if any of you know me from roundwood please get in touch. i now live in spain. tel 0034 968686263.ps does it matter how it is rebuilt as long as it is, to fly and not stuck in a museum.

Originally Posted by Mark_pilkington
I understand there is a fundamental difference between the Seagull V and Walrus relating to the retractable wheel well in the wing (not existing on the Seagull V?)

My Rusty memory was confusing the undercarriage of Seagull III’s with Seagull V’s/Walruii

smiles

Mark Pilkington

& no we dont want to swap the Walrus for A2-4, we gave the Spitfire back, please return the Seagull V.

I understand there is a fundamental difference between the Seagull V and Walrus relating to the retractable wheel well in the wing (not existing on the Seagull V?) (and I understand the wings on the RAAF Museum Walrus may be in fact Seagull V?)

Hopefully JDK the resident “steampidgeon” expert can confirm or correct

Thanks Mark. I prefer ‘Shagbatologist’. 😀

Not a ‘difference’ I’m aware of. The two airframe types, the Seagull V (24 built for the RAAF) and Walrus Mk.I (many more built for the RN FAA / RAF) were identical. The Seagull V originally came with Handley Page Slats, and the jury strut on the fwd inboard end of the folded wing was fixed on one and removable when the wings were spread on the other. That’s it. Later Walruses, often identified as Mk.II had a wood construction hull. However not all ‘Mk.II’ Walruses did – including HD874, the RAAF Museum’s example which is very definitely metal hulled.

A lot of the original team would, I hope, still be interested in carrying on the work so it will be interetsing to see who the new owner is and where the project is re-located.

Sure you haven’t had enough?

I can now see why the Australian argument is so strong, I didn’t realise until now that both the Walrus and Seagull V were both bought about and developed for an Australian Air Force requirement.

Strictly speaking the Seagull V was for an RAAF requirement, and the Air Min decided afterwards that it would fit HM ships nicely as a heavier, more versatile aircraft on battleships and cruisers than the Fairey Seafox etc. The RAAF used Walruses from British stock after Seagull V aircraft had been consumed; so the RAAF operated both types in the end. HMAS Sydney, recently rediscovered, had a Walrus, not a Seagull V on its catapult when sunk by HSK Kormoran. (There are ‘bits’ which may be parts of the Sydney’s Walrus on the sea bed, but not an identifiable airframe unsurprisingly.)

I thought either the wings or this whole airframe had been sold to the RAAF Museum at Point Cook to combine with the restoration of theirs, or have I got it wrong?

No. A good deal of information trading, parts, papers etc was shared and swapped. (Something we should see more of, and to be praised!)

Certainly the centre section was built in the UK for the RAAF Museum’s aircraft, but the wings on HD874 were new built from material from various sources, including the Dick Melton project, I’d assume. However W2718 didn’t have wings with it’s ‘caravan’ version, so the parts never originally related to that airframe – as indeed, many many Spitfire and Mustang and P-40 wings have nothing to do with the (legitimate) identity flying about today.

Why can’t the RAF Museum and the RAAF Museum do a Seagull:Walrus swap – even if they each retain formal ownership of their original airframe?

Tempting, but no. A2-4 was traded fair and square to the RAF Museum, and restored / refurbished by the RAF Museum staff. While it has no UK history, and a good deal of Australian history, it was built in the UK, and serves to illustrate the contribution of the Commonwealth to the defence of Britain, particularly in 1940. It is perfectly appropriate to have an RAAF SeagullV/Walrus next to the Sunderland, as 10 Squadron, RAAF operated from the UK throughout the conflict using Sunderlands and one or two Walruses. 10 Squadron’s first war casualty was Lt J N Bell who was killed with his crew in the Squadron’s Walrus trying to undertake a covert rescue operation of General de Gaulle’s family from France after the German invasion.

The RAAF Museum’s Walrus, HD874, has a significant Australian history having been used for Antarctic reconnaissance before being wrecked by high winds on Heard Island in 1947. In 1980, it was brought back to Australia and rebuilt over a nine year period primarily by Ron Gretton and Geoff Matthews Snr, two retired engineering officers who still volunteer at the Museum. (They are currently building a replica Bristol Boxkite for the anniversary of the first military flight in Australia in 2014. See: www.boxkite2014.org )

So it’s not up for exchange.

All the above is from memory, no guarantees.

Why can’t the RAF Museum and the RAAF Museum do a Seagull:Walrus swap – even if they each retain formal ownership of their original airframe?

The Seagull is more relevant to the RAAF and the Walrus is of more relevance to the RAF

or is that common sensical?

zwitter – Spitfires don’t abide by normal physics being able to recreate themselves from virtually nothing!

“Composite”, “Original”, “With provenance”, “Without provenance”, does it really matter.?

From an atomic or even sub-atomic, and therefore fundamental, point of view no object retains the original matter it was comprised of as matter and energy are in constant flux, ever changing and exchanging with the world around them.

I’m starting to believe that the notion of originality is entirely academic.

There are no wings with it.

As I said above, its a composite airframe. Its history is well documented, but I fail to see it as either most relevant or best preserved, especially as it has been extensively restored with new material.

Bruce

I thought either the wings or this whole airframe had been sold to the RAAF Museum at Point Cook to combine with the restoration of theirs, or have I got it wrong?

Mark – believe me if I was in charge down there we would be loading her into the container right now and looking for some wings for the Anson Mk.1 so it could sit in it’s place!

I can now see why the Australian argument is so strong, I didn’t realise until now that both the Walrus and Seagull V were both bought about and developed for an Australian Air Force requirement.

Yes its an interesting story, with Dickie Williams identifying the need for a seagull III replacement, and specifying it (perhaps without formal authority) to Supermarines who did the design for his approval.

One unfortunate problem was the design was too high for the on board hangar of the Seaplane tender HMAS Albatross when sitting on their own gear, and resulted in the need for wheeled cradles.

It was a very successful design for its time, and proved its worth in WW2 for cruiser spotting, and ASR.

I understand there is a fundamental difference between the Seagull V and Walrus relating to the retractable wheel well in the wing (not existing on the Seagull V?) (and I understand the wings on the RAAF Museum Walrus may be in fact Seagull V?)

Hopefully JDK the resident “steampidgeon” expert can confirm or correct?

so yes we want A2-4 back please,

smiles

Mark Pilkington

Is Dick Melton still active.

Yes I believe he is although I have not spoken with him for a couple of years.

Is Dick Melton still active. I ask because a neighbour of mine was in the same entry at Halton and said he’d lost sight of him, and Dick was across the corridor from me in the Mess at RAF Coningsby in the late 70’s.

John

Just for clarrity here: a number of posts talk about the ‘possibility’ of this airworthy restoration happening, it has of course already started, its just been ‘on hold’ for 13 years! So far, six/seven years of largely volunteer work have already taken place (but under the jurisdiction of a CAA licensed engineer with supporting paperwork etc) to produce the pretty much finished hull. This all happened between 1990 and 1996 at Roundwood farm, Hampshire. The project was then moved and effectivley went in to storage in Norfolk until 2005 when it was aquired by the Solent Museum. It has been stored since then.

A lot of the original team would, I hope, still be interested in carrying on the work so it will be interetsing to see who the new owner is and where the project is re-located.

I can now see why the Australian argument is so strong, I didn’t realise until now that both the Walrus and Seagull V were both bought about and developed for an Australian Air Force requirement.

(But I’m a member of an exclusive, odd club..

James, coming from you I assume we can take that as being fact!

However long this restoration to fly takes it is worth waiting for, not especially for those with a current interest in aviation but for the generations to come.

The passing on of restoration skills from one generation to the next is as important in my view as the restorations themselves. This I suspect is a discussion point in its own right.

Does anyone know if the project has access to a Pegasus with the correct pusher reduction gearbox?

See Mark V’s post. He kno.

I had a couple of interesting discussions with chaps who kno about such things (coming up with a tractor – to – pusher mod). Probably dooable, not been tried yet.

Wyvernfan – were bliss that easy to attain. – I just feel credit where due is important! Thank you.

Stormbird. It’s good news. However cannot be presented to/by Poms without wrapping of ‘things to worry about’. “The ability to snatch a static restoration from the jaws of an airworthy one”. :diablo:

Regards!

Does anyone know if the project has access to a Pegasus with the correct pusher reduction gearbox?

I understand that the thrust bearing arrangement for the pusher is somewhat different from the more common type.

Anyone know if this is correct?

Ok.. to keep JDK blissfully happy the article is on page 4 in Aeroplane magazine, March 2009 edition, UK price £3.95 and is available from most good newsagents.. next to Flypast.!!!

There has been some good discussions here about when it is appropriate or not to restore an aircraft to fly. My view, for what it is worth, is that a genuine “original” aircraft (thanks for the definitions Mark) should be left alone and parked in a museum for future generations to enjoy.

But the Walrus seems to me to be the ideal candidate for restoration to fly. It has a good strong provenance, a good amount of the original airframe available but extensive work would be needed for either static or restoration to flight. So make it fly then.

When you consider the long history of British aircraft which flew from water, it is astonishing that this is currently our best chance of seeing one in flight. It is a lot of weight of history for the little Shagbat but they’re tough birds.

As for where it flies – I don’t mind. I’ll travel to see it.

as we have now returned our end of the trade, please send the Seagull V home by express post.
smiles

We sent your Sunderland half way years ago and you haven’t been to collect it yet – still parked somewhere in the USA. 🙂