I’m in no way saying anything negative at all about any historic aircraft and the work that has gone into them, and yes, if I restore my own I can do what I want…. but by way of an open question, what are the costs/drawbacks/implications etc of restoring an aircraft with a “worn” finish – something like this? is it too hard/expensive to maintain, or is it pride (well deserved) in restoring and flying something which makes them all so well maintained.
A genuine question – no comment or criticism from me on anybody at all.
By: SkippyBing - 29th March 2009 at 23:24
I don’t think the CAA have a blanket ban on carrying stores, but it’s quite hard to do. I remember reading that the Sea Vixen was looking to operate with it’s drop tanks but that the clearance was going to take a while to satisfy the CAA.
Obviously most external stores are designed to fall off the aircraft at some point! I’m guessing the CAA require that to be virtually impossible, as well as ensuring that the aircraft is still operating in accordance with it’s airworthiness cetificate etc.
By: Rlangham - 29th March 2009 at 22:46
I was also of the understanding that the CAA didn’t allow the carrying of external stores, for example with the Beech Restorations T-6 which carried external stores in Africa, but that does raise the point as to how come the Shuttleworth Collection’s Hawker Hind is allowed to carry it’s bombs?
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th March 2009 at 22:33
Does that mean the Hurribomber will never carry its stores?
By: SkippyBing - 29th March 2009 at 22:32
I’d also like to see a few more aircraft with stores on the wing or centreline pylons, but I can understand the economy implications carrying dummy bombs or rockets about.
I think the main problem with that is getting CAA clearance, rather than any increase in fuel consumption etc.
By: Seafuryfan - 29th March 2009 at 22:16
Spitfire AR501 was a great example of a “working warbird” – that is, all the day-to-day weathering on her was left in situ, including oil/fuel stains etc.
I guess it’s simply a matter of taste.
Absolutely agree, Daz. For me, AR501 was a perfect ‘weathered’ aircraft. About as near as I’ve ever got to looking at a representative finish of an aircraft at war. I understand that this was Shuttleworth policy for this particular aircraft, while maintaining a respectable level of cleanliness which would have also been required in wartime (to spot engine leaks, remove build up of exhaust staining etc).
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th March 2009 at 22:15
I really like the weathered look. I have a picture of ‘Sally B’ taken in the early 90’s I think with faded paint, dirt, patches, freshly painted new fabric etc and it looks fantastic. I’ll have to dig out the picture. After the recent respray, it looks more like toy.
I’d also like to see a few more aircraft with stores on the wing or centreline pylons, but I can understand the economy implications carrying dummy bombs or rockets about.
Steve
By: DazDaMan - 29th March 2009 at 22:01
Spitfire AR501 was a great example of a “working warbird” – that is, all the day-to-day weathering on her was left in situ, including oil/fuel stains etc.
I guess it’s simply a matter of taste.
Sign In
March 29, 2009 at 9:49 pm