Work starts on the CL-44 Guppy

Well the crowd funding page is £49 000 short of it’s £50 000 target

Has anybody heard further about the Hurn CL-44? I ask as rumor is that a UK engineering company has been asked about the possibility of servicing a CL-44 and I can’t think of any others that are around??

Hope it goes….

The owner and his engineer have been back working on the old girl for the last couple of weeks. Seem to be concentrating on engines 3 and 4.

Agreed with Kenneth.

I asked to visit the aircraft, no reply… And just a hint. Search for the GoFundMe starter on FB. Seems he likes expensive things;-)

I’m not being negative, I’m just pointing out an important part of the total package which seems to be missing at the moment.

I have no doubt that the group behind this aircraft are technically brilliant and dedicated, and that the aircraft can and will probably be restored to the most pristine condition. If however the paperwork is not or cannot be sorted out, then it’s all to no avail. The statement “… can satisfy safety checks… “ is an exact summary of this caveat. If it can, then that’s just great!

Yes, “several other restorations have been funded” in this manner, but the only restoration of a comparable technical and formalistic magnitude I can think of is the Vulcan. Remember how much was involved in this respect in terms of ensuring approved manufacturer/industry support? Without it, it would never have flown again. Similarly, “work carried out and overseen by a real licensed engineering company” is indeed what is also required, but has exactly that been ensured (cf. the underlined passages)?

This is not the restoration of an Auster on a Permit-To-Fly for a PPL and one/two passengers to enjoy on a Sunday afternoon; it’s the sole survivor of a complex, four-engined, turboprop transport aircraft, modified from its original form in limited numbers – and proposed for commercial operations to boot!

If you want to be involved with any flying aircraft today, you’ve got to keep abreast with EASA/CAA/FAA/whatever requirements, whether you like it or not. It’s a very unfortunate and tedious fact, but non-compliance will keep even the most fantastic aircraft firmly planted on the ground. Those are facts, they can be called “negative vibes” or whatever, but it won’t remove the problem.

Kenneth, concerns have been expressed by many in several on line forums. But I would not want pre judging the outcome to be the cause of lack of support. If the aircraft can satisfy safety checks etc why prevent it from going back to work? It is not the job of forumites to decide the future of this project. Instead it is open to supporters in the same way that several other restorations have been funded ie public appeals. Do you really think aircrew would risk lives if they had doubts about the work carried out and overseen by a real licenced engineering company? In other words…give them a break and ease up on the negative vibes……

Buffalo Airways is fully licensed and strictly overseen by Transport Canada (I’m actually not sure whether they’re carrying passengers at the moment; seem to remember reading something about this having curtailed), with aircraft with full CoA’s, so no comparison. It’s not just a question of whether it’s a new or an old aircraft; cf. e.g. the Lufthansa-Stiftung’s Ju 52 where you can be dead-sure that their paper work is up to the same level as that of Lufthansa (the airline) itself.

As enthusiastic and hard-working they probably are, the group behind the CL 44 seems to stick their heads in the sand (judging from the responses here) as far as the necessary paperwork for their planned commercial operations is concerned. It’s a costly and very complex operation to set up and have an AoC approved in today’s EASA-world, even more so with such an exotic aircraft. There are also some rather gloomy comments in this regard in the corresponding thread in pprune.org.

It may be boring and very theoretical, but the fact of the matter is that no operation is going to take off in today’s world if an immense amount of paperwork is not in order. That’s simply reality. Please do set your sights lower and aim for a one-off ferry flight to a place where it’ll be preserved. Everything else is totally unrealistic.

Yes, and no deadlines to execute the contract and no penalties if they’re not met.

Perhaps David the proposal to the UN offered a really low price which of course gets an intererested response from them.

I think people find it unusual because the aircraft is designed to carry outsized cargo. If it were to be used for pipeline parts in Alaska I could understand -but to deliver UN supplies
I cannot see what advantage it would have over something like an Il-76.

Not sure why some think this is unusual, certainly Buffalo airways face challenges but a lot of air transport companies have the same challenges. Only the high profile airlines have the resources to keep operating very modern fleets.And in many cases this is related to passenger ops. The air freight world has flown a varied fllet for many years and there are many examples of long stored airframes re enterering service. Good luck with the CL44 Guppy project.

The master plan looks to be … optimistic: operating a rare and unique vintage airplane to finance its restoration to flying status with a contract signed with a customer years before knowing if the plane will fly again. Why a UN organization will wait for years to transport something from point A to point B ?
Looks Buffalo Airways and all the burden to operate “old civilian” airplanes and making profit and you will see you need to invest a lot of money before having the first paying contract.

Think it’s just a bit late after so many years of mystery to just appear and hope people will donate a lot of money, old aircraft and appeals for money for them seem to be getting common, like anything you want a return on, you have to sell it, it’s not a tap you just turn on.

To be honest with all things considered, he got a less than enthusiastic response, therefore I don’t blame him for not regularly touching base with this thread.

…while they do the practical stuff instead of posting news of minutely incremental progress maybe?

And then it went silent…

Apologies fro calling it very dodgy then. But I hope you understand the questions I and others have. Like I said I really would love to see her active again.

If your offer to visit her still stand I would love to. I can make a nice publication of it if you wish.

Good idea, it would be good PR if possible to have some sort of open day (if feasible) around the old girl. Show people around the aircraft, perhaps tie in an engine test run of some sort, an opportunity to talk about the project. It no doubt would generate a lot of ‘positive’ interest and get the ball rolling. (Just a thought as I wish the project well).

Actually, the CAA lifted their grounding order a few months back until the aircraft windscreen was sabotaged.

I really didn’t expect such a negative reaction from people in this forum, and not just in this forum but overall. regardless of lack of support, actual sabotage and constant negative speculation about the aircraft, it will fly again! Too much time and effort has been put into it to just leave her to rot away.

You will be able to see engineers working on the plane from next week so hopefully that will restore a little faith and hopefully enable some people to overlook the barrage of bad press and accusations of foul play and help contribute to making this a success. It was the content of this thread which got us thinking about a crowd funded project. and thank you to those who have contributed so far. Please feel free to email me and arrange to perhaps come and see the aircraft next week. 🙂