Wreck Vs Restoration

Written by David Burke:Firstly you are talking about putting someone’s life at risk when they fly it . Secondly there are the people on the ground and the family that gets left behind. Documentation is all important when it comes to keeping aircraft in the air

Forgive me if I’m wrong David but I don’t know what the CAA would have to say about one of those restorations, they thrive on paperwork as we saw with the TFC Hurri which was still having paperwork trouble last time I heard so I can’t see why a reputable firm would even think about doing a shoddy job such as that

Tom.

LF363 clearly existed and is well documented. I was at Wittering
the day she crashed – I saw her the day after and knew then that
in order to get her flying again she would require a large amount of her to be replaced in order to fly again. That is a continuation of her history- she was damaged -she was repaired – end of story.
If however the day after the crash I went to see her and she had been replaced with another Hurricane which was immaculate and bearing the same serial would that be the same machine ?
The provenance of any aircraft is crucially important.
Firstly you are talking about putting someone’s life at risk when they fly it . Secondly there are the people on the ground and the family that gets left behind. Documentation is all important when it comes to keeping aircraft in the air . The value of the machine is
a secondary concern but we all expect to get what we pay for
and that applies to aircraft.
As for Flying Legends – well what would I stand to gain by telling someone that their machine is ‘new build’ ? Surely if they have had it built and fly it they already know?

Originally posted by David Burke
Where are you going with this? The facts are that the machine was overhauled and it was publically noted. We know she is that
machine beyond a shadow of a doubt. She is completely different
to what is a ‘new build’ machine i.e starting with a hulk and retaining little or none of the original structure .

So – the airframe has new spars, new longerons, etc throughout (not saying that this particular airframe has – but other restorations of long term flyers have – errr… lets say LF363), and that’s genuine, whereas something that’s been recovered and has these parts made new because the originals are damaged or missing… thats… not genuine?

Tom – I do believe I have . The construction of RM689’s in Norfolk alongside some extensive work on some XIV wings for Florida.
The rebuild of the fuselage of Seafire PP972 and TD314.
I do believe I saw MH434 during overhaul which I think was possibly late 92 early 93 .
Does that count?

Of course there will be a difference between something that has sat outside for years and something that has been operated continuously. You would expect to have to undertake major work, however if people weren’t prepared to carry out this kind of work the line up at Leg Ends would be somewhat empty. I’ll let you tell some of these guys that their aircraft have dubious histories and are in fact new build, I’ll be hiding behind a substantial structure so as to avoid the fall out.

Where are you going with this? The facts are that the machine was overhauled and it was publically noted. We know she is that
machine beyond a shadow of a doubt. She is completely different
to what is a ‘new build’ machine i.e starting with a hulk and retaining little or none of the original structure .

…or more to the point have you ever seen a spitfire wing during a re-spar?

Did you see MH434 during it’s overhaul?

The term ‘Inspect and Repair As Necessary’ which is exactly what
they did and some more. The scope of a Major Overhaul is determined by the individual machine. Now compare this to he work that Shuttleworth deemed necessary to PR.XI PL983 and you see the difference between an aircraft sitting on the ground for forty years and a machine that has been almost continously flown and maintained from production.

Is there an echo in here? 😉

A major overhaul it might have been, but it was pretty extensive, as ARCO thenselves say on their site ‘the airframe was completely dismantled down to it’s individual components and all stripped to bare metal. Each panel, frame, stringer and every rivet was meticulously inspected and replaced as necessary, the bulkhead and firewall being totally rebuilt and all the components overhauled individually. This famous Spitfire emerged from ARCo’s workshops ‘better than new’.

David- look at the text again.

…the wings were re-sparred, whilst the airframe was completely dismantled down to it’s individual components and all stripped to bare metal. Each panel, frame, stringer and every rivet was meticulously inspected and replaced as necessary, the bulkhead and firewall being totally rebuilt and all the components overhauled individually.

Tom- look at the text again. She had a major overhaul. She wasn’t rebuilt because she didn’t need that depth of work to her.
If you examine a ‘typical’ US Mustang rebuild you will often see new longerons as standard and a respar. These machines when they are turned out are superb but they go far beyond what the remit of an overhaul is.
Relating to MH434’s accident record she suffered a belly landing following hydraulic failure in May1949 with the Dutch in
Indonesia. She was shipped home and the work required
was carried out during an overhaul by Fokker before sale to the Belgian Air Force. This by most standards is light damage compared to some of the ‘drama’s’ that other airworthy machines have suffered.

MH434 – Are we forgetting accidents in the Dutch East Indies and major work done at Fokkers prior to sale to Belgium?

David, any aircraft flying for 60 years will need major work doing to it after all that time, AR213 HAD to be taken apart totally because rivets were falling out everywhere and there’s no way you can re-work such a problem without dismantling at least part of the structure, take a look here if you’re not sure about 434’s rebuild
http://www.arc-duxford.co.uk/completed_projects_4.htm

Tom

Tom- from memory it was a ‘major’ i.e repair or replace as necessary and carry out any modifications that are due alongside
an overhaul of the parts that are due on time i.e prop.
Not quite the same as taking her completely apart to every last nut and bolt – removing every rivet and then start again.
For an example the ARCO Blenheim is a ‘rebuild’ using the basis
of a Bolingbroke and taking her back to the standard she was when she left the production line and in many details better.
She isn’t ‘new build’ as her structure was sound and they didn’t have to replicate the structure to the extent that they have two
aircraft in the end.
Regards MH434 she hasn’t needed to be rebuilt as she has been almost continously airworthy since the last war and any work that she has needed has been carried out on the basis
of keeping her airworthy rather than the premis that she was found as a hulk for example and she needed a rebuild.

Originally posted by David Burke
There is a big difference between a rebuild and a restoration.
Spitfire MH434 is a prime example She has been restored and overhauled over the years
but she hasn’t been ‘rebuilt’ to the extent that she went into a hanger and emerged as a fresh new machine.

Ahem forgive me if I’m wrong but I’m sure that I heard that she’d just had her first major rebuild in 60 years a couple of years ago courtesy of ARC? I stood next to her on the flightline at Dux just after she came from the hangar and she certainly looked a lot less battered than before, looked like a full, ground up restoration to me but I could be wrong…..

Tom.

There is a big difference between a rebuild and a restoration.
Spitfire MH434 is a prime example – she is probably the most photographed Spitfire in the world. She has never ‘disappeared’
and returned as a different machine or mark. I can accept that give or take she is the machine that originated in WW2.
She has been restored and overhauled over the years
but she hasn’t been ‘rebuilt’ to the extent that she went into a hanger and emerged as a fresh new machine.
Now to use the example of the Me262’s – if for instance I purchased one and put Jumo’s into it and the data plate from
a European wreck site would I have an original Me262?
Historic Flying with their rebuild of Hurricane LF363 were
completely open in what they were doing. The work was minutely documented and what came out was a perfect example of a
Hurricane. They were at the time clear about what was used from the wreck they received – very little of the structure – but that isn’t a problem . Most people accept that in order for her to fly again a large percentage of her wouldn’t be acceptable or usable. She is clearly a rebuild. A ‘new build’ machine is something different . It’s when you start with effectively a firewall or piece of structure and have to acquire the rest from
a variety of sources .

Mark – correct the plate’s arn’t the crucial tie up and often the actual identity tie up is from a cover plate . Heaven forbid anyone
has thought of bringing in a known ‘wreck’ forward fuselage
and then build a ‘new’ machine alongside it !

So are we now saying that all recently restored warbirds are ‘new build’?

I can accept it with the FW190’s and Me262’s as there were no original aircraft that were used in the project, and they have different engines etc.