In the case of this Skua which surfaced in a disappointing condition (and that is no criticism of the recovery effort rather an observation of the reality of recovering such an airframe from the sea) I was thinking about scanning being used to provide some sort of reference model to aid restoration (if that is what is done) of this or (preferably) the Yeovilton Skua.

While I agree that dismantling and using existing parts as patterns would be the traditional way to produce drawings and to replicate parts I was wondering if there was a way to gather sufficient data if dismantling wasn’t seen as an option.

I agree with your statement about ‘hidden’ internal detail; scanning certainly has its limitations.

At most you might be able to “mill” out of solid a 1 to 1 trench art replica or full scale mockup, but you might as well just build a cardboard cutout, or print off a large photo, as the outcome would not be a restored Skua?

As I said…..for me the only replica would be built with original materials by the original method…

…but does that mean we can’t consider using modern technology to help us get there?

…such scanning…..would seem to of little value if you did not know accurately the structural frame and intercostals etc that sit below the skin…

That is just what I am suggesting, I think 3D Laser Scanning technology has reached the point where combining scans from multiple points, both interior and exterior, can build up an almost complete digital model of the airframe; skin, frames, stringers, rivets, everything.

I would have no interest in fibreglass; for me the only replica would be built with original materials by the original method…..the only problem being that we don’t know what the original method is!

I could see how it would be useful to duplicate complex cowl profiles and the like but I was thinking of it as a tool to ‘digitise’ the Skua wreck quickly before information was possibly lost due to deterioration, cleaning, storage and dismantling.

I don’t know how accurate this sort of scanning is, I would imagine very accurate but could it produce a viable 3D model of say the cockpit area by combining interior and exterior scans? Problems would be caused by the marine growth of course, and any silt but I’d be very interested to know.

According to ‘The Blitz – Then and Now’:

“Sheringham in Norfolk was attacked by a single Dornier 217 at 07:55 on 27th July 1942 (with the loss of nine lives). Birmingham was the main target for the Luftwaffe on the night of 27th/28th July 1942.”

“Mablethorpe, Ramsey and Harwich reported incidents on the 6th January 1943 (with nine killed).”

“On 16th November 1941 at 17:35 Junkers 88A-4 (1403) was hit by AA fire and made a wheels down landing at Golf Road, Mablethorpe.”

“Bombs fell in Mablethorpe on the night of 15th/16th November 1940 and also on the night of 15th/16th December 1940.”

My next question would be what constructors drawings exist for this type…

Probably none…..wasn’t that one reason that a rebuild of the Yeovilton example was never seriously considered?

One of the most exciting aspects of this recent recovery is that it may now be possible to ‘reverse engineer’ a complete, or nearly complete, set of drawings.

If one is to be restored, let it be the Yeovilton example.

There is less of it and so less will be lost. The recently recovered Skua should provide most if not all of the pattern detail and could then be conserved in a more original state.

As has been pointed out the Yeovilton example has been around for thirty years (if not on display for all that time) and is probably in better condition for rebuilding although from what people are saying perhaps the Norwegians have a greater supply of ‘spares’.

Just my thoughts.

Looks a bit ‘fragile’ for the British Army…..field guns are hewn out of solid steel by Vulcan himself…

…even the beverage holders are cast-iron! 😀