Interesting points all….our solution with our own aeroplanes is to restore them ourselves rather than pay someone else to do it – v. rewarding and I’m almost guaranteed not to rip myself off… though being a lawyer, it is always a possibility…:diablo:
TT
Taking this point back to where this discussion started – somone mentioned the high cost of restoring the Prentice. I thought (though I may be wrong) that much of the work being done on the Prentice was by SVAS volunteers – I assume it one one of those that resigned.
I came through the state education system in the days when woodwork and metalwork were still taught – and I think I am the better for it. IF I ever get the chance to fulfil a lifelong ambition to build (or restore to flight) an aeroplane it would be a wooden type calling on the skills I learned at school (and to a lesser degree in aeromodelling).
The home-building fraternity (PFA) have, in the past, provided a source of amatuer skills introduced into restoration – as TT says “doing it ourselves”.
For Guzziniel there is a well established system of PFA Engineers who will inspect, offer advice, etc to PFA members building or restoring an aircraft that will fly on a Permit To Fly.
Sadly it looks like this is changing. 30 years ago nearly all home-builts were of wooden construction – still employing skills established in the earliest days of flight. Now, I get the impression very few “home-builts” are constructed in wood – many are of metal construction and, increasingly, of composite materials (a lot of these in ‘kit’ form).
Efforts are being made by various organisations to interest children in aviation cos, let’s face it, it isn’t as exciting a subject as it was 30 -40 years ago. Then test pilots were famous people and aeroplane first/test flights appeared regularly in our daily papers.
We have got to think of more ways to interest young people in aviation and re-introduce learning practical skills – even if under the term of “leisure activities”.
Roger Smith.
Sign In
