Where that information researched/learnt/identified is documented transparently and preserved and made available publicly, then the rebuild process, even if discarding all original parts and replacing them with parts of differing materials, will add some value to the historical knowledge of Percival wooden aeroplanes and their production and operational use, although that information is largely derived from the research and records of the restoration, (ie what is learnt along the way) not neccessarily the example of the finished product?

The rebuilder’s learnt knowledge and expertise does not transfer inside the finished product when it is sold on and flown by the new buyer, the finished product may not contain much of the original information.

My information is readily exchanged with other rebuilders of Percival aeroplanes. Unfortunately time constraints prevent any other actions.

If for example I asked Hendon to disassemble part of their Proctor to take some photos of the inside of the outer wing panel (say it took 20 hours of work) – what do you reckon my chances would be?

cheers
Ross

Most of the rebuild projects I know about involve aeroplanes that don’t look like aeroplanes, just a pile of bits – usually with a lot missing. The rebuilder has to track down missing bits (usually metal) and fabricate the rest.

I think that point really hasn’t been made obvious so far in this discussion, thus in the vast majority of projects I have seen restored, the ‘constructional techniques/materials’ argue doesn’t come into play.

From my practical experience with my proctor rebuild and using the original construction drawings I think I know one hell of a lot about the design/construction of Percival wooden aeroplanes. Far more that would every be evident from a static in a museum. There is one hell of a lot of hidden detail that unless you have been involved in the construction you wouldn’t know.

cheers

tell me are the RAAF’s F111’s the same configuration, have the wings, tailplane , wheels as when delivered or have bits and pieces swapped for operational reasons, subject to repair schemes, refitted etc?

If an aircraft ends up as a static exhibit in a museum, then it may be subject to change, bits swapped. For example with the Proctor at Moorabbin, it certainly has the wrong cylinder heads, look like Gipsy 6 heads or Tiger Moth heads to me, so it may be that at some time in its operational life the aeroplane was fitted with a Gipsy 6 in place of the Gipsy Queen 2 or when it was being restored for the museum that was all that was available at the time.

Either way it is not as per original, but who really cares (I don’t).

cheers

The AFM (Australian Flying Museum) has as its basic policy that historic (older than 30 years) aircraft should be preserved and in flying condition.

Experience with the Neptune showed that unless you are able to store an aircraft under cover, restoration to flying is an uphill battle that you are likely to lose. Flyable condition is a much higher standard that as a static exhibit (usually) and that in itself is the cause of many problems.

Anyhow the idea with the AFM is to undertake activities that keep the aircraft flyable, such as the annual Festival of Flight (FoF). Since FoF is a fly-in, legally no advertising to the general public is allowed. Having a big focus annually such as FoF gives rebuilders the incentive to target the event to present their new flying aeroplanes. In the past there has been engine runs. Ex military vehicle clubs and car clubs target the event and there is an extremely good turn out of interesting cars and ex-military vehicles. Usually over the weekend of FoF we get about 1000+ visitors and in excess of 100 aeroplanes. There is a dinner on the Saturday night and usually about 160+ people in attendance.

Other AFM activities include the making of aviation videos, I am involved in the making of one currently. Another activity is to foster a brotherhood of like minds in the aircraft restoration arena to allow the exchange of technical information and data.

There are many other less obvious aspects but they are the main ones

cheers

Ron

Dick told me that Caloundra wasn’t the first choice for the QAM, but there were people at Caloundra who were prepared to put up money to help build the hangar (the one that didn’t have a back it it for a period of time) and that was the deciding factor. I think I might have been commenting to Dick about the white power I had seen on a canberra out the front and the closeness of the site to a salt-laden atmosphere from memory.

In 1986 Watts Bridge was just getting off the ground and the “people of little faith” had no faith that we would suceed and get it to the stage it is today.

After the problems the QAM had at Kurby and then the old Brisbane airport, any home that was permanent and under cover would be a blessing.

Were you associated with the QAM when the Metor flew into Archerfield and stored there for about a year?

So generally ………..

if an Australian museum had a complete Tiger Moth Project i.e. in bits (worth about $30-40,000 today) would they sell it (we have about 200 flying Tigers in Aust so it isn’t a rare aeroplane).

If an Australian museum had parts that would help a private project to get back to flying would they part with them? Obviously sell them at a reasonable price (not give them away or sell cheap).

cheers

Just a quick note……….

Every now and then whenever I get the chance I still say to my friends “I’ve been in a Beaufighter”!

cheers,

-John

By the way, it’s very nice to find an international forum that has a lot of aussie input and interesting discussion (I get pretty homesick sometimes!).

Now that’s good, but better is to hear and see one taxi and better still is to fly in one and best of all is to actually be the pilot!

Thanks Keith

Interesting and logical explaination, although my original question was just general in nature and just used Pt Cook and Moorabbin as examples because I had just recently been there and saw what a difficult situation existed re ongoing maintenance.

My knowledge is largely in the area of operational vintage aeroplanes and when you take on a project in that world, generally it is privately owned, it will consume years of your and your families life and finances ($100,000+ and 1000’s hours).

Over the years I have been tempted to take on projects that were more than I could handle, amongst them was when I tracked down a complete Avro Anson and another was a DH Dragon project. The DH Dragon I passed onto my mates John Sinclair and Nick and Greg Chalinor. Now there is one DH Dragon flying (Des) and John has one very advanced project and I think there are two in England – all stemmed from me coming across a set of drawings and getting excited.

The Anson was a viable rebuild to flying project at the time, but I don’t know what happened to it in the end. I suspect that project wise it would have involved about the same complexity as my Proctor project and I (with my current level of skill and the hangars I own) could have got it back flying.

My point is that one needs to be careful not to take on too much as it reduces one’s options as regards existing projects and aircraft. (having said that still get tempted to do a Auster project – simple aeroplane and easily done).

The take-home point from your email is that Museums do sell aeroplanes to further/help achieve the over-all aims of the museum.