They didn’t waste their time with CAD, I’m nothing to do with the museum & I did it free as it was something fun to do, so choose your words carefully, obtain facts before shouting.
Your post reads more like “Why should they…” rather than “Why would they..”
The same reason anyone else that has had something go missing does – to replace it. Key word in your post – they HAD an original. Same as one our members HAD all original parts in his Shackleton nose section, prior to its vandalism.
If the FAAM are hoping that the parts find their way back; fine. But in the meantime, why not find another oleo, or go work on another part of the aircraft rather than holding everything up and wasting time with CAD for new build parts? They are not being forced to remanufacture – they’re taking the easy way out which is make new parts. Maybe the RAFM should have taken a leaf out of their book and just remanufactured a new Dornier instead of raising the Channel one. It would look the same, so what’s the problem?
They’ll get my support when the actions warrant it, and I’ll bet others feel the same. The recent work on the Swordfish has been exemplary, but the Barracuda project needs to decide what it wants to be and fast. Replica or restoration? The original brief was use as much original structure as possible. Now it seems to be throw it together into a Barracuda shape as fast as possible.
Regards,
Rich
Sign In
