WU-15 was NX611, later G-ASXX

Yes, presume these lovely photos were taken during her epic transit flight from Le Bourget to Noumea, New Caledonia (1,000 miles east of Australia) back in November 1962.
EDIT: Just read the first post again and that fits perfectly with the 3rd November as departure date from Le Bourget.

My question is did the British Military have a standard bracket that they fitted to aeroplanes. I am sure the brackets fitted to the Proctor could have easily been fitted to a 4-engined bomber and would have had sufficient strength.

cheers

No dont think so – different designs for different aircraft. On the Mustang its a spring loaded device that pulls down from the wing. On the Spitfire its a clever D shaped internal tube in the wing you thread the rope through. On the Hurricane they are small (1″ dia) screw-in eye-bolts weighing a few ounces each, to name a few examples I am familiar with.

I understood the Melton Walrus started with the forward cockpit of W2718 that had been shortened in length to the cabin area, split in to two, and converted to a caravan, this would sit well with 95% of the fuselage skin being replaced and 50% of the internal structure having to be re-constructed from new.

The rear fuselage was also with the project – it had been converted to a car but stil had ROYAL NAVY & W2718 witht the roundel clearly visible. Much of the structure of the rear fuselage was re-used.

I dont see the term “composite” casting the project in an unfavourable light, but simply identifying that it was not an intact complete airframe when commenced, with the incorporation of new build parts or refurbished NOS or salvaged parts from other donor airframes.

My take on ‘composite’ is its a term used when the restoration material comes from a variety of sources and/or a number of airframes where no one airframe has clear claim to the identity.

Its clear it has substational provenance back to W2718, but its not a “restoration” of W2718 a “term” which can, “through rose coloured glasses”, conjours up images of an intact airframe found sitting in the back of a hangar, refurbished, with new air in the tyres, new plugs in the engine, and the tanks topped up for flight.

A project that utilises that sort of complete starting point is what I would term a ‘refurbishment’, such as what is currently happening to Spitfire MT818.

The work done so far to W2718 is very impressive, but describing it as a composite restoration in my mind is a very suitable and fair description.

Thanks Mark – pehaps we will have to ‘agree to disagree’ on that point. My personal opinion is that its simply a conventional, thorough restoration of W2718.

Most “composite” restorations take their identities from the cockpit or fuselage sections, that is entirely consistent with what is happening here?

They do – but the term composite also impies that there is a ‘composition’ of material from several identifiable airframes, here there is substantial material from only one, with largely new build wings, quite normal in the modern restoration process.

.
Are runnible engines and spares available, I understood Point Cook had to work with a fairly poor engine example to make it presentable for static?

The project has a static engine with it but it is neither a IIM2P or Mk VI with the correct reverse reduction gear although no doubt there would be some possibilty of a swap with the correct mark of engine.

.I also understand the wings on the Walrus at Point Cook came from spares (or spars?) held by Camden, and significant rib etc re-construction by Ron Gretton and Geoff Matthews, I suspect any wings for the Solent example (if non-existant) will need spars built from scratch, and access to one or more complete engines?)

The centre section of the Australian example ewas actually built by the UK team and swapped for parts. As I said earlier the complex rolled stainless steel spars have already been sourced but would need to be worked to form built up spars. The wing structure of the Walrus is a combination of stainless steel ribs (around every 4′ with intermediate thin timber ribs between them). Not simple nor desperatly complex and the entire aircraft is well supported by surviving and high quality original drawings).

.A far better deal would be for the RAF Museum to buy it, build a static set of wings, fit a static engine, retain it in the UK preserved for posterity, and then gift the original RAAF Seagull V back to Australia as being surplus to their collection? (yes wishful thinking lol)

Thats a possibility I guess but every person who worked on the project, over a six year period, was doing so with the intention of it flying at some point.

First point to make is that it will cost little less to build a good static aeroplane than an airworthy one, if it is done correctly, with the right materials and no compromises – as should be the case with any registered museum (dons helmet).

I would agree with that given what has already been done in the early 1990’s.

Somebody made a point about it not having a set of wings, is this correct, or there some in the pipeline?

It has a complete upper centre section and new wing spar components, the actual wings have not been commenced, nor have the tailplane & engine nacelle.

What sort of timespan are we talking about here, anyone know. Will it be days or weeks?

Cheers, Huw:)

At this time of year your guess is as good as anyones. Weather was not good enough today for flying but tomorow looks better and hopefully they can get a few hours on her over the next couple of days. Realistically 10 – 14 days would be a good guess to complete a testing programme.

The overall attention to detail and authenticity in this restoration is very impressive. Is it just me or do the little things like the mod plates on the rudder and the numerous correct stencils make this Hurricane stand out more?

With respect to the ‘cosmetic’ details, yes I would like to think so – as considerable effort was put in to these details. For example the W/T boxes are exact copies of a period Hawker W/T box taken from a modern photo of a surviving rudder (supplied by a forum member). The stencils were all applied as ‘real’ stencils, ie not using modern adhesive vinyl. The external stencil font was created for each letter for this project using original WWII brass stencils provided by HRL. The paint is as ‘matt’ as we dared use (and still be maintainable). All the internal placarding is re-created in a font of the correct type-face and period.

These are lovely photos recording a momentous day.

Tony Ditheridge and his team at HRL don’t always have time to check the forums – particularly at this busy period. However I will copy out all the nice comments and see they get them, also to Peter and the Hangar 11 Collection team who all made contributions to the project (as well as others out there – you know who you are!).

Thanks again to everyone 🙂