hardlanding wrote:
It is called "operational," and they will run it and taxi it, but it is not "flyable".
My question - what restoration work was *not* done that would have made it flyable? What difference in effort is needed to move up the restoration scale from "operational" to "flyable"?
It is just a matter of legal inspections and licensing? Or are there certain parts that they knowingly leave in a substandard condition?
Not sure I qualify as a restoration expert, but here are some definitions I use:
Overhauled = Airworthy, repaired or restored to new tolerances
Serviceable = Airworthy, inspected and repaired as necessary, repaired to service limits or just not unserviceable (leaks, but only 5 drops per minute when the limit is 7 drops per minute). The definition of this varies depending on which airworthiness authority you ask!
Restored = Could mean anything, suitable for display I guess...
Operational could have a very broad definition to include everything from airworthy to airframes pop-riveted together, American engines replacing original German or Japanese engines, unrepaired structural damage or corrosion, etc.