Warbird Information Exchange

What I'm saying is that systems not required for those fast taxi runs are not maintained, making the ability of ever returning the aircraft to airworthy status if funding should arise or a DA be found nearly impossible. Lusty Lindy is a prime example. When received, she had several hundred hours of fatigue life left on the airframe, however because BAe nor Marshalls would be a DA on the aircraft, the required checks and maintenance to the internal structure are not being performed. Thus, to re-certify the aircraft for flight would require extensive examination of the aircraft, made worse by the sadly less-than-adequate condition of the runway on which the taxi runs are made that causes some pretty serious shock on the wings. Now, I'm not blaming them for keeping them in taxyable shape, I'm just stating that this state sadly ensures that the aircraft will never fly again and in the case of Lusty Lindy, critical systems will become unreliable because of the inability to maintain subsystems that affect the operation of the essential systems due to their limited funding (i.e. they fund it to keep it taxiing, not to maintain the whole plane as if it were a flying article).

Most static examples are not internally maintained beyond cursory checks of the primary structure and the external skins. They look great, but they are still slowly deteriorating inside until they reach such a point that future flight is impossible no matter how much money one may be able to come up with.

Very good points, CAPFlyer, I see what you mean now.

In the cases of, as you mention, the Victor 'Lusty Lindy' and also the taxiing Vulcans and E.E. Lightnings, you are quite right, but I cannot see any way they would ever be returned to the air in the UK, whatever state they were preserved in - their capability (Mach two in one case or nuclear bombers in the others) plus their serviceability and requirement history in RAF use mean it's effectively impossible.

Mike Beacyhead's efforts in S Africa have been the notable, great exception, and we (still) are anticipating the return of Vulcan XH558 to the air in the UK, but again, it's clear even in the '558 campaign they underestimated the time and cost, while the complexity remains a challenge to say the least. I remain unconvinced that it will be able to gather enough cash to fly for the ten years quoted at times.


Hmmm. The a-priori expectation of 'return to flight' being the only objective is only part of the story - although I appreciate you were answering the question, and I'm diverging here. It depends on the organisation and objectives. For instance the Imperial War Museum and RAF Museum (likewise the NMUSAF and NMUSNA) have a justifiable and correct no-flight policy, and inhibit and conserve the majority of their aircraft correctly. They are 'in preservation'. Their job is to prevent loss of these artifacts, and that includes by anyone trying to fly them.

To regard a return to flight as the only objective for any preserved aircraft is very narrow - as it is we have the best of both - examples statically preserved for our great grandchildren's generation, and other flying currently, and maybe down to that generation as well. Despite the special pleading by those flying their aircraft, there are few organisations I believe will be operating the current portfolio by 2050, or beyond. The Shuttleworth Collection would be one.

The 'fly 'em' brigade often trot out 'aircraft were meant to fly' - actually, military aircraft were always designed to do a few specific tasks. Privately flown and museum examples are in retirement, not fulfilling their original function.

In the case of Just Jane it means a lot of people get to enjoy and appreciate a memorial Lancaster (it should be a Halifax, but that's another story) and either stay, or move onto static or airworthy organisations. It's not just about flying them.

Flying aircraft are, generally, great, but we need static preservation, and enthusiasts 'learning' on partially active aircraft too.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

You are correct. However, the thing to remember is that there are two states in which an aircraft is "happy" struturally - in flight (where everything is being maintained for flight and the aircraft is being "flexed" which actually does serve a purpose in maintaining the aircraft's structural integrity) or in preservation where all items which are not needed for preservation are removed (fuel, oil, internal equipment, etc) so that minimum stress is being placed on the aircraft's structure (primarily the wing-body join) so that you're preventing a slow deterioration of those critical joints that if/when they fail, the aircraft will no longer be able to keep itself together and you have to add additional supports to maintain the aircraft as a complete article.

When you attempt to maintain an airplane between those two states you walk an extremely fine line because you are taking away structural life at an accelerated rate, hastening the deterioration of the aircraft. I am not knocking these people for doing as they are and keeping them running, only that there are two issues that have to be considered in the move and that is that one is the decision prevents future flight if the political situation were to ever change and such a move to flight was to be possible because the programs that they're forced to use due to their limited funding.

Absolutely. As you've outlined, it requires a lot more to look after an aircraft long term than going for the occasional 'burn' down the runway or showing it in a hangar and dusting occasionally.

A good litmus test to the quality of a museum's conservation work is the use (or lack of) jacks, tyre / wheel supports, and oleo collars or replacement. Easily visible, and telling.

A current issue I'm researching / writing on at the moment is the Belgian Aviation Museum's Great War aircraft. 1914-18 aircraft that were hung until about 1975, then placed on the ground and (potentially) to be hung again. Like an eighty year old wooden chair, both the wood joints and the fabric covering's being asked to adopt a long-term different load, which can have bad effects. Not impossible, but tricky.

Old aircraft were designed to burn well and to be tough to preserve, it seems!

Good insights, thanks.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com