daveymac82c wrote:
you say that it would cost a ridiculous amount of money, and would take a lot of paperwork... to the point that it is beyond our imagination, but I have to wonder why it "seems" like it easier to get a B-17 flying than it is a Lancaster?
Is 'is less very very hard' might be better, as my B-17 operating friends don't find it 'easy' I suspect! One key difference is you can't take paid rides in UK warbirds.
Have a chat with the CWH guys sometime, about Lancasters, and they'll fill you in on the hurdles overcome by them, Transport Canada's requirements for them to be able to fly 'non-essential crew' etc; and they'll also tell you some of the challenges the Brits face. No secrets, but you'll get a much more straightforward, pithier answer verbally than in writing on this topic too.
daveymac82c wrote:
I looks as it there are quite a few B-17 restorations to airworthiness and they don't seem at all scared by major expenses, and paperwork.
The paperwork requirements in the US for this class of aircraft is, essentially, significantly less arduous - remember, the paperwork itself isn't important, it's to 'prove' something's been got or done or checked. That also costs - a lot. There's more than a dozen or so B-17s flying globally, including one in the UK one in France. That means that there's an infrastructure for the type, as Mustangdriver touched on. Lancasters aren't really rare, but airworthy parts are. Sally B, the UK based B-17 has effectively 'saturated' the UK's potential support for the type, and they find it very hard to make ends meet, even with an excellent support group.
daveymac82c wrote:
Maybe it is a different situation in the UK than in the US.
The short answer - Yes. The UK has a much tighter regulatory requirement. There are good and also plain bureaucratic reasons for this. Not being a 'user' at either end, and it's very dull but vital stuff, I'm not going to attempt the longer answer.
CAPFlyer and Hercman have both, rightly, zeroed in on the spar issue. Bear in mind that even if you can do it, it's equivalent to open heart surgery on an aircraft - you are taking out the bit that's right through the middle and the thing that is the core of the wings that also the engines hang off. This isn't replacing some skin. The spar replacement on the BBMF Lancaster PA474 underwent was a significant task, enabled by using a now-closed air force
major servicing facility. Also PA474 operates as a RAF aircraft under RAF, not civil rules.
But secondly, everything on NX611 is no longer certified as airworthy; engines, systems, ancillaries, flight controls as well as structure. Everything has to be checked, tested and replaced where necessary. It would require a major, complete rebuild, and who is going to pay? It's guaranteed there'd be no meaningful return on that cost, and a very limited market to show the aircraft to.
CAPFlyer's points on the DA are correct, I understand. However:
CAPFlyer wrote:
Sadly, with the airplanes in what is more-or-less an enhanced static condition, most of these aircraft are deteriorating because there is no way to justify the expense of maintaining any system who's only use would be in flight. There are probably a half-dozen or dozen aircraft in the UK that fit this bill sadly.
I'm not sure what you mean? As a generalisation, the static preserved aircraft in the UK are either cared for or ideally inhibited protected (
lots of exceptions). There's a lot of enthusiasts 'running' un-airworthy aircraft, ranging from Canberras having working electrics and lighting to the English Electric Lightnings, Vulcan, Victor and this Lancaster, all capable of 'fast taxiing'. In each case, that kind of achievement is within the qualification, enthusiasm and finances of voluntary groups. Operating an airworthy equivalent is almost impossible on that basis (with a couple of exceptions). Despite the additional risks of personal risk and airframe loss, these guys get my support - it's fun, it's interesting, and it's dooable.
While the legal and certification requirements for a taxiing jet or bomber are much lower than for a flyer, the guy(s) driving (usually type ex-pilots) aren't going to strap into something with bits that might go twang, and from my understanding, these dedicated volunteers put countless hours of back-breaking work to make everything work as well as possible. The exception (in all cases, I'd expect globally) is that weapon systems don't work.
Not only are they not 'deteriorating' but these people are fund-raising for buildings, putting them up themselves, and working every weekend to maintain these machines - unless you know different?
In short, there are lots of people who can get an aircraft ground running who haven't a hope of flying it - that's a positive, and draws more people into active aviation, rather than being a failure to launch. Had this thread had a more accurate title 'Lancaster Just Jane
taxi run' we'd not be here, methinks!
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
)
