Warbird Information Exchange

Jason, is that the Buick behind 924??

Really looking forward to seeing "924" back in the air again. Have some very fond memories of the old girl from Reno and Chino way back when. That was the first Sea Fury I had ever seen and the Bristol sounded like nothing else.

This simply baffles me. So, does that mean Gerald Yagen's MiG-3 or Flying Heritage Collection's IL-2 could never be registered in the UK because they are both Allison-powered?


Chappie

_________________
Brrring. Dispersal? TWO SECTIONS SCRAMBLE!!

I would expect that's correct. I'm no expert in making the paperwork work in the UK, so bearing that in mind...

There's no equivalent to the Experimental or Restricted / Limited category for heavier aircraft in the UK. There's Permit to Fly and light aircraft options which are a different model for warbird type aircraft to the US.

Secondly the CAA has a problem with any major modification to a type - such as an engine substitution - that hasn't been covered by the aircraft manufacturer (or equivalent) as a type modification. (Even using a modern synthetic fabric for the rudder covering on a Spitfire can be a "modification" that the CAA can't accept without a tail-sections weight of paperwork explaining that Irish Linen may not be the only or best option - I understand.)

On top of that if it's a type that's not been certified in the UK, you have to go through the whole process - which is predicated on being a manufacturer aiming to sell hundreds of a type, not operating one for 'fun'.

So it may well be possible to get a Junkers Ju 52/3m certified in the UK as they were used in airline service, and if examples of those had been certified with British or American engines, that option would perhaps be available.

However as Hawker's or BAe (or what they're called this week) never offered or certified a monoplane Fury family member with anything other than a Centaurus, that route is probably closed.

However I don't know of anyone's actually tried, because under the veneer of helpfulness it's often made clear that such an approach would be an expensive waste of time.

I would add that there's lots of lovely stuff from the CAA about how easy it is and how much they'll help, and my critiques are all secondhand and may be incorrect in detail - however I've had a number of UK operators bemoan off record - so no names - how stupidly restrictive things are and have got worse trying to get aircraft flying.

Also operating aircraft on foreign registrations - as was common in the 1980s and 1990s - has been stopped if the aircraft are clearly based in the UK. As the Fighter Collection's P-40F has gone from an Australian reggo (VH-PIV) to a UK G- registration recently, it's clear you can operate an aircraft (in this case at Legends) on a foreign certificate, but only for a limited time.

Corrections, from anyone prepared to make them, welcome. YMMV.

Regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

In the UK everything has to be as it rolled out of the factory with any mandatory upgrades, mods or updates required by the operating Military Forces or Gov Agency incorporated.
Any change from this has to be engineered the same as if you were building a part for a 747 or Airbus. The engineering must be presented to the CAA and the CAA has to approve it in the same way a part for the 747 or Airbus is approved. It takes time, money and they might just say NO.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

Thanks JDK, very interesting. This first statement about no Experimental/Restricted/Limited in the UK cleared things right up.

Chappie

_________________
Brrring. Dispersal? TWO SECTIONS SCRAMBLE!!

I hasten to add I'm no expert!

Here in Australia (and in NZ) we have a similar system to the UK, but with experimental system (and different light aircraft classifications) from the US model.

Just a penguin's understanding...

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

For info, there is 2 new-build Yak-3's registered with the CAA in the UK.
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... type=Yak-3

Good point Ben, and Alison powered, too. I'm not going to try any further to explain the UK system, then!

However I will add that overseas registered and guest aircraft can be flown in the UK for a limited period - such as those that attend Legends from Europe, including Russia (Polikarpov) and the USA, recently. That would be how the theoretical 'visit' of the MiG-3 or Il-2 might occur.

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

If the British are so Vogon about procedures and modifications, how do companies get old airliners like VANGUARDS modified with a big cabin cargo door to haul freight and the Royal Mail, particularly if the original manufacturer is long gone thorough bankruptcy or absorption?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I believe the former "Cotton Mouth" that is being re-built at Sanders' and slated to go to Germany will have a Centaurus installed in it as well.

Correct. All German operated Sea Furies were Centaurus powered. As the above will get back it´s former identity D-CACE, it will be powered by a Bristol Centaurus. As it will be a resurrection of a formerly German registered a/c it will make (new) registration easier (as can be read on MeierMotors´ homepage).

Michael

Visited the Tennessee Aviation Museum over the thanksgiving holiday on my way to Charleston, South Carolina. They had a cutaway P&W 4360 and seeing the internal parts and workings was really cool. At Udvar Hazy there was a radial cutaway that was supposed to rotate but was out of order. Googled same engines to see video of cutaways operating, pretty cool. Aviationshoppe.com has a great description of the sleeve valve Centaurus engine and I've found animations on utube and found a video of a cutaway Centaurus operating but the cameraman rushed it and should have dwelled longer on the operating gears etc.. Seems that the push rod and the sleeve valve engines each have their strong points. So does anyone prefer one over the other? Wright 3350- Centaurus 3270.

I used to have a small picture of a BRISTOL HERCULES engine with the accessory case removed. Three distinct layers of a sun gear and seven planetary gears on each level, the running joke was 'it's off a tooth'. It was amazing looking at that picture and trying to imagine figuring all that clockwork mechanism out using a pencil and a slide rule.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I think you mean "the British CAA" - I'm sure you aren't a representative of the FAA. Sorry to mention it, but there's quite a few Brits who would very much like things to be better than they are. it's hardly fair to lump them with a regulatory body.

And to the question, I don't know - I'd presume through a design authority process that Rich touched on, and where hauling the Queens head in multiples pays better than posing at shows.

Going back to the Yak 9s, the answer may have elements of the fact it was officially a restarted production line, unlike the no-Flug Werk on the G- reg situation, partly as they aren't Fockes. In the case of the first two 'new-build' Yaks in the UK neither TFC or OFMCo managed to get theirs through the paperwork game.

The easy answer is the problem expecting 'rational' from a 'bureaucracy'.

Regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com