PDA

View Full Version : Rebuilding VVS-aircrafts



zugfuhrer
01-21-2006, 01:52 AM
As far as I know there are difficulties in rebuilding aluminium aircrafts because many parts was done in large machines, that is scrapped today.
But many VVS-a/c fuselage and wings where build of wood on a steel frame.
I heard that many of them where destroyed on museeums because of decomposing by mould.
It must be easier to rebuild a woodenplated airframe on a steel frame, than a aluminiumpressed wingprofile.

So why are there no or so few flying VVS WWII a/c today.
The only one I have seen is the unfinished Yak on Duxford.

zugfuhrer
01-21-2006, 01:52 AM
As far as I know there are difficulties in rebuilding aluminium aircrafts because many parts was done in large machines, that is scrapped today.
But many VVS-a/c fuselage and wings where build of wood on a steel frame.
I heard that many of them where destroyed on museeums because of decomposing by mould.
It must be easier to rebuild a woodenplated airframe on a steel frame, than a aluminiumpressed wingprofile.

So why are there no or so few flying VVS WWII a/c today.
The only one I have seen is the unfinished Yak on Duxford.

Sergio_101
01-21-2006, 03:39 AM
Actually there are more Russian fighters flying
than German today.

5 Yak-3Ua
4 Yak-9
6 I-16
1 I-153
1 La-9


I believe that there are 10~ flying Bf-109s
but most are Spanish Ha-112s

sergio

msalama
01-21-2006, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1 I-153 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... I think there're more Chaikas in flying condition than just one? I remember bumping into a web site a while ago which said there're 3 of them flying in NZ with 2 being up for sale...

Or something like that anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F19_Olli72
01-21-2006, 04:40 AM
You mean these http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif:
http://www.brian.geek.nz/planes/Wanaka00/200013-20l.jpg
http://www.brian.geek.nz/planes/Wanaka00/200012-10l.jpg
http://www.brian.geek.nz/planes/Wanaka00/200013-14l.jpg

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 07:51 AM
you may need moulds and jigs to make the wooden aircraft too.

wood is more expensive now aswell

be nice to see more wooden planes about, as they where rather good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
01-21-2006, 08:14 AM
A de Haviland Mosquito is being restored to airworthy, maybe it's already done.

yes, it's being made of wood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Actually, the process for making replacement parts for WWII era aircraft is often troublesome. An A6M (a real one) was rebuilt using factory blueprints, in the former Soviet Union. Since they use the metric system, and the plane used the metric system, a more accurate system for manufacture was in place by default!

A more comlex problem was the making of tooling for streesed skin components on a correctly restored Emil (documantably flown by Marseille at one time), because the manufacturing process just didn't exist anymore to correctly make the parts. Tooling in the form of immense aluminum blocks had to be made from scratch

Taylortony could tell a few stories about that stuff I'm sure

Zeus-cat
01-21-2006, 09:13 AM
Restoration projects in the US are done by private individuals who have an interest in the specific aircraft they are rebuilding. There is a B-17 being rebuilt 3 or 4 miles from where I work. They started about 2 weeks ago and it will take 10-20 years, 50,000 to 100,000 hours of volunteer labor and several million dollars to rebuild this plane.

Is there this kind of interest in Russia to rebuild aircraft?

Chuck_Older
01-21-2006, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Restoration projects in the US are done by private individuals who have an interest in the specific aircraft they are rebuilding. There is a B-17 being rebuilt 3 or 4 miles from where I work. They started about 2 weeks ago and it will take 10-20 years, 50,000 to 100,000 hours of volunteer labor and several million dollars to rebuild this plane.

Is there this kind of interest in Russia to rebuild aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a hobby? I don't know. But it seems that similarly to the way it was in the muscle car world of the mid '90s, when US cars were shipped to New Zealand to be restored more inexpensively than they could be in the US, there is a movement that is gaining popularity in which vintage aircraft are being rebuilt in the former Soviet Union instead of the US or elsewhere. Seems odd, but there you go

Sergio_101
01-21-2006, 11:41 AM
The major problem in re-building or building
aircraft new is nothe metric system.
It's VERY simple to convert systems.

The major problem is

lost skills and techniques and

in the case of many planes, a lack of drawings

manufacturers copy rights (a real big problem!)

Liability

And of course spare parts.

Wood is a far bigger problem than metal planes.
There are far fewer people slilled in the manufacture
of wood planes and structures around today.

New techniques and metal technology is far better
than 60 years ago. NC machines and CAD make
it easy to re-produce most parts.

Back to the copy right problem.
Build some new P-51 airframes and see how fast
the copy right owners, in this case I believe
it is Piper Aircraft, sue you blind.

I'll bet RR/Allison would be more than annoyed
if you built new Merlins or V-1710s.

One good thing. Prat&Whitney and Wright radials
are still easily obtained as the USAF is still
breaking up piston engined planes.

One other note, P&W, Curtiss Wright, Junkers
and most other manufacturers are still in business.
They will happily out spend you on lawyershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sergio

kotka1965
01-21-2006, 12:28 PM
look this.
http://www.flugwerk.de/
Fw-190 (I can´t remember price but i think it was 550 000 " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif)

PBNA-Boosher
01-21-2006, 10:10 PM
I've been hoping to find someone to build a Po-2 with later on in my life. I'd love my own little Polikarpov bipe.

p-11.cAce
01-22-2006, 08:58 AM
Rebuilding of wwII aircraft is possible if the market demand can be identified and investors found: A great example is the ME 262 project! Brand new - not rebuilds but NEW production - Me 262's powered by modern J-85 engines and modern avionics. http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/crew.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/2005_00.jpg

Chuck_Older
01-22-2006, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
The major problem in re-building or building
aircraft new is nothe metric system.
It's VERY simple to convert systems.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sergio-

I never said the metric system was a major problem, or even a problem in and of itself

And the issue isn't converting the systems

Do you really think I'm sitting here and telling the community the metric system is a problem in restoring aircraft? It's not an issue of determining how many mm a 7/16" part really is, or how many thousandths of an inch a 13.5mm part is- the problem lies in how accurately that can actually physically be made. 0.06123484" may be the perfect conversion for a metric measurement, but making my SAE production line acheive that is hard. That's why there are tolerances

Even with the tolerances, converting from one system to another invites a buildup of small errors, .005mm here, or 0.00015" there, that can add up to poor fit and finish

It's not the inability to take a raw number and get the theoretical metric or SAE equivelent. On paper is one thing, in practice is another.

I also disagree with most of the rest of your post. The issue is making a new part and selling it, not reconditioning old parts

Allison Competition Engines isn't sued every time they finish up a V-1710. The Commemorative Air Force isn't sued whenever they replace a trim tab or control cable, or a wing spar

There's a difference between repair/overhaul and counterfeiting. You're insinuating they are the same thing

I had my Buick 455 engine block and crank shaft reworked. That machine shop wasn't sued by GM, and TC Auto Machine wasn't licensed by GM. I bought new aftermarket cylinder heads for that engine. The company who designed (and holds a patent!) on the heads wasn't sued by GM. Buick is still around; GM has lawyers

Mitsubishi is still around. The A6M uses a one piece wing. The team that restored the Zero in the former Soviet Union had to make new spars. Were they sued? No

Mitsubishi has good lawyers; they never sued the restoration team

It's because they were repairing the aircraft, not selling parts for it they claimed were made by Mitsubishi

I can make any number of parts for P-51s, including airframes, if I secure a license. Actually since NAA was bought by Rockwell, and Boeing owns Rockwell, I don't think Piper has much to say about who can make P-51 airframes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Some parts don't require license, either. Logos/trademerks are another issue.

I think we as a community have so thoroughly misunderstood the meaning of "Copyright" because of the planes we should have gotten in PF, that we think of real planes as holding 'copyrights'

I think you'll find they are "trademarks" that have "proprietary" issues http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sergio_101
01-22-2006, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
The major problem in re-building or building
aircraft new is nothe metric system.
It's VERY simple to convert systems.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sergio-

I never said the metric system was a major problem, or even a problem in and of itself

And the issue isn't converting the systems

Do you really think I'm sitting here and telling the community the metric system is a problem in restoring aircraft? It's not an issue of determining how many mm a 7/16" part really is, or how many thousandths of an inch a 13.5mm part is- the problem lies in how accurately that can actually physically be made. 0.06123484" may be the perfect conversion for a metric measurement, but making my SAE production line acheive that is hard. That's why there are tolerances

Even with the tolerances, converting from one system to another invites a buildup of small errors, .005mm here, or 0.00015" there, that can add up to poor fit and finish

It's not the inability to take a raw number and get the theoretical metric or SAE equivelent. On paper is one thing, in practice is another.

I also disagree with most of the rest of your post. The issue is making a new part and selling it, not reconditioning old parts

Allison Competition Engines isn't sued every time they finish up a V-1710. The Commemorative Air Force isn't sued whenever they replace a trim tab or control cable, or a wing spar

There's a difference between repair/overhaul and counterfeiting. You're insinuating they are the same thing

I had my Buick 455 engine block and crank shaft reworked. That machine shop wasn't sued by GM, and TC Auto Machine wasn't licensed by GM. I bought new aftermarket cylinder heads for that engine. The company who designed (and holds a patent!) on the heads wasn't sued by GM. Buick is still around; GM has lawyers

Mitsubishi is still around. The A6M uses a one piece wing. The team that restored the Zero in the former Soviet Union had to make new spars. Were they sued? No

Mitsubishi has good lawyers; they never sued the restoration team

It's because they were repairing the aircraft, not selling parts for it they claimed were made by Mitsubishi

I can make any number of parts for P-51s, including airframes, if I secure a license. Actually since NAA was bought by Rockwell, and Boeing owns Rockwell, I don't think Piper has much to say about who can make P-51 airframes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Some parts don't require license, either. Logos/trademerks are another issue.

I think we as a community have so thoroughly misunderstood the meaning of "Copyright" because of the planes we should have gotten in PF, that we think of real planes as holding 'copyrights'

I think you'll find they are "trademarks" that have "proprietary" issues http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree all you like, but I am in the business.
It's not a problem in any way to work in metric and
inch at the same time!
And since I was involved in a suit from Curtiss Wright
a few years ago, I can tell you first hand that
those folks will sue you in a heart beat.
We made R-1820 and R-3350 pistons.
Curtiss Wright got more than upset!

So, take it from a guy on the inside.
They still hold copyrights and get really
upset when you infringe on them.

By the way, we lost.

Sergio

Chuck_Older
01-22-2006, 03:30 PM
Um, Sergio...you're not the only guy in the business. I've made many a part for US military fighter aircraft in the past, I actually ran the shop that made the carbon parts for a while in the late '90s, and in just a few months I'll again be making parts for the same plane. Can't tell you what plane or part due to NDA, but the Navy uses it

I have no idea what your company screwed up, but you still don't see a difference between commercially producing a part for re-sale, and making a part privately for your own aircraft

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

These places aren't in the business of making the *parts* to restore aircraft commercially- they are in the business of restoring aircraft

they don't make pistons- they buy them

they don't make crankcases- they buy them

they don't make duralumin sheet- they buy it

They may fab gear door, skin wings, make new longerons, etc etc...but they don't need licenses from the aircraft manufacturer to make those parts. They are scratch built, not for commercial sale, for use on the aircraft the are rebuilding. In vintage aircraft, most original parts are suspect. Wing spars always seem to be the most troublesome, and often need to be replaced.

There's a difference here. Their business is not to make a line of parts for aircraft

And on the tolerance issue- sure, it's no trouble to work SAE and metric at the same time-

if you make the design reflect the issues. When you're using original metric blueprints to correctly reproduce missing parts for a plane, is it wise to use fractional material you re-work to fit? Come on now, let's stop the bull. You know precisely what I mean here. You know very well that a tolerance buildup issue exists even in manufacturing within the same system. Anodise a high tolerance part sometime and then forget to tell your techs! I've had that one too happen too many times to count, and it's till done to me on occasion. I'm not going to argue it, it's just so. One guy's part hits the +/- on fractional, the other guy's part hits the +/- on metric. You can't see how a metric part could be in spec in it's own system and out of spec in the other or vise versa? I'll give you the name of the guy who did the work on the Zero and you can tell him how wrong he was to worry about this, because you made some pistons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I'm sorry, but I hate being patronized. You're not the only guy who made a part for a plane. I've made parts for fighters that are flying right now, I was an inspector for the program too. We never got sued for making parts...I have a pretty good grasp on tolerance buildup issues from all the hours behind the optical comparitor. I can't agree that there's no added potential for trouble and that's that, it's another professional's opinion. Man, my name went on that stuff I made or inspected. I made **** sure it was right.

I'll get you the guy's name tomorrow, the mag's at work. Contact him through Warbirds International magazine and let him know your company could have taken care of that little problem for him

Sergio_101
01-22-2006, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Um, Sergio...you're not the only guy in the business. I've made many a part for US military fighter aircraft in the past, I actually ran the shop that made the carbon parts for a while in the late '90s, and in just a few months I'll again be making parts for the same plane. Can't tell you what plane or part due to NDA, but the Navy uses it

I have no idea what your company screwed up, but you still don't see a difference between commercially producing a part for re-sale, and making a part privately for your own aircraft

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

These places aren't in the business of making the *parts* to restore aircraft commercially- they are in the business of restoring aircraft

they don't make pistons- they buy them

they don't make crankcases- they buy them

they don't make duralumin sheet- they buy it

They may fab gear door, skin wings, make new longerons, etc etc...but they don't need licenses from the aircraft manufacturer to make those parts. They are scratch built, not for commercial sale, for use on the aircraft the are building

There's a difference here. Their business is not to make a line of parts for aircraft

And on the tolerance issue- sure, it's no trouble to work SAE and metric at the same time-

if you make the design reflect the issues. Come on now, let's stop the bull. You know precisely what I mean here. You know very well that a tolerance buildup issue exists even in manufacturing within the same system. I'm not going to argue it, it's just so. One guy's part hits the +/- on fractional, the other guy's part hits the +/- on metric. You can't see how a metric part could be in spec in it's own system and out of spec in the other or vise versa? I'll give you the name of the guy who did the work on the Zero and you can tell him how wrong he was to worry about this, because you made some pistons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I'm sorry, but I hate being patronized. You're not the only guy who made a part for a plane. I've made parts for fighters that are flying right now, I was an inspector for the program too. We never got sued for making parts...I have a pretty good grasp on tolerance buildup issues from all the hours behind the optical comparitor. I can't agree that there's no added potential for trouble and that's that, it's another professional's opinion. Man, my name went on that stuff I made or inspected. I made **** sure it was right.

I'll get you the guy's name tomorrow. Contact him through Warbirds International magazine and let him know your company could have taken care of that little problem for him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck, for a guy in the business your a bit simple.
If you buy them, someone got to make em.
In case you did not notice, the cost of tooling
up to build a one off plane or component(s)
is way beyond the average rich kid.
Pull your head out. The real world jealously
protects inteletual property.

Sergio

Chuck_Older
01-22-2006, 04:03 PM
"Rich kids" aren't restoring these aircraft. Who told you that? I think that the reason you can't see my point is that you aren't familiar with what goes into restoring these aircraft, you're using your experience in your business to tell you what is done

You are telling me that if they use the part, somebody has to make them...do you think that these guys are going down to a store for an aileron or buying a landing gear door from an online catalog? No, they are making them from raw stock if no good original ones are available

The same magazine that covered the Zero covers a Fw 189 recovered in the '90s from a crash site during the war. They made a mockup canopy bracing assembly for it- to check the fit of the real one they are going to hand make. From nothing but raw stock.

They cut the aluminum, work it, bend it, stamp it, flange it, drill it, cut it, fit it, and rivet it to make sub-assemblies, then install the part

It's not like buying a sleeve for a clyinder bore or a wrist pin. They make it. Nobody sells it, they make it from scratch

I might be simple, but I can tell the difference between making engine parts for commercial sale as a business, and needing to fab up a new nacelle for a restoration

BfHeFwMe
01-22-2006, 05:24 PM
One of the differences is avaliability of an original template. If you don't have an authentic sample your in rough shape, are the blueprints you do have complete and what state of build. The Me-262 project borrowed an original from the US Navy to tear apart and reverse engineer, in return the Navy got it back plus one of the new frames.

Problem with Russia is a lack of original machines, very few escaped the smelter. Also a strong blackmarket for parts collectors even if frames are recovered. Not so in the US, and yes, there are builders of totally new Mustang wings, they'll be flying for quite some time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ChrisS1958
01-23-2006, 10:01 AM
Almost all modern aircraft restorations all replicas with original parts. For instance the 'Spitfire' in which Charles Chuch was killed in was 90% replica. I saw the heap of bits from wence it came,the only thing servicable was the makers plate. The operating systems such as undercarraige legs and engine were original albeit not from the actual aircraft the replica was numbered after.

The two new Bf109E flyers (assuming the 2nd one has actually flown yet) are both replicas with a small proportion of original parts-certainly no structural members have been used as any original material was not in an airworthy condition.

Sergio_101
01-23-2006, 05:32 PM
We refer to the "heap of bits" restoration as
a "Smoking hole" restoration.
The data plate and a few servicable bits
makes for a plane that is "Grand fathered" in.
The FAA has certified some war birds
and some have limited type certificates.
Also this helps beat the copywright problem
because you have an "original"
The F3F biplanes built (restored) by the
Texas Airplane Factory a few years back had
data plates ans serials from recovered wrecks.

There are atill a lot of WWII planes flying with
90%+ original airframes.
Because of the huge surplus market in the US after WWII
most are, obviously, American.

Engines are becoming a major problem
for the Merlin and Allison crowd.
The prices have gone insane, I suspect
RR will give in and either produce some
new stuff or licence it to a qualified
sub contractor.

Radials are of little problem for US WWII
aircraft. As I mentioned earlier the USAF
is still breaking up late piston engined planes.
Large Wrights and Prats are sold by the pound.

Earlier Wrights and Prats are becoming a bit tough to find though.

Got a data plate? Someone might be found to "re-build"
the plane that used to be.........

Sergio

HayateAce
01-24-2006, 12:49 AM
Neat, a serg and chuckie PeePee contest.

Charming.

Chuck_Older
01-24-2006, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Neat, a serg and chuckie PeePee contest.

Charming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you intrerested? Thirsty, maybe?