Russian school of restoration....
- Thread starter v2
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Very cool!
tengu1979
Airman
Great. Need few things repainted but cool.
GregP
Major
Very neat. Too bad they are all in such rough shape. Some basic restoration would seem to be sorely needed, but seeing them at all is nice. Apparently the Russians aren't into restoration, at least in this museum.
Aaron Brooks Wolters
Brigadier General
Thank you for sharing the link Dominik! Very interesting sir.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
All the stress marks on the Il-4 are interesting. In the 4th pic it looks there are ripples in the skin from torsion.
GregP
Major
Might also be from the crash ... perhaps they simply picked it up and straightened it out as best they could. Not much other restoration is apparent, but looks can be deceiving. I don't know since all I have to go on the pics. Would be very nice to see it in person.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Most of the aircraft in this collection suffered a great deal of damage when the original museum's roof collapsed. They were exposed to the elements and rough handling during the clean up, storage and then went through a quick repair process.
GregP
Major
That explains it. What a shame. Looks to me like a team of 3 - 5 people could spend 10 years on the Il-4 alone. It would be wonderful to see it restored and flyable.
Thorlifter
Captain
It's a shame they can't/won't take better care of them, but they have some beautiful aircraft!
GregP
Major
Yes. Structural repairs and reskinning take awhile!
We had to do that with the Bell YP-59A at the Planes of Fame .... we found corrosion in the spar caps and had to replace them ... which meant drilling off the wing skins, drilling off the spar caps, replacing the spar caps, and then reriveting the skins back on. That's why we've been working on it since 1992!
But it SHOULD fly this calendar year for real.
The Russian planes would be great to restore, but I wouldn't work on one unless it was going to return to flight status. Static restorations are not my cup of tea. I want to see it fly when we're done. Nothing WRONG with static, but my time isn't worth a static resto. Make it fly!
They should contact Joe Yancey. He could very probably restore the engines to running condition, assuming they aren't ruined by corrosion. Depends on whether or not they had oil in them. Wonder if they have props that can be made airworthy? I KNOW the rest can be made so.
We had to do that with the Bell YP-59A at the Planes of Fame .... we found corrosion in the spar caps and had to replace them ... which meant drilling off the wing skins, drilling off the spar caps, replacing the spar caps, and then reriveting the skins back on. That's why we've been working on it since 1992!
But it SHOULD fly this calendar year for real.
The Russian planes would be great to restore, but I wouldn't work on one unless it was going to return to flight status. Static restorations are not my cup of tea. I want to see it fly when we're done. Nothing WRONG with static, but my time isn't worth a static resto. Make it fly!
They should contact Joe Yancey. He could very probably restore the engines to running condition, assuming they aren't ruined by corrosion. Depends on whether or not they had oil in them. Wonder if they have props that can be made airworthy? I KNOW the rest can be made so.
rank amateur
Airman 1st Class
I fear they can barely put up for the staff salaries let alone fund any restorations. Should think there would be plenty of volunteers available though.
tengu1979
Airman
Yup. If they will provide me withshelter and basic food supply I volunteer.
GregP
Major
Once I saw an Il-2 and was just amazed at the armor bathtub. Looks like it would handle a direct hit from a 12.7 mm MG ... maybe even bigger.
Since I don't get to see the Soviet types very often they hold a curiosity and some mystery for me, and I'd like helping to restore one. The Soviets tended to use air where we used hydraulics ... their systems are quite different. It makes things interesting and different. On a very cold day, I'd take the compressed air srarting system over a battery any day. I have a friend with a Yak-52 and the systems are robust and simple, but different from what we are used to seeing.
I suppose I'd have to break out the metric tools ... but at least I have them from the old days of motorcycle racing.
Since I don't get to see the Soviet types very often they hold a curiosity and some mystery for me, and I'd like helping to restore one. The Soviets tended to use air where we used hydraulics ... their systems are quite different. It makes things interesting and different. On a very cold day, I'd take the compressed air srarting system over a battery any day. I have a friend with a Yak-52 and the systems are robust and simple, but different from what we are used to seeing.
I suppose I'd have to break out the metric tools ... but at least I have them from the old days of motorcycle racing.
That was same metric type as JIS - Japan Industrial Standards today.
GregP
Major
All of ours have been largely converted to SAE nuts and bolts except for a very few fasteners.
Our Ha.1112 is 100% SAE as far as I know except for the wing attach bolts and maybe the wheel nuts and, of course, the Merlin. As far as I know, the Zero still uses the original main wheel nuts and maybe a few other bolts that were overlooked, but there are SAE sizes VERY close to the metric sizes and we typically convert to SAE when we overhaul unless there is a compelling reason NOT to do so. So far, there isn't one except for maybe engine mount bolts and wheel nuts. We convert to SAE control cables and pulleys, too, as it materially cuts down on the "spares" required and these things are expensive enough as it is without maintaining two sets of hardware. The lone exception I know of is retention of fasteners and special tooling on the Merlins that have them. These would be BSW, BSF, BFP, and BA threads.
The only planes I know of we haven't converted are the Soviet block jets. Our MiG-15, MiG-17's, and MiG-21 are all metric and so is the Polish TS-11.
I do not know about the Fieseler Storch and think it might still be all original metric, but until we decide how to proceed with the Argus AS-10 engine, it isn't flying anyway. The museum does not want to damage the airframe by fitting a non-stock engine unless the AS-10 is deemed "un-overhaulable." To date it has not been so tagged ... it's just low on the priority list. The airframe was gone through years ago, but the AS-10 is still in need of an overhaul, and so the plane is not flyable at present ... still lacks an engine that runs.
Our Yak-3 is SAE and has an Allison in it. The prop shaft is an SAE 50-spline.
Just for completeness, the Hawker Sea Fury Race 232 is all SAE except for the wheel nuts and the wing fold pins. The engine mount houses a Pratt Whittney R-3350 and so is all SAE. The spinner on Rare Bear is from a Blackburn Beverley transport, and is probably metric or Whitworth! The rest isn't.
The conversion is mostly painless and is just for convenience. The holes are typically "close-fit", not standard fit, and the original holes are centered by definition. The very slight oversize drilling is simple, easy, and fast unless it is tapered (in which case we usually leave it alone), and we can still get known good SAE aerospace bolts. Many of the metric bolts we see over here in the States are counterfeit and it's very hard to tell the difference without destructive testing. Better to get bolts from known good sources than to expend funds to test metric counterfeits from unkown sources.
I personally bought several metric aviation grade bolts of various sizes and torqued them to failure. None met spec. NONE! I'm sure there are good sources around, but we KNOW the good sources for SAE bolts. When I torque them to limits, they pass. Once I DO that, I don't use them in an aircraft because they theoretically have reached the plastic limit threshold, but I have done the testing. It isn't difficult.
If I DID get good metric bolts, I would want to test them on a semi-regular basis to be sure they stayed good. It has NOTHING to do with METRIC; it is all to do with GOOD BOTLS that pass spec at 125,000 pounds of tension force per square inch. I never ran across a bad metric bolt on a Japanese motorcycle or car / truck, but they also weren't aviation grade that need to withstand 125,000 lbs/sq in tension without breaking.
For us, the metric aviation grade bolts are also considerably more expensive while simulataneously often not meeting spec. Again, this is NOT metric bashing; it is getting good bolts of known strength and avoiding counterfeits. I also haven't had very good luck with SAE Grade 8 bolts from Home Depot or Lowes. While they hold up things that don't require spec strength, most seem to be counterfeit. If you NEED the strength, test the bolts.
That is why we convert; known quality at a competitive price with fewer spare parts. I'd hazard a guess that if YOU had a collection of planes that needed maintenance by a few people, you might want to make them all fit into one system, too, whether it be Whitworth, SAE, or metric. None are "superior" to the other, but some pass testing locally and some don't.
I'd bet that in Europe or Russia or Japan, the metric aviation grade bolts are just fine since that is the primary system. The counterfeits might well be the odd SAE, BSW, BSF, BSP, or BA hardware.
Our Ha.1112 is 100% SAE as far as I know except for the wing attach bolts and maybe the wheel nuts and, of course, the Merlin. As far as I know, the Zero still uses the original main wheel nuts and maybe a few other bolts that were overlooked, but there are SAE sizes VERY close to the metric sizes and we typically convert to SAE when we overhaul unless there is a compelling reason NOT to do so. So far, there isn't one except for maybe engine mount bolts and wheel nuts. We convert to SAE control cables and pulleys, too, as it materially cuts down on the "spares" required and these things are expensive enough as it is without maintaining two sets of hardware. The lone exception I know of is retention of fasteners and special tooling on the Merlins that have them. These would be BSW, BSF, BFP, and BA threads.
The only planes I know of we haven't converted are the Soviet block jets. Our MiG-15, MiG-17's, and MiG-21 are all metric and so is the Polish TS-11.
I do not know about the Fieseler Storch and think it might still be all original metric, but until we decide how to proceed with the Argus AS-10 engine, it isn't flying anyway. The museum does not want to damage the airframe by fitting a non-stock engine unless the AS-10 is deemed "un-overhaulable." To date it has not been so tagged ... it's just low on the priority list. The airframe was gone through years ago, but the AS-10 is still in need of an overhaul, and so the plane is not flyable at present ... still lacks an engine that runs.
Our Yak-3 is SAE and has an Allison in it. The prop shaft is an SAE 50-spline.
Just for completeness, the Hawker Sea Fury Race 232 is all SAE except for the wheel nuts and the wing fold pins. The engine mount houses a Pratt Whittney R-3350 and so is all SAE. The spinner on Rare Bear is from a Blackburn Beverley transport, and is probably metric or Whitworth! The rest isn't.
The conversion is mostly painless and is just for convenience. The holes are typically "close-fit", not standard fit, and the original holes are centered by definition. The very slight oversize drilling is simple, easy, and fast unless it is tapered (in which case we usually leave it alone), and we can still get known good SAE aerospace bolts. Many of the metric bolts we see over here in the States are counterfeit and it's very hard to tell the difference without destructive testing. Better to get bolts from known good sources than to expend funds to test metric counterfeits from unkown sources.
I personally bought several metric aviation grade bolts of various sizes and torqued them to failure. None met spec. NONE! I'm sure there are good sources around, but we KNOW the good sources for SAE bolts. When I torque them to limits, they pass. Once I DO that, I don't use them in an aircraft because they theoretically have reached the plastic limit threshold, but I have done the testing. It isn't difficult.
If I DID get good metric bolts, I would want to test them on a semi-regular basis to be sure they stayed good. It has NOTHING to do with METRIC; it is all to do with GOOD BOTLS that pass spec at 125,000 pounds of tension force per square inch. I never ran across a bad metric bolt on a Japanese motorcycle or car / truck, but they also weren't aviation grade that need to withstand 125,000 lbs/sq in tension without breaking.
For us, the metric aviation grade bolts are also considerably more expensive while simulataneously often not meeting spec. Again, this is NOT metric bashing; it is getting good bolts of known strength and avoiding counterfeits. I also haven't had very good luck with SAE Grade 8 bolts from Home Depot or Lowes. While they hold up things that don't require spec strength, most seem to be counterfeit. If you NEED the strength, test the bolts.
That is why we convert; known quality at a competitive price with fewer spare parts. I'd hazard a guess that if YOU had a collection of planes that needed maintenance by a few people, you might want to make them all fit into one system, too, whether it be Whitworth, SAE, or metric. None are "superior" to the other, but some pass testing locally and some don't.
I'd bet that in Europe or Russia or Japan, the metric aviation grade bolts are just fine since that is the primary system. The counterfeits might well be the odd SAE, BSW, BSF, BSP, or BA hardware.
Last edited:
