None destructive testing has moved on since WW2 with huge strides. Eddy current, Dye penetrant ultrasonic (Lamb Rayleigh and other surface angle and compression wave techniques), but the basis of what you say is true. Warbirds were never designed to perform for 70 years just a few hundred hours.
Warbird Abuse?
- Thread starter GrauGeist
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
None destructive testing has moved on since WW2 with huge strides. Eddy current, Dye penetrant ultrasonic (Lamb Rayleigh and other surface angle and compression wave techniques), but the basis of what you say is true. Warbirds were never designed to perform for 70 years just a few hundred hours.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Folks, understand that a good majority of the warbirds flying ARE NOT original and may contain upwards of 90% new structure. There are some airframes rebuilt almost from the ground up. Again research some of the folks bringing these warbirds back to life.
Westpac Restoration - News Resources
In many cases before these aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, many of the repairs and modifications are first approved by a "Designated Engineering Representative" or DER was will approve the repair and in many cases come up with recommended aircraft life requirements should the original manufacturer not have that requirement specified. This comment about an airframe that was "only designed for 300 hours of service" is sometimes a mute point with todays warbirds.
As far as operating them during flying events and airshows - I posted the earlier requirement. During airshows flying displays are carefully monitored and there's hell to pay should a pilot performing during an airshow violates the "airspace waiver" that is required to do an airshow. Keep in mind that was an air race and a little different than your normal airshow.
As far as a pilot doing something to endanger the crowd - explore how flying displays are set up. There is thought given to protect the crowds from any possible mishaps. This came about after the Ramstein airshow crash in West Germany, 1988. The crash that occurred at Stead during the air races a few years back was the perfect storm, 10 seconds in either direction and spectators would have been out of harms way.
Research guys, there's a lot of comments being made here without knowing all the facts about warbird maintenance, operations and regulations....
Westpac Restoration - News Resources
In many cases before these aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, many of the repairs and modifications are first approved by a "Designated Engineering Representative" or DER was will approve the repair and in many cases come up with recommended aircraft life requirements should the original manufacturer not have that requirement specified. This comment about an airframe that was "only designed for 300 hours of service" is sometimes a mute point with todays warbirds.
As far as operating them during flying events and airshows - I posted the earlier requirement. During airshows flying displays are carefully monitored and there's hell to pay should a pilot performing during an airshow violates the "airspace waiver" that is required to do an airshow. Keep in mind that was an air race and a little different than your normal airshow.
As far as a pilot doing something to endanger the crowd - explore how flying displays are set up. There is thought given to protect the crowds from any possible mishaps. This came about after the Ramstein airshow crash in West Germany, 1988. The crash that occurred at Stead during the air races a few years back was the perfect storm, 10 seconds in either direction and spectators would have been out of harms way.
Research guys, there's a lot of comments being made here without knowing all the facts about warbird maintenance, operations and regulations....
Last edited:
I'll second what Flyboy has just said.
We try to keep airshows high on 'perceived risk' and low on 'actual risk'.
And as I said before, pilots who deliberately break the limits set, have a very short airshow career, even without having an accident.
We try to keep airshows high on 'perceived risk' and low on 'actual risk'.
And as I said before, pilots who deliberately break the limits set, have a very short airshow career, even without having an accident.
Fair comment FB to me perhaps the greatest loss of the type I am talking about was the mosquito F For Freddy which was lost in a display even before the war was truely over. Such a machine should have been preserved for posterity and others maintained to do displays. Some machines are 99.9% reconstructions starting with a name/engine plate, to me its sad if they are lost but not a historical loss, many were already listed as losses. Genuine BoB or other theatre veterans should be treated with kid gloves, a multi millionaire can build a spit hurricane mustang or corsaire from the many non flying non historic examples and then knock themselves out....with due safety to the public.
Fair comment FB to me perhaps the greatest loss of the type I am talking about was the mosquito F For Freddy which was lost in a display even before the war was truely over. Such a machine should have been preserved for posterity and others maintained to do displays. Some machines are 99.9% reconstructions starting with a name/engine plate, to me its sad if they are lost but not a historical loss, many were already listed as losses. Genuine BoB or other theatre veterans should be treated with kid gloves, a multi millionaire can build a spit hurricane mustang or corsaire from the many non flying non historic examples and then knock themselves out....with due safety to the public.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I could agree with some of this - case in point; There's an F-4 on display at the US Air Force Academy. It is outside rotting away and was even vandalized by Naval Academy mid-shipmen prior to a football game (They painted it blue and from what I understand has never been returned to its original colors). The aircraft was flown by Steve Ritchie when he downed his 5th MiG-21 during Vietnam. How many "aces" aircraft are still out there? The only other one I could think of is the Bf-109 "white 14."
Is that 300 hours flying total, or 300 hours on combat sorties?
Would like to read more on this if you can recommend a reference, especially for RAF aircraft.
Thanks
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
300 hours flying. I think that was more of a consideration of all operating risks. I believe that number came from a paper out of Wright Patterson, AFAIK I've never seen anything with regards to British designed aircraft.
What was more criminal? Maintaining and flying it, or leaving it to rot?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep! I actually wrote to the USAF about this, they blew me off...
Thanks. I'm trying to figure out the length of time individual Mosquitos flew in action. The only squadron I've looked at in detail so far is 23 Sqn in the Mediterranean. Upward limit in their case seems to be driven by re-issue of aircraft, from F.II Specials, to F.IIs, to FB.VI Series Is, to FB.VI Series IIs. Will have to get into the European sorties of mid-44 onwards I suppose. Highest number of combat hours I've found is 170-odd so far. I know for a fact though that many of the 8 Group Bombers will have done much more than that - several of the LR-series B.IXs did around the 200 sortie mark. I suppose I may have to go back to the original aircraft movement cards, I believe they record hours flown when returned to maintenance, unit changed etc.
Edit - Highest is 188 combat hours so far - I'm up to the end of Jan. '44 and that aircraft is still going. It ultimately survived the war, though I'd still like to have a look at its card.
Edit - Highest is 188 combat hours so far - I'm up to the end of Jan. '44 and that aircraft is still going. It ultimately survived the war, though I'd still like to have a look at its card.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i have never seen an official document ordering an aircraft taken out of service after 300 hours....just comments in various articles and books that stated that.
GregP
Major
From what some of the guys said over the years at the Planes of Fame, it was dependent more on the aircraft condition.
So, if you are flying from a forward airfield (farmer's field) and if several planes are running in front of you while you wait ti take off, then the dust you ingest would VERY prematurely wear out the engine. It can be replaced, but if the planes is beaten up from forward airfield operation and combat damage, then there are only so many "repairs" that can be done before a major overhaul of the airframe is called for. That might and probably WOULD be possible, but new ones were coming off the line instead to be used AS REPLACEMENTS for worn-out aircraft.
According to guys who were there, it was more or less "on-condition" and also when your unit changed aircraft to a new mount.
The 300 hours is the expected time without combat damage in front-line areas with harsh conditions. The B-17's were figured at 40 - 80 combat hours. Flak was NOT inaccurate, especially at 185 mph moving in a straight line. The P-51's flying around today aren't being shot at and they don't have 300 aircraft running in front of them on a dusty dirt airstrip.
Believe me, they didn't discard a good aircraft just on time. It had to be pretty worn by events to be scrapped.
So, if you are flying from a forward airfield (farmer's field) and if several planes are running in front of you while you wait ti take off, then the dust you ingest would VERY prematurely wear out the engine. It can be replaced, but if the planes is beaten up from forward airfield operation and combat damage, then there are only so many "repairs" that can be done before a major overhaul of the airframe is called for. That might and probably WOULD be possible, but new ones were coming off the line instead to be used AS REPLACEMENTS for worn-out aircraft.
According to guys who were there, it was more or less "on-condition" and also when your unit changed aircraft to a new mount.
The 300 hours is the expected time without combat damage in front-line areas with harsh conditions. The B-17's were figured at 40 - 80 combat hours. Flak was NOT inaccurate, especially at 185 mph moving in a straight line. The P-51's flying around today aren't being shot at and they don't have 300 aircraft running in front of them on a dusty dirt airstrip.
Believe me, they didn't discard a good aircraft just on time. It had to be pretty worn by events to be scrapped.
Yeah, my guess would be that after 300 hours, the amount of work that they were prepared to put into keeping it airborne would reduce. But now, there is almost an unlimited amount of work that people are willing to put in to keeping these aircraft serviceable.
GregP
Major
True, and the supply is dwindling.
When warbirds were cheap and easily available, most of the planes running at Reno were acquired and modified for racing. I seriously doubt anyone has cut up a good airframe in more than 25 years or even longer. But is you are assembling one from parts of multiple planes, then it isn't such a crime if some mods are done.
Steve Hinton's group is restoring an F-86 at Fighter Rebuilders now. It started life as a Canadair Sabre Mk 6, but it is being modified with slats on the leading edges (not a crime in any pilot's book), the "baggage compartment" is being modified for better storage, and some items that are not needed will be unused and given to the new owner for disposition as he sees fit. From the outside, the only thing that could be noticed are the slats. Nobody not an expert at Sabres would ever notice. But when they complete the wing, I doubt it will be able to expend standard ordnance.
For really detailed restoration, Paul Allen's collection is second to none! The P-40 even has modern wiring with period-correct insulation on the outside of it, complete with stock wire numbers and colors! His Il-2 is stock except for a left-turning Allison V-1710 in place of the Mikulin and a Curtiss Electric prop in place of the Russian prop. The rest is bone stock, but really much nicer than stock. Real Il-2's were not well-finished. Paul's IS.
Carl Scholl at Chino (Aerotrader) is doing a restoration of a B-26 Invader complete with working gunner position (the gunner can select the upper or lower turret and operate either one)!
So a really good restoration depends almost entirely on the goal of the restoration. If the goal is 100% combat stock configuration that is quite different from a clean, well-done bird that can be flown, but without many of the military items such as armor plate, guns, operating wing ordnance racks, etc. Some guys even want the period-correct radios, though it's hard to imagine why. I've seen a 2-seat Hawker Hunter with glass panel and larger engine up in Idaho ... it's awe-inspiring, but far from stock.
If you have something like a Grumman S2F, it probably isn't even legal to restore it as flown in service because it could jam a city with the aerial antennas!
So ... to be really accurate, the term "restoration" must be defined with regard to the project you are speaking about specifically.
When warbirds were cheap and easily available, most of the planes running at Reno were acquired and modified for racing. I seriously doubt anyone has cut up a good airframe in more than 25 years or even longer. But is you are assembling one from parts of multiple planes, then it isn't such a crime if some mods are done.
Steve Hinton's group is restoring an F-86 at Fighter Rebuilders now. It started life as a Canadair Sabre Mk 6, but it is being modified with slats on the leading edges (not a crime in any pilot's book), the "baggage compartment" is being modified for better storage, and some items that are not needed will be unused and given to the new owner for disposition as he sees fit. From the outside, the only thing that could be noticed are the slats. Nobody not an expert at Sabres would ever notice. But when they complete the wing, I doubt it will be able to expend standard ordnance.
For really detailed restoration, Paul Allen's collection is second to none! The P-40 even has modern wiring with period-correct insulation on the outside of it, complete with stock wire numbers and colors! His Il-2 is stock except for a left-turning Allison V-1710 in place of the Mikulin and a Curtiss Electric prop in place of the Russian prop. The rest is bone stock, but really much nicer than stock. Real Il-2's were not well-finished. Paul's IS.
Carl Scholl at Chino (Aerotrader) is doing a restoration of a B-26 Invader complete with working gunner position (the gunner can select the upper or lower turret and operate either one)!
So a really good restoration depends almost entirely on the goal of the restoration. If the goal is 100% combat stock configuration that is quite different from a clean, well-done bird that can be flown, but without many of the military items such as armor plate, guns, operating wing ordnance racks, etc. Some guys even want the period-correct radios, though it's hard to imagine why. I've seen a 2-seat Hawker Hunter with glass panel and larger engine up in Idaho ... it's awe-inspiring, but far from stock.
If you have something like a Grumman S2F, it probably isn't even legal to restore it as flown in service because it could jam a city with the aerial antennas!
So ... to be really accurate, the term "restoration" must be defined with regard to the project you are speaking about specifically.
