Hawker Hurricane

[Mick G]

Thoughts this was interesting.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6111636/calg ... -aircraft/

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/this-puts-us ... -1.4669755

[Thomas_Mac]

They were trying to get it running before the move. Videos can be seen here.

[Scott Rose]

They were trying to get it running before the move. Videos can be seen here.

[hardlanding]

A question for the restoration experts here: this Hurricane was completely disassembled down to the individual nuts/bolts, stripping the steel tube fuselage bare, and was then meticulously reassembled, including with a freshly overhauled engine.

It is called "operational," and they will run it and taxi it, but it is not "flyable".

My question - what restoration work was *not* done that would have made it flyable? What difference in effort is needed to move up the restoration scale from "operational" to "flyable"?

It is just a matter of legal inspections and licensing? Or are there certain parts that they knowingly leave in a substandard condition?

(Note I'm not questioning their decision *not* to fly it, that's understandable, I'm just wondering what physically limits it to a non-flyable status.)

[Fleet16b]

The Calgary Hurricane IS restored to flying condition.
However , due to its value and liability issues, the City of Calgary refuses to let it actually fly .
It will be housed at the Museum in Calgary and kept in operational condition

[DH82EH]

Many of the restorations completed at Reynolds museum in Wetaskawin are completed to airworthy standards.
Including their own Hurricane XII.
I am not aware of any of them that are flown.
They may be capable of flight but I wouldn't consider them airworthy, as they are not kept in annual, nor are they insured for flight.

The level of craftsmanship on the Hurricane looks to be very high.
They can be very proud of their accomplishment.
It will be a welcome addition to the Museum in Calgary.
Congrats to all.

Andy

[Archer]

There is a distinct difference between:
1. technically airworthy
2. legally airworthy

If work has been carried out to get to (1), that does not mean that you are legally allowed to fly the aircraft. One example is that a component may have been completely overhauled to conform to the technical specification that has been set out for that particular part. But, if the work was not carried out by a certified repair station, or the work has not been recorded or certified as required, it may not be possible to get the component certified as legally airworthy.

[bdk]

It is called "operational," and they will run it and taxi it, but it is not "flyable".

My question - what restoration work was *not* done that would have made it flyable? What difference in effort is needed to move up the restoration scale from "operational" to "flyable"?

It is just a matter of legal inspections and licensing? Or are there certain parts that they knowingly leave in a substandard condition?

Not sure I qualify as a restoration expert, but here are some definitions I use:

Overhauled = Airworthy, repaired or restored to new tolerances
Serviceable = Airworthy, inspected and repaired as necessary, repaired to service limits or just not unserviceable (leaks, but only 5 drops per minute when the limit is 7 drops per minute). The definition of this varies depending on which airworthiness authority you ask!
Restored = Could mean anything, suitable for display I guess...

Operational could have a very broad definition to include everything from airworthy to airframes pop-riveted together, American engines replacing original German or Japanese engines, unrepaired structural damage or corrosion, etc.

Last edited by bdk on Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Dave Hadfield]

The documentation required for a fighter to gain a C of A is enormous. And you can't fly without a C of A. In Canada we don't have an Experimental category in the way the USA does. We are issued a Restricted C of A; with the restrictions and operating conditions printed on the document.

Every restoration action has to be defined in a Work Order, and every Part has to be identified as coming from an airworthy source. Then every WO has to be answered as Completed.

It's an enormous list. And it has to be maintained throughout the project. At Vintech, where our Mk XII hurricane is being restored for the Mike Potter Aircraft Collection, we use a very extensive computer program into which the workers enter data, each day, and it keeps track of all the loose ends. At the completion of the project, it's all done, and there should be nothing unanswered or undocumented for Transport Canada to discover. We did this for our award-winning Spitfire IX, and getting the C of A took about a week -- a major victory.

As you can imagine, this documentation soaks up a lot of man-hours, and is very expensive.

I hope to be flying the Test Flights in it -- K5447 -- in April 2020.

So, to answer your question, their aircraft may be physically capable of achieving flight, but will never be allowed to unless this documentation process was active during the restoration, and is complete.

Dave

[hardlanding]

Thanks, Dave, for the behind-the-scenes insight into the restoration process: it adds to the appreciation of the effort it takes to make these things operational - and the all-too-rare privilege to see them fly.

I hope you'll fully document your test flying of K5447, either on your blog, or here on this forum; it would be fascinating to hear what kinds of issues you face in implementing a test plan.

[Spitty]

Even just doing a static project is a huge undertaking..Thank you Dave for the info..