Warbird Information Exchange

Wondering what, (if any) is the list of upkeep for a warbird that is capable of flight, but is never flown? ... i.e .... FHC FW190D-13 Dora .... If a warbird has been restored to flying condition, but is either too rare to fly or just is not flown for some reason, are there procedures that are taken into affect that ensure that all fluids are fresh, engine is run at certain times, tires, brakes ... etc.?

FHC FW190D-13 Dora ... is this aircraft ever fired up? ....

Mark

Good question.

If you don't intend to fly it, then it's smarter to inhibit the parts, with the appropriate juices, just like laying up a car for a period. Likewise, if it's not going to fly, then you don't need to replace original parts with modern substitutes - such as pressure hoses, pipes, wiring etc. but can keep the originals which are more appropriate.

If it's airworthy, maintain it and fly it. If it's not going to fly, conserve it - they're different forms of maintenance, and shouldn't be muddled, but often are (or claimed to be) because of PR: 'Oh, yeah, we could fly it tomorrow, but it's too valuable.' Bull.

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

i'm certainly no restoration expert, but i'd guess the claim "restored to flying condition" is read between the lines for "just add fluids"!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Anyone know the Yanks Air Museum procedure?
I've always heard they are restored to flying condition, but not flown.

Are the restorations completed and ground run, hydraulics functional, electrics functional, etc. and then inhibited???

Mike

The term pickled or preserved are misnomers. If you let it just sit there it rots period. We left a flyable B-25 at EVG 3 years ago and now it has a lot of issues it never had before. Getting up to snuff is a ton of work. That flight to Oz is going to be a long one

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

There are different degrees of preservation for engines depending on how long they are going to be inactive.

The primary effort for preserving a flyable aircraft is to inhibit the engine to prevent corrosion from damaging it while not in use. There are special inhibiting oils that need to be put into the engine. The engine would be run and the original oil drained. Then the preservation oil would be put in and the engine briefly run again to ensure that the oil circulated completely. The spark plugs would be removed and a light oil sprayed into the cylinder heads and then special dessicant plugs installed to inhibit moisture. These are plastic and have silica gell crystals installed. They are blue when dry and pink when saturated. Also the exhaust should be removed and cleaned of combustion byproducts and reinstalled with bags of silica gell installed and the ends of exhaust stacks plugged. There are special anticorrosion fluids that could be sprayed on the outside of the engine again to prevent corrosion.

Shell has a preservative oil that can be used in the engine for some time when it is first run again but traditionally when depreserving the engine the same run up and oil change procedure would be done.

As for airplane systems for long term storage you could replace hydraulic fluid with preservative fluids and spray or coat sensitive areas like chrome struts with anti corrosion coatings.

The main problem with preserving flyable aircraft is the same problem that rarely used aircraft have. Lack of use does not prevent deterioation of consumable products like rubber hoses, seals, gaskets and o'rings. They need regular use to be kept in good condition.

So to really keep a preserved aircraft flyable it would be necessary to undo all the preservative actions and then operate the engines and all the systems, flying the aircraft is usually best in terms of getting temperatures to the right range. Then you do the preservative acts all over again. Different engine makers have different time tables for these actions but it is usually after 3 to 6 months.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

I wondered that myself, I keep reading ... "restored to flying condition" but too rare to fly ... but I always wonder what exactly that means. The FHC collection I believe claim most, if not all, in the collection are ready to fly .... I really wonder if their Dora is ready to fly? I have always followed this particular warbird with interest, I heard it was located in Santa Barbara, CA at one time .... ?????? .... why?, who? what? ....

Great response above .... good stuff, Paul Allen's collection keeps coming to mind, I would assume he would spare no expense to keep his collection in great shape, but your explanation would tend to make me think it would be too expensive and too impracticle for his collection to be in (real flying condition) ... I guess it either flys or it doen't ... Not much middle ground unless you have very deep pockets. I wonder if Paul Allen ever decided to sell his Dora, (not likely) but if he did, I wonder how much effort it would take to get it airworthy?

Contrary to what many here on WIX believe, I have zero interest in "static" warbirds, they hold my interest for about 10 minutes. Now that's not saying I dislike the NMUSAF and others, but if it ain't flying, it ain't interesting to me ... Super rare warbirds do interest me (Swoose, Memphis Belle, etc.)

but here's a question for you experts. By today's standards and todays interests in warbirds, what really makes a non-flying B-17 "Memphis Belle" any more rare or important to have as a static display than a P-38 "Glacier Girl" as a flyer? Both are extremely rare, both have, IMHO, significant history in their own way, why not, if possible in a hypo. discussion, have both as flyers? .... Why not have several aircraft associated with the NMUSAF and other museums have flyers in their collections? .... ($$$$$) is obvious, but I don't buy the "too rare to fly" excuse

Just my thoughts .... hack away ....

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there, Jack, and the B-25's hardly a good example, as it wasn't ~er~ 'treasured' by the hosts.

Everything decays over time - you can only slow the process, but you can slow it a lot, if you do it properly. Many museums and owners don't understand how to properly inhibit let alone conserve for preservation, regarding it as a black art - but as John Dupre's comprehensive answer has shown, it's not secret knowledge.

Hellcat - 'Restored to flying condition' is often used to imply the restoration is to the highest standard; as has been shown above, if you aren't flying it, and regularly, it's the wrong standard.

Regards

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Actually JDK you're wrong. Most of the B-25 problems are related to stitting. Even with the engines being inhibited lots of issues with them.
Take cany a/c totally restored the not flown getting it airworthy will taken a lot of expense. EVG's P-38L, for example, was a spare no expense restoration that has only ferry time (5-6 hours) then "preserved" and placed on display in the museum. It's never seen wind, sun, rain or whatever. To bring it back to the condition in which it was rec'v would take 100s of hours of labor and big $$$$.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

This should answer most of your questions on Yellow 10.

http://www.eagle-editions.com/yellow10.htm

Mike

Sure - I'm not disagreeing with you - nor 'wrong'. I think we approaching different bits of the same question from different angles.

If you have a flyable aircraft, fly it. If you want to preserve it static, don't fly it, conserve it properly, and keep it in a museum.

You can preserve a transport item for hundreds (and even thousands) of years, if you do it properly. It won't run without a rebuild though, but that's not the only reason for preserving something.

Returning an aircraft to flight as Jack's said, is going to cost and be difficult - that's why I agree, 'flyable' that don't fly isn't flyable - it's a long way off.

Regards,

[EDIT]

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Except for the Lancaster forward fuselage section, and the long time before it was owned by FHC F6F, every aircraft @ FHC including the Ki-43 and the DORA have wheeled diaper pans under the engines.
Restored to flying, flying but needing work, restored but sitting INSIDE, conserved pending restoration makes ZERO difference to me as long as it's NOT in line to become beer cans and lawn furniture, as a kid in the 50's my dad and I watched a scrap metal salvager on Harbor Island in Seattle toss three complete, less outer wing panels, CORSAIRS into the grinder on a Saturday, even tho, as about an eigth year old kid I didn't really comprehend what this guy was doing, I KNEW IT WAS WRONG, I even asked my dad if there was any way to save those 'neat old airplanes?' but then they were just 'old airplanes', in those days your mothers favorite sauce pan might have had 50 missions to Berlin in it's recent past but no one gave a rats patoot.

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

Here you go Mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y5LBUVS1T8

_________________
" excuse me stewardess I speak jive"

You need to have both static and flying.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

i think the issue stems from privately owned, government owned, or institution owned. naturally a privately owned warbird is at the whim of it's owner, he can paint it pink with polka dots if he wishes. most public museums answer to a board of trustees, & as for u.s. government museums........ the red tape speaks for itself.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!