Warbird Information Exchange

The debate on flyable vs static has been covered extensively, how about taxiable warbirds. The thought came to me last week when I paid a visit to Planes of Fame in Chino CA and looked over the D4Y1 Suisei Judy that is being restored to taxiable condition. My personal take is why not at least restore some of the very rare warbirds to at least taxi under their own power. I know many variables exist in this option such as rare engines, expensive etc. etc., but I'm talking more about many of the warbirds out there that are capable of at least starting their engines and moving under their own power. FHC and Yanks Museum come to mind as well as probably the NMUSAF. I'm not an A&P or restorer so I'm sure I'm in over my head on this subject but wouldn't it be better to every once in a while start some of those warbird engines that are sitting pickled. Also what about warbirds that for some reason or another are not allowed to fly due to who knows what reason i.e. TFC Duxford, Pond collection etc. Even if they cannot fly is it possible to at least start them up and taxi them? Legal reasons? Insurance reasons? I like warbirds that breathe, move, cough smoke, rattle and make a lot of noise, not warbirds that sit quiet. Not to say there is anything wrong with quiet warbirds ..

Last question and one I should probably know since I'm a licensed pilot, but does one need to be type rated to taxi only a high performance aircraft? or is that an owner decision? An example would be if a mechanic or owner who knows the aircraft inside and out but is not a licensed pilot, is he/she legally allowed to start the airplane up and taxi it?

One consideration is for an engine it is far better to be flown and develop full power and especially oil temperature. The reason is that only then will any moisture in oil be boiled off thus inhibiting corrosion also any moisture clinging to the interior surfaces will be boiled off or washed off with oil. This is true at least for the smaller general aviation engines that I am familiar with. Pilots who come out and ground run every few months end up with more corrosion than if they had just let them sit and the time spent ground running they could have spent in the pattern with far more useful effect for the engine and their flying skills.

I don't know about liquid cooled inlines or the big radials whether during a ground run they develop enough temperature to boil off moisture though I would think it would only be a matter of running time. One anecdote I know of personally is a big radial engined aircraft that was kept outside in freezing weather after having been operated only to lower power settings because it hadn't been moved to an airport and was in a mixed rural and residential area. Never having run to full temperature the oil cooler ended up with a lot of water that actually froze and split the cooler open.

In general though I like the idea of taxiable restorations. It gives incentive of the restoration crew to dothings right and should make some decisions easier. While you won't see it fly you could see everything up to take off including lifting the tail and that would always be far more evocative of thier operational days than any static display. The Lancaster "Just Jane" in Great Britain does that routinely and gets a fair amount of attention.

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

A&P's are allowed to do run ups to ensure all instruments are operating and engine gauges are within the specified ranges. They are also permitted to do taxiing to check for any squawks.

_________________
A&P/I.A., A.A.S./Aviation Maintenance technology
Warbird salvage/recovery
One day I'll get that P-40!

While most enthusiasts think a taxiable or ground running museum aircraft is a wonderful idea it has several very serious drawbacks. The aircraft must be near the display hangar doors with unimpeded access to the outside; otherwise you will spend hours moving other aircraft and displays and then have to put them back at the end of the exercise. There are problems keeping a fuelled aircraft in an area accessible to the public. Running the aircraft keeps it filthy unless you wash it after every run and the damned thing will leak oil forever. I know because I was part of a museum which indulged in this practice. Was I glad when the practice came to an end.

Moreover the airport management where the museum was located would not allow the public to be within the museum perimeter when an engine run was performed. It just wasn't worth the effort and aggravation.

The Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre houses Avro Lancaster "Just Jane ~ which is kept in taxiable condition.



Why else would lots of people to visit in early November ~ when the temperature rapidly drops below freezing as it gets dark .....



The Lancaster is towed backwards into the total darkness and engines started. After they're warmed up ~ it's run up to full power
and the sound reverberates around the buildings and makes the ground shake. All you can see is the wing tip lights and the blue flames from the
exhaust stacks. It is exactly as it must have been on this airfield at East Kirkby in WW2.

With powered reduced the Lancaster then taxi's forward into the light and then stops again for a further run up for the cameras



It really does totally immerse you in being on a wartime RAF station.

Lancasters flew from here on bitterly cold starry nights just like this ~ and many of them didn't come back .....

They even do taxi ride experiences with the Lancaster ~ the only way you can sample the sights and sounds of a Lancaster under power in Europe .....

_________________
Blue Skies .....

Peter

Consolidated by US state ~ see if there's a heavy bomber tour stop coming to an airport near you ...... http://www.bomberflight.info

Warbirdapps on facebook ~ every day a new image from my personal journey thru the world of warbirds ..... https://www.facebook.com/Warbirdapps

As far as licensing and legalities, if you have a museum exhibit that is never going to fly, is not registered with the govt aviation authorities etc, why would you call it an aircraft in the legal sense of the term? You could call it a "go-cart" or tractor or interactive museum exhibit or whatever. That should simplify the licensing requirements, the process of giving/selling rides, etc.

Besides not being the best thing for the preservation of the engine, programs like this require the museum to have on hand a lot of the expertise, equipment, insurance, risks, liabilities and headaches associated with operating airworthy aircraft but without most of the thrills. Yet there may be enough thrills to make it worth the while. It certainly livens up the place and differentiates it in a way that could often drive attendance if properly promoted.

August

When the NMUSAF had to decide what to do with the Memphis Belle (as it was at one time being considered to do an after restoration start up and taxi), they decided against it because they would have to replace many parts that were original to the Belle. Let's not forget the Vulcan that was ground taxi only, but became airborne. Taxi only does not equal no risk.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

In the "Just Jane" pics..........look at the attendence!! Funding makes her run and they are getting it. I would certinly pay more to a museum to go there and see something get pulled outside and ran then to see it static. How many of us would FLOCK to Hazy if they were going to pull out "enola gay" and start those engines??? I bet there would be a bunch of Wixers there.

The 150th anniversary of the Civil War has started and alot of the battlefields that have not had reenactments in years due to the possible damage to battlefields are hosting anniversary engagements. Now I guess we can all put cardboard cut outs of soldiers out in the field and say "this is what it would have looked like" but that would not bring in people for a special event. When they come, they will bring the money that helps fund future preservation.

Just by making it run, does not really make it all not orig. As far as memphis bell, if they repaired them back to working order, what harm is that. I could only see replacing a hose that was dated 42 and thats something that I would not see as Joe public anyways so what would matter? That thing is going to look like it was from the factory when done and not have the dirt and grime that it "actually" would have looked like in England. When I go to a museum, flyers or not. It does not take away for me the oil pans under the engines............just a way of life.

When it comes to the vulcan getting airborne..........easy fix...........remove the "idiot" between the seat and the throttle.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Don't forget about the Shackelton! She'll probably never fly again, but they intend to keep her in running condition, similar to the Lanc "Just Jane". If flying is not an option, for whatever reason, then runnable and taxiable are better than pure static IMHO.

_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Port Charlotte, Florida

The way we understand it here at the shop, our insurance will go through the roof if we park a running aircraft in the hangar due to liability and fire etc. So there would have to be a financial + as well. How much fuel and oil does Just Jane burn on a run up?

_________________
Andrew King
Air Museum Director with no Museum to Direct
Open to Suggestions

An engine run on a static is a nice concept.

But at what point does one draw the line between supplying earth-bound warbirds with the limited supply of airworthy engines and accessories and denying the same parts to the currently airworthy examples? Don't enough obstacles (avgas, insurance, modified tractors, etc.) already exist for operators without making parts scrounging more difficult and expensive?

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

I think at this time a few runable engines is not going to ground anyone anytime soon when there at plenty of engines just laying around to scrounge from to make a ground run. I would agree with you if it were more rare engines such as the navy built wright engines have become pricy because the taper wing Waco guys can't find j-5 parts so they just upgrade leaving more n3n's to be converted to bigger engines and those with wrights to struggle for parts. Hense why we just suck it up.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Just for clarification, the 'fast' taxying Vulcan that got airborne was actually a Handley Page Victor.

Someone mention our old bomber?

Our team maintain and operate an Avro Shackleton AEW2 at Coventry airport, UK, so if I may - here are my thoughts on the subject.

There are several points to consider and they vary on what you want to achieve with a running/taxiable aircraft. Each group has to work this out for themselves.

Historical/reference value

In our case we have what is currently the last 'live' example out of 185 built. We don't have to worry about being the template for an aircraft in service, as there is one in our national collection, it is indoors and immaculate, and this makes things a little easier in the decision making process for us. There are three of this version of Shackleton in the UK, one representing each phase of its life in RAF service.

Flight potential

Our aircraft is considered life expired by the CAA. Its wing spars have about 300 hours left on them though, a similar amount left on its sister aircraft allowed it to fly in the USA. So it is possible our aircraft could fly again, just not in the UK without a respar. The drawings exist to manufacture new spars, so ts only money that keeps the Shackleton on the ground. With this in mind, do we let it sit outside and deteriorate because we can't fly it (as at 120ft wingspan it takes up half a hangar) or run it up regularly, and maintain it?

We chose running. There's another Shackleton 12 miles from ours where the other option was taken. It is WR985 (Google it) and the results aren't pretty.

Anti deterioration vs conservation

All the systems work. About 90% of the aircraft is fit and functioning. The radar and the inhibited zero time No 2 engine being the obvious points. We know that all the little valves, pumps and myraid little parts around the aircraft all work as they are supposed to. Even some of the radar detection systems still work as they should.

By running and maintaining, we chase the water out. Yes, 37 gallons of oil behind each engine, takes a lot of effort to warm up. You're going to be running for at least a half hour before you see proper temperatures, but we had more corrosion and maintenance issues when we left long periods between runs than not, so it works better for us. It costs quite a bit in fuel, we've used a few hundred gallons in six months.

The balance comes in that by running, we draw a crowd, and lots of visitors that wouldn't normally pay notice to the "like a Lancaster but not" sitting quietly in the background. Visitors that donate to keep the aircraft alive. Visitors that can see, smell, hear and touch a Shackleton that isn't just stuffed and mounted. We also attract volunteers, purely because the aircraft is a live one and they can get hands on.

Permanent hangarage is not really an option, as the costs per year are immense and beyond our budget. The UK's climate does not lend itself to outdoor preservation. All Shackletons that are outdoors (even static) require an immense effort to keep corrosion at bay.. but with a sizeable volunteer team we can often achieve quite a bit more than other groups.

Maintenance

Do you do just enough for the aircraft to be functional? Are you happy to use time expired parts?

In our case we chose 'No' as the answer.

Everything is done as if we were going flying - as if we want to taxy the Shackleton this summer, its the safest it can be. Thankfully we don't fight too much for parts as the Lancaster only shares a few bits, and we have a good supply of engines left. Don't get us wrong - if we could help a flying example we would - WR963's logbooks are full of the entry "removed for WL790" to keep that aircraft flying during its time in the air... but believe me it didn't go both ways. WR963 could have done with the unserviceable parts being sent back over here, which never happened. Incidentally, the last request was for us to strip decent windows out of '963 to replace the UV fogged windows in '790 for its retirement flight to Pima... we declined to help that time.

Availability of parts is a factor, but having the aircraft drawings helps time and time again. A factor of the aircraft being 'live' is other collections are often willing to help keep it that way which often results in interesting conversations, acquiantances and trades. In the UK at least, there is a community effort behind the ground running types we have over here.

You will find the need for specialist equipment (slings, lifts, jacks, towing dollys) and working platforms, as aircraft are as dangerous when run static as they are when flying. A fire is a fire... so do the extinguishers work? No matter where it is, and no matter how well you maintain it, things will perish, corrode or fail. A system of maintenance has to be in place, and logs kept.

Legal/Safety aspects

The Shackleton doesn't carry a registration. It doesn't require insurance for flight, and it has none of the legal paperwork filed to do so. In legal terms, it is an engine test bed.

However... this doesn't mean we ignore the fact that it is an aircraft! We have insurance to cover our running. We run behind crowd barriers. The airport fire services are notified every time we have a run, and it is always at a pre-arranged time confirmed by the ATC services at the airport. There is a briefing before a run, and once everyone is on the aircraft, the door is closed and no-one gets off until the run ends unless there is an emergency.

We have lookouts in the beam of the aircraft and if anyone on the ground moves beyond the wingtips past the barrier, the engines are shut down. So far we've only had to do this once.

The next step - taxying

No qualifications are needed to ground run the aircraft. We were trained by ex-Shackleton aircrew and engineers until they thought we were safe and competent. However, only professional engineers and current aircrew are allowed to take the aircraft out onto the runway, as we operate on a live airport. These guys are people we know, and trust.


In conclusion - Yes, it can be done.

It is not as easy as simply dragging it out the hangar once in a while and firing it up, it alters the whole situation regarding the aircraft. It is not something to enter into lightly.

Kind Regards
Rich
Shackleton Preservation Trust

Isn't there a P-40 in Western Canada (silver finish I believe) that is only run up at times and possibly taxied as well, but does not fly. Also I wouldn't mind at all to see a sort of reinactment of a pilot or crew entering, starting up, taxiing and exiting either a figher or bomber. Even though I'm not a great fan of reinactors (nothing against them, just not my thing, usually too old and too fat ) FHC Dora, Enola Gay, Memphis Belle, etc. just to dream up a few.