Dick Ransome / pre-crash damage to K7

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4922
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Dick Ransome

Post by Renegadenemo » Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:06 pm

That is pretty bent-up...any ideas what caused that? Heat from the jet? Fitting an Orpheus in a force-niner with a lump hammer?
It got mashed when she sank in Lake Mead. They cut and shut the F-1 frame on the tail cover and put a shaped patch on the inside but the shape never really came back.
It got mashed even further in the 67 accident because the front engine mount had come adrift so the jetpipe was able to come up and smash into the underside of the tail cover. The result being that we had to get rid of the 67 damage while leaving the Lake Mead ding. That was interesting. There's another vestige of the sinking damage that we've left in place and that's a twist in the very aft end of the closing strip that joins the lower hull to the tail cover. Bet Mike has a pic.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: Dick Ransome

Post by Mike Bull » Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:10 pm

This was the dent left after Lake Mead-
P9026868.JPG
-and this is the repair piece they let in-
IMG_1309.JPG
-and as first raised-
00.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: Dick Ransome

Post by Mike Bull » Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:26 pm

On a similar note- just the other day as it happens Richie was querying whether we intended to recreate the duck and seagull damage to the two spar fairings on the left side. Although I think in the past we've said that we would do so, my gut reaction now is that while it's one thing to sensitively work around existing battle scars rather than sanitise the entire machine, it's quite another to purposefully create false damage in a new part; for the moment, I'm of the mind that both spar fairings should be in normal, 'pre-bird' state. I'd also say that with the amount of overlapping fairings and sealant and paint finish to consider, having a duplicate set of 'damaged' fairings would be more trouble than it was worth, too. What does everyone else think?
00.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4922
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Dick Ransome / pre-crash damage to K7

Post by Renegadenemo » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:06 pm

We still have the seagull damage. OK, so it's buried amongst even more damage, but it's there and we can save or sanitise with that one.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Dick Ransome

Post by quicksilver-wsr » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:42 pm

Mike Bull wrote:On a similar note- just the other day as it happens Richie was querying whether we intended to recreate the duck and seagull damage to the two spar fairings on the left side. Although I think in the past we've said that we would do so, my gut reaction now is that while it's one thing to sensitively work around existing battle scars rather than sanitise the entire machine, it's quite another to purposefully create false damage in a new part; for the moment, I'm of the mind that both spar fairings should be in normal, 'pre-bird' state. I'd also say that with the amount of overlapping fairings and sealant and paint finish to consider, having a duplicate set of 'damaged' fairings would be more trouble than it was worth, too. What does everyone else think?
I think I've already chipped my two-bob's-worth in on this in a post on another thread some while back ...

My own view is that recreating an old injury may be a little contrived, and a tiny step too far which might detract from the overall - very laudable (and successful) - efforts made to date to uphold fidelity to the boat's original pre-crash state.

Being a thoroughly reasonable bloke, however, I can see sense in both sides of the debate!

If the evidence of the bird-strikes is still locked away in the metalwork somewhere, and clearly identifiable amongst the crash-crumples, then it may not be too big an authenticity issue to tease it back into view again for all to see.

Nigel

Wonderboot
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:21 pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: Dick Ransome / pre-crash damage to K7

Post by Wonderboot » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:23 pm

I'd agree with all the above views. I know the intention is to bring K7 back to the beginning of 4th Jan '67 state, but if the spar fairings are back at Nov '66 condition I don't think the Donald would mind too much, surely? As Nigel says, a little too contrived - and a great shame not to judiciously sanitise on perhaps this one occasion!
I'm getting a lot of bloody row in here...

ace_chris
Posts: 421
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: Dick Ransome / pre-crash damage to K7

Post by ace_chris » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:29 pm

What ever the history behind the bird dent, if it is left 'as was' you can guarantee that all will be remembered from visitors viewing the completed K7 will be "they could have fixed that bit too!"

Wonderboot
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:21 pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: Dick Ransome / pre-crash damage to K7

Post by Wonderboot » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:31 pm

Absolutely!
I'm getting a lot of bloody row in here...

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4922
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Dick Ransome / pre-crash damage to K7

Post by Renegadenemo » Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:42 pm

Have to say I agree with doing away with the duck dent. If we had the fairing and could extract the relevant stretches from the water damage as we can probably do with the seagull dent then that's one thing but building the damage from scratch seems pointless.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

User avatar
mtskull
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Dick Ransome / pre-crash damage to K7

Post by mtskull » Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:23 pm

I have said my piece on this one before but for what it is worth, I believe that if a piece exhibits damage that was present before the final run then it is entirely appropriate to conserve the piece and preserve the damage in order that it might tell its own story.

I can't, however, see any point whatsoever in faking damage to a newly fabricated part on the grounds that the original, lost part was damaged.

I would suggest the most appropriate course of action would be to replace both damaged fairings with new-build and then display the recovered fairing (with crash damage repaired but bird damage remaining), close to the port side of K7, along with a life-size contemporary photo of the damage and some suitable explanatory text.
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals.

Post Reply