Spitfires " preserved " in museums ?

Indeed; some Spits, for instance the time-capsule OTU Mk.I at Chicago, are especially valuable as artifacts for reference, to establish the sort of details we see being thrashed out with great effort on this forum regarding, say, the Hornet, Whirlwind and Stirling cockpit projects. Fortunately there are enough Spits extant that not only is it practical to operate some of the survivors, but critical mass of the type has been achieved so that a cottage industry has come into being in support. (Compare that with the Tempest situation.) There’s certainly room for both, and some of the museum Spits really should remain static permanently.

As to not enough possible “Spitfire reincarnators” to render viable a theoretical haul of hulks from underneath old airbases in Myanmar…surely that would be at least partially because never before has such a haul been mooted as a possibility! And I’d think that even if Mr Cundall’s effort were to bear fruit, not all of the resulting airframes/parts would perforce become projects to fly: surely some would become museum rebuilds, and some even conserved for display as found. I think there’d be enough interest to find homes for any number of exhumed Spitfires. Heck, if I had the space and the cash, I’d take one on…and it’d become one of the “as-found” displays…

S.

.

There never has been 12 / 24 / 126 eager, would-be, Spitfire owners chomping at the bit for a hulk to bring back to flight status.

Moggy

Speculation? 😉

Mark

What you probably don’t appreciate is that to get PK683 airworthy would require everything you see of the aircraft that ‘Did’ get built by supermarine in the 1940’s would apart from the data plate get thrown into a skip.

Er…no.

Mark

What you probably don’t appreciate is that to get PK683 airworthy would require everything you see of the aircraft that ‘Did’ get built by supermarine in the 1940’s would apart from the data plate get thrown into a skip.

Really? Is it that bad? Do you have access to surveys or inspection reports?

What you probably don’t appreciate is that to get PK683 airworthy would require everything you see of the aircraft that ‘Did’ get built by supermarine in the 1940’s would apart from the data plate get thrown into a skip.

Personally I’d like to see the approach Cosford used to have with the Axis machines, or Bruntingthorpe – keep them ‘live’ but don’t fly them ( intentionally :rolleyes: )

I know this has been covered a lot in the past, but just to add to the above point.
Even ground running an aircraft has some (very small compared to flying) risks. Parts wear out and require replacing, making the “artefact” slightly less original over time.

Not a problem for something relatively common (like Buccs, Vulcans and Victors, slight bias I know), but it’s nice to have a few purely static examples kept safe and turned off with no danger of engine fires, FOD damage or blown electrics. Not all of course, a static example will never impress people the way a living, breathing aircraft will.

Personally I’d like to see the approach Cosford used to have with the Axis machines, or Bruntingthorpe – keep them ‘live’ but don’t fly them ( intentionally :rolleyes: )

Surely these aircraft must be better restoration prospects / possibilities than aircraft buried underground for 60 yrs ? Why are they not restored to flying condition ?

You touch on one of the absurdities of the whole media hullabaloo surrounding the Indiana Cundall circus.

There never has been 12 / 24 / 126 eager, would-be, Spitfire owners chomping at the bit for a hulk to bring back to flight status.

Moggy

there is a historical need to have aircraft ‘preserved’ and ‘conserved’ rather than restored.

There is a perennial debate about these three descriptions of historic aircraft in the threads in this Forum. I fully understand it but being only an enthusiast for the aircraft in general have no passion in favour of any particular description but would have thought that must be a place for examples which fit each category.

Without wishing to open the proverbial can of worms, there is a historical need to have aircraft ‘preserved’ and ‘conserved’ rather than restored. The Science Museum Mk1 is probably the best example of this. Both of the Mk24 Spitfires you discuss would need significant work to make them airworthy, thus rendering them ‘imperfect’ and ‘unoriginal’ as artifacts. The Spitfire is, perhaps, the worst example of a museum aircraft to choose – the airworthy population is extensive, as are museum examples. The historian has the ability to study the ‘artifacts’ in assorted museums whereas the enthusiast can see, hear and smell a representative of the breed (albeit, not in WW2 configuration due to stringent airworthiness requirements and operating practicalities) and airshows all over the world.

To fly or not to fly, the eternal question. There are several static Mosquitoes in UK museums – to turn one into a ‘flyer’ much of the original structure and fittings would have to be discarded.

so more a case of risking their longevity ( by having them flying ) ?

I agree. I am not greedy and I have certainly seen plenty of Spitfires of various markls flying at Legends and elsewhere in recent years. In any case an immaculately restored and costly flying Spitfire always bears ther risk of destruction or severe damage but those safely in museums are there for us all tlo enjoy for a long time to come.

I’m obviously not one of the ‘most’!

There are plenty enough Spitfires flying, there is a need for museums to be able to display these aircraft statically so that they can be viewed closely by the public and preserved as they are as artefacts relevant to a collection or its area.
Both the museums you mention have a strong case for displaying the Spitfire due to their strong local connection with the type.

Personally I prefer to see the satus quo maintained, some Spits flying, while others sit in museums.