Skins on BBMF Fighters Query

When MK356 was stripped at Abingdon in the late 80’s / early 90’s prior to rebuild, and I walked past it several times a day, it looked original.

How much was replaced during the rebuild ?

Check the Bluebird (Campbell’s boat) rebuild project

www.bluebirdproject.com

they are moving heaven and earth to preserve original material but often stress how easy it would be to fabricate new parts rather than refurbish the old bits

Excellent summary from the ‘coal face’ from Roobarb of how things are (and have been). But I do suspect that in future owners will be a little less hasty to swap out historic structure or skin for new metal, if for no other reason than the fact that original material is becoming ever more scarce – just a prediction….

It’s not unusual for an owner/operator/custodian/Air Force etc to specify skin replacement as their wish. Some skins whilst airworthy may have what are seen as ugly or unsightly repairs from previous incidents/collisions/accidents and they just don’t want them there anymore. Some operators are not looking specifically at originality/provenance percentage but may be looking more at the viable operation of an aeroplane for as long into the future as possible and wish to eradicate any future concerns over structural integrity or sometimes widespread but light corrosion of internal skin faces (say in a wing) where access for future treatment may be a concern. The remit may be that it is wiser to re-skin during a major stripdown/overhaul for the long term good of the structure. Many Spitfires have had original spars replaced with new manufactured items, though the removed items are perfectly servicable. However as there is no finite fatigue and levels of fatigue on a 65 year old aeroplane may not be recorded even on military examples, there may be a sound argument for re-sparring as a baseline zero time. Mk V draws attention to the original skins on PL965, yet it operates with a modified wing internal structure to incorporate gun bay tanks and it has new spars. It is all compromises to accomodate an owners wish (though that owner may have been several owners ago). No one is wrong or right, it is down to the individual owner/operator as to how they wish to proceed with the future well being of their aeroplane. It’s nothing new, how many Hawks or Tornados still have all their original structure? None that I ever encountered that’s for sure. The relevant restoration shop may be in a position to guide or advise but at the end of the day if someone says “Turn my Spitfire IX into a T9” it’s going to happen or it will be moving elsewhere to happen.

I hope that helps.

Roobarb

Of course it matters – its historic fabric, well worth preserving if it is (or can be made) serviceable.

Does it matter, it’s only a sheet of metal at the end of the day. As long as the spirit lives on.

Yes, that sums it up quite well.

Clearly, with the starting point being in general so much lower than it once was, new skins are just the icing on the cake!

These days, I am an observer looking in, so I wont comment on current practise, except to say what I have – original skins can be recovered, if the will is there.

Bruce

Its a fashion thing to a significant degree. Until relativley recently replacing skins was simply thought of as ‘improving’ the aircraft. I think Bruce will comment here – but as I recollect in their early days it was Historic Flying’s standard procedure to re-skin, almost in totality, every project. These days its usually only done out of necessity where a skin is damaged beyond repair – again, as Bruce comments above, if there is a will even damaged skins can be brought back in to use – and the fashion today is certainly to retain as much original material as possible.

So why don’t they? Why make an aircraft unnecessarily less original?

Tony T explained one reason, but I think its fair to say that all owners, operators and restorers will always keep as much orginial material as possible. If orgininal material isn’t used its because it is too far gone to re-use/restore/make safe, would be prohibitive in cost or, importantly, would be inherently unsafe to use.

Echoes of lots of recent ‘arguments’ on this forum, I fear!

The skins tend to age harden, go brittle and start to crack around fastener holes etc so are replaced. The likes of the FW190 will in effect not have been flying and in use, so will not have had much work hardening of them.

ditto – I suppose it’s a cost thing, but to my mind it’s a bit like putting plastic windows on an old house. Time will tell, but I won’t be surprised like with the windows, you wished you still had the originals frames.:)

So why don’t they? Why make an aircraft unnecessarily less original?

They can! As noted above, FHC’s FW190 has mostly original skins; it took a fair bit of work to return them to perfect, but it can be done.

What is the reason to replace the skins during overhaul? Why can’t they just stay on?

Thanx for info on RR XIX and PL965. Good to know. I have a large lump of wing from LF363 too complete with roundels…..it will be going sadly as it no longer fits in the museum!

I wonder what became of the sooty underwing fabric from LF363

No sooty ‘underwing fabric’ on LF363, but much of the original port wing skin is on display at the Norfolk & Suffolk Aviation Museum, Flixton.

Hello Eddie,

I think that P7350 lost her bullet holes about 2 years ago when the last of the original skin was replaced.

Last time I was there they had the panel on show next to her. I wonder what became of the sooty underwing fabric from LF363

I doubt any spits flying still have original skins now.

PL965 still flies with all her original fuselage skins, inc factory stamps and 1945 bullet hole repairs.

Hello Eddie,

I think that P7350 lost her bullet holes about 2 years ago when the last of the original skin was replaced.

RRoyces mk 19 which was ex BBMF Had its original skins up until the start of it’s ongoing rebuild just over a yearish ago?