Four Spitfires on UK Register

Isnt it about time certain people on this forum stopped whinging about certain aspects of aircraft restoration & just appreciate the fact that we are able to get these aircraft back in the air.

But you wouldn’t recognize this forum if they did, would you?

why have a three or four bladed prop when you can have five. :diablo:

Why have five if you can have six? (I think that’s what Mark12’s avatar says) But if I were to choose, I’d like seven: a Mk V plus a Mk IX.

Ahh, what a beauty.

Don’t you just love the sheer power of the Mk XIV Spitfire (or should that be the FR XIV, no not starting another argument). Even without an engine it looks agressive:)

Cheers

Cees

Agree most definately, Griffons for ever !!!:) To me the fuselage looks more balanced with the longer nose, & why have a three or four bladed prop when you can have five. :diablo:

i hope the owner paints them all bright pink with yellow spots:D

Thanks for all the comments chaps, I certainly didn’t intend my comments to come across as negative, merely to provoke discussion amongst those who contribute to this forum. I certainly didnt want to detract from the work done by the restoration facility..

I applaud anyone taking on the restoration of anything, let alone an aircraft like a Spitfire. My point was based on what is, and what isn’t, acceptable to start a rebuild and end up with a flying aircraft. We all know that most rebuilds involve replacement of the rivets and skins, but I stand corrected as to the intentions of the owner.

EH

I love the camera blisters!

Nobody seems to mind when a Hurricane gets re-skinned

Ahh, what a beauty.

Don’t you just love the sheer power of the Mk XIV Spitfire (or should that be the FR XIV, no not starting another argument). Even without an engine it looks agressive:)

Cheers

Cees

A quick flash over with Scotchbright dipped in Botox and voila! 😉

Mark

Owners get what they ask for from the restoration, enthusiasts might get to share the sight of another flying Spitfire and the majority just appreciate the result,myself included.

I can now understand why some people request that the restoration is kept secret until the first flight in full scheme. Other owners develop a thick skin and ignore the comments.

SPITFIRES – THAT REMINDS ME …..

Thinking about using originals skins etc., about 10 -15 years back, on the south coast at Chichester, take either the A286 or B2201, can’t remember which one, down into the peninsula. After a few miles, on the right hand side of the road was a farm entrance, with a sign saying Aircraft Museum or similar. When you drove into the yard there was a Spitfire on a grassed plinth and a barn full of wartime clothing and artefacts, the story was…

During the latter part of the war, the farm was taken over as an Advanced Landing Ground, runway strips laid down with the perforated metal strips etc.. A Dutch Spitfire squadron was operating from there, one of whom over ran the end of the runway and ended in the ditch, breaking the back of the Spitfire, which was simply left there. A few years after the war, the farmer & his sons, got the Spit up to the barn and repaired it for display – by shoving a girder up the fuselage to straighten it – now that is original!. Anyway when I saw it, it was painted and looked reasonable, no markings or ID anywhere and the objects in the barn were varied and many.

Now, I know, its been a long time and probably there is now at least two spits flying in California from this pedigree, but – does anyone live locally to Chichester and know anything of this museum – I know I was’nt dreaming and the pubs were shut at the time – Help!!

Cheers Brian. 😀

Please don’t think for one moment that re-using existing skins was a cost saving economy measure. Far from it.

Yes, lets be clear, it is often far more expensive and time consuming to use original skins than it is to make new ones. I speak from bitter experience!

Bruce

The UK has a world class restoration industry – dont knock it!

I agree; it is something that everybody here should appreciate.

I think it is important to remember exactly what a ‘Spitfire’ (for example) actually is. It is a mass-produced aircraft made from hundreds of thousands of individual pieces, many of which it is essential to replace if the aircraft is to be maintained airworthy for any length of time.

To my mind any manufactured parts that are within the original designed specification are indistinguishable from each other…

…and so surely it follows that any Spitfire assembled from such parts isn’t a replica or reproduction Spitfire…..it is a Spitfire!

Any other discussion is purely academic (and so ideal for internet forums). If we want to be pedantic we could say that few here have ever even seen a Spitfire flying…..sure we’ve seen some replica paint flying…

…but since none of that paint is ‘original’ we haven’t actually seen the Spitfire obscured by it!

Don’t forget also that in a very few years nobody who was involved in the design, manufacture, maintenance or operation of ‘original’ Spitfires will be left alive. Without the considerable efforts of the restoration industry all Spitfires would be very quickly grounded.

In my opinion the ‘preservation’ of historic aircraft should also include the preservation of the skills required to design, manufacture and maintain these important icons of engineering, and what better way to preserve these important skills than to develop them into a self-supporting commercial industry that supports the airworthy aircraft that we all admire?

Four Spitfires on UK register

HI all, well said Cees & Bruce, & thanks for you comments Peter. Isnt it about time certain people on this forum stopped whinging about certain aspects of aircraft restoration & just appreciate the fact that we are able to get these aircraft back in the air. If a customer wants origional skins with origional blemishes then no problem, you get that athentic look. Besides whats it got to do with anyone else anyway !!

Steve

Please don’t think for one moment that re-using existing skins was a cost saving economy measure. Far from it. Indeed to gather the dimensions, shape and form of that adjacent FR camera window, in all respects, lost over the years, necessitated sending engineers to Florrenne in Belgium, to measure up the closest known example.

Mark

It is unfair to say the least to criticise the work done based on one very poor picture of a bare fuselage. If one looks at the previous picture, it already looks better.

I suspect we are seeing the reflection of the blue cover on the neighbouring aeroplane – whichever it is…!

The UK has a world class restoration industry – dont knock it!

The use of original skins and structure as far as possible is laudable, and should be applauded.

Bruce

To all,

Seems like there is an increading feeling of negativity against the currect flyable restorations. Personally I am getting increasingly frustrated by it.

There is a professional industry active in the UK and all over the world which makes it possible for joe public to admire flyable aircraft during displays. Some of those who work on “our beloved” aircraft types frequent this forum and others as well, do you think they appreciate the whining about this subject? They provide us with the pics taken during the reconstruction/restoration process.

I think we should all need a reality check every now and then. As Peter says, there is no way you can do things right in whatever way. That’s of course the problem with forums on the internet, but some of us should think before posting their own opinion over and over again. You are all entitled to your opinion but repeating it is getting boring. Accept the way things are or find another interest.

During the seventies and eighties restoration meant trowing away any ususable parts and replace, or mix parts from different aircraft (as it was done during the waryears and even today).

Next time admire the workmanship and effort that has gone into the recreation of these magnificent flying machines and the hardworking crew that spent years to make sure it is safe to fly for all to enjoy. If the current state of things is due to official regulations (CAA or whoever) then so be it.

Think next time when you have some bodypanels on your car renewed, remember by the current standards it isn’t authentic any more and rapidly turning into a replica.:mad:
Or start a topic on what’s authentic and what’s not, should keep everyone happy for a few years.
Rant over
Cheers

Cees

It seems to me here, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t.

This was a specific request from the customer to retain maximum original material and the skin work is deemed to be within original manufacturers tolerance.

Clearly photographing with flash, or light source behind the the camera, at 2 or 3 degrees to the skin line is exacerbating the apparent shadow effect.

Mark

Thanx for the clarification on the customer’s requirements and specs Peter….that is very laudible of him and in keeping with what I try to do with my projects (i.e. re-use/make do and mend). This makes her more original and akin to what she would have looked like ‘in service’.
One of my fav Mustangs is Twilight Tear, at the Gathering she looked real and used unlike all the shiny and immaculate (though lovely) examples.

I have seen a photo of a Spit somewhere with the D Day stripes applied by a 6 inch brush…..can you imagine the outcry from some quarters if an aircraft turned up at a show like that!? Not by me though. I also have a photo of a jeep with crudely applied markings/numbers…..never seen one at Beltring like that!
Hats off to the owner and restorer of RM927!:)

It seems to me here, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t.

This was a specific request from the customer to retain maximum original material and the skin work is deemed to be within original manufacturers tolerance.

Clearly photographing with flash, or light source behind the the camera, at 2 or 3 degrees to the skin line is exacerbating the apparent shadow effect.

Mark

Perhaps the owner of SG-25/RM927 has specified for all the skins, with their faults and repairs, to be resuscitated and retained to maximise the provenance

Good point, but faults and repairs I could live with. It ‘looks’ as if somebody has beaten the skins back into shape with a 14lb hammer and sandbag:eek:

Will be good to see it fly anyway

RM927, confirmation sheet metal check from the horse’s mouth.

90% of internal structure re-used.

80% of external skin re-used.

Mark