Rather than clog the Norwegian Skua thread let me start afresh with what may well be a lengthy and rough ride.
The term ‘Spitfire data plate special’ is thrown around pretty freely these days but what do the people, who use the term, really believe they are describing? The implication is that it is a completely new manufactured Spitfire airframe and that the data plate from some wreckage has just been riveted on, with the ‘new’ airframe adopting the RAF/RN serial identity of the donor plate…and its provenance historic link to the original. This clearly offends quite a large number of people and if it were true it would in my view be justified.
I have had a general interest in Spitfires for over 50 years now and a particular interest over the last 40. During that time Spitfires have been resuscitated to flying status from a gradually declining ‘pot’ of donor material.
To clarify: there were many many data plates fitted to a Spitfire, all looking basically the same. All they convey is that a certain manufacturing source built this component/assembly, to this drawing number and issue level, and it passed inspection and has been stamped accordingly and riveted on. In simple terms the first component was stamped ‘1’. There was no reference to the RAF/RN military serial on these plates, although occasionally it has been seen written in pencil on the reverse.
Spitfires in service were subject to multiple changes of components due to accidents, flying battle damage and development upgrades. It follows that a Spitfire during its service life could end up with a different prop/engine/bearer/cowlings/wings/tail unit/windscreen than those it was originally built with. So any a provenance links back to an RAF/RN serial can only be from the fuselage structure, that is from frame 5 firewall to the tail unit break at frame 19. It also has to be remembered that in WWII even the fuselage was not totally sacrosanct and that some Civilian Repair Units would cut the fuselage between the firewall and the cockpit and mate together two fuselages using approved longeron splices detailed in the Battle Damage Repairs AP.
Take a modern hypothetical case. On the one hand we have a complete fuselage untouched since it was manufactured in the 1940’s and on the other hand we have a couple of square feet of fuselage cockpit side, with or without a data plate, but with a robust and proven link to an original RAF/RN serial. With the current technology and tooling both of these items can be rebuilt to airworthy status, one clearly requiring more work than the other. Even the complete fuselage will have a good many if not most of the skins changed, local corrosion areas will be rectified and all rivets will be changed. With these two ends of the scale, imagine the complete fuselage having more and more material removed in small increments until finally it is the same basic donor size as the couple of square feet of cockpit side. The question you then have to ask yourself is at what point along that incremental reduction line did the complete fuselage lose its right to be rebuilt to fly bearing the original provenance RAF/RN serial. We will all have a view on where that line should be…and it is up for discussion.
Only two data plates on Spitfires have significance with regard to CAA registration. These are plates with drawings numbers bearing the Vickers type number followed by 27, which is the historic group for fuselage. In theory this also includes the tail fin, going back to flying boat hulls and the proto Spitfire which had an integral fin. The most important plate is in the cockpit RH side usually underneath the datum longeron and quite inconspicuous. The secondary plate is on the more logical firewall but technically refers to just the firewall assembly, which latterly became a sub contracted item.
Historically the building of ‘new’ Spitfires has gone through five iterations:-
1) In the mid 1980’s the late Charles Church wishing to expand his fleet of Spitfires to squadron strength and marks various, commissioned the build of a new MK V ‘EE606’ for which there was not the slightest provenance connection to the RAAF Spitfire that bore that serial. Even though it carried an original data plate, ‘EE606’ was just a best guess estimate. Historical provenance was not an issue to Charles Church. They were to be aircraft for his personal collection. He was not trying to deceive any party and they were not built for on-sale.
2) Next in the early 1990’s came a batch of part fuselages, cockpit sections, firewalls with short fuselage structure etc, notably a number from a scrap yard in Cape Town and all with 100% linkage to an original RAF serial. Most of these are now in process and one has flown.
3) You then have a three Spitfires, all tragically fatal crashes, all total write offs by any definition but one now flies and the other two are well on the way back to good health.
4) Next comes a couple of Spitfires recovered from belly landed crashes on the French coast and subjected to years of buried wet salt sand.
5) Finally you have now, basically archeological digs yielding high impact damaged parts.
It is my view that aircraft in category 1) are concerning as time progresses, not least because it is ‘cheating on history’ and buyer beware. Aircraft in all the other categories I personally applaud although in a couple of cases in category 2) I would have preferred to have seen a little more effort to maximize the original inclusions.
I have nothing but the greatest respect for the benefactors who have commissioned at some financial risk the rebuild of aircraft in the latter two categories. This is no route to cheap Spitfire ownership. To watch the two principal UK engineering facilities dissect these donors down to the very last rivet, to treat and repair, rather than replace, the smallest of part for inclusion, is truly heart warming.
Having just seen images of a fully painted and coded 1940’s Mk I fuselage emerging from the paint shop last week to which will be married an abundance of correct and period ‘fixtures and fittings’, fabric covered ailerons, hand pump undercarriage and the like, I personally cannot wait. This to me will better represent a BoF/BoB Spitfire than the Mk I hanging in Lambeth.
If you are in the rebuild to fly brigade you will each draw your own personal line on that diminishing fuselage with regard to the validity of carrying the RAF/RN serial. If you belong to the archeological camp where every mortal remnant and remain that comes out of the ground has to be faithfully recorded, washed …and I suspect in the main stored privately I respect your view, but feel there is sufficient supply for both groups to work in harmony. A half a dozen Spitfires out of how many buried or dug out of the ground?
‘Data plate Specials’ rebuilt with honesty, integrity and transparency have my vote. The odd one, registered, but lacking those three qualities is being monitored.
Whatever you may think now, I will wager that in 10 years time you will think differently. 🙂
Mark
By: RAFRochford - 1st April 2009 at 11:06
As a 1/3 scale model, I doubt it 😉
Spoilsport!!
By: Zac Yates - 1st April 2009 at 08:59
As a 1/3 scale model, I doubt it 😉
By: Propstrike - 1st April 2009 at 08:11
Will we see this ‘mystery ship’ get airborne in 2009?
By: WJ244 - 6th January 2009 at 22:31
To quote WJ244: ……”sold with a file containing photos and written details of what was repaired and replaced during restoration. If the file is maintained future purchasers know exactly what they are getting for their money.”
My point in post #45 is that such a file surely is an airworthiness requirement and as such, ought to contain precise details of the restoration (or long overdue repairs)!
Aerial
Unfortunately I have never worked on airworthy machines and certainly never been inviolved in a restoration to fly so I wasn’t aware of the paperwork requirements for a certificate of airworthiness. I was just trying to suggest a way of keeping everything honest for the future.
It is probably fair to say that the historic race car world has more than its fair share of cars with dubious provenance. It is too late to right all the wrongs there but in the aviation world there have been comparatively few restorations to fly from basket cases (or worse condition) and it is probably not too late to maintain a history file for each airframe which could be shown to any prospective purchaser so that future buyers know exactly what they are getting for their money. Maybe some feel that there is no need to do so but many if the posts on this forum are requesting information about specific airframes which has been lost in the mists of time so maybe some form of history document is appropriate.
By: Cees Broere - 5th January 2009 at 18:09
IIRC the total number in an 1986 issue of our favourite magazine was 186 or something in that fashion and the list was by Mark12, so a lot of new identities have come forward, some of which were at the time not considered to be suitable for restoration.
Reallity has proved this not to be true, so the next twenty years will be very interesting.
Cheers
Cees
By: Mark12 - 5th January 2009 at 17:29
I’m intrigued by the quoted number of current Spitfires extant, 220. Some years ago Flypast did a survey of all survivors and concluded that the grand total of survivors was 147. ?
Some years ago?
Well yes. That looks like a quote of the published list for 1973.
Who wrote this survey? 😉
Mark
By: Aerial - 4th January 2009 at 20:15
Hmm. The paperwork!
To quote WJ244: ……”sold with a file containing photos and written details of what was repaired and replaced during restoration. If the file is maintained future purchasers know exactly what they are getting for their money.”
My point in post #45 is that such a file surely is an airworthiness requirement and as such, ought to contain precise details of the restoration (or long overdue repairs)!
Aerial
By: WJ244 - 4th January 2009 at 15:30
[QUOTE=I can think of many Spitfires, restored and in process, that don’t “feel” right. They are the ones without soul.[/QUOTE]
I think I know what you mean. I remember seeing a newly restored SE5E sat beside the Shuttleworth SE5A at Old Warden a few years ago and it just seemed that something about the newly restored aircraft wasn’t quite right.
It slowly dawned that it was too perfect. Every panel was absolutely straight and it had no patina of wear whereas the Shuttleworth aircraft had a slightly used look through years of flying and maintenance.
I am sure that given a few years of flying all new restorations acquire that patina and at the same time will regain their soul.
In my view the Shuttleworth Sopwith Triplane and Bristol M1C are both good examples of the case for building what I suppose should rightfully called reproductions. Both are superb aeroplanes built as near to the original spec as possible and to all intents and purposes are late build WW1 machines with all the flying characteristics and engine management problems of the originals. Having been around for a few years now both have acquired that patina and their own soul. Their histories are also well documented and if they were ever to be available for sale prospective purchasers should/would be well aware that they were not being offered a genuine WW1 airframe with a combat/operational history.
Take also the Shuttleworth DH88 Comet. The rebuild to fly meant that some structure was rebuilt and most of the internal systems had to be recreated as they were stripped out when it was hung up at The Festival Of Britain long before Shuttleworth ever laid hands on the aeroplane. In this particular case what was the better option? Do you go with keeping a stripped out shell which has lost much of its history and soul anyway or rebuild to create a machine which can fly and at worst taxy under its own power again. I for one gained huge pleasure from seeing the DH88 in the air and long to see it airborne again before too long. In this particular case I think the right option was chosen although it is a shame that other circumstances have led to the DH88 being grounded again for so long.
I agree that history has its place and it is entirely appropriate in a static airframe to use as much original material as possible in a restoration but when it comes to rebuilding to fly it is inevitable that, in most cases, a lot of new material will be needed to make the aircraft safe. I am sure that in many warbird owners eyes a provenance does affect the value of an aircraft so maybe it would be a good idea to follow the example of many in the classic car world where vehicles are often sold with a file containing photos and written details of what was repaired and replaced during restoration. If the file is maintained future purchasers know exactly what they are getting for their money.
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th January 2009 at 13:30
Maybe we should consider Guy Black’s concept of preserving the “soul” of the aircraft.
Spot-on! One of the most pertinent and, dare I say, sensible offerings since Mark12 started this discussion. Soul is where its at, and that arrives (mostly, in my view) in attention to detail and an affinity to what the aeroplane was, its history and where it came from.
I can think of many Spitfires, restored and in process, that don’t “feel” right. They are the ones without soul.
By: James D - 4th January 2009 at 13:05
Ah, I see.
History leaves its marks. Which, for me, is why it’s real and thus interesting unlike your impossible hypothesis.
Regards,
Ooh – cutting.
There´s nothing impossible about it. Its happened in before and it´ll happen again. Or do you seriously believe that no copy/fake/reproduction of anything has ever slipped through the net of authentication by the experts? Dream on!
By: G-ORDY - 4th January 2009 at 13:03
Maybe we should consider Guy Black’s concept of preserving the “soul” of the aircraft.
By: JDK - 4th January 2009 at 12:58
No – for the purposes of this discussion you can´t tell the difference. Nobody can. Our two hypothetical parts are identical (as I said before) and nobody knows, or can tell which is which. Where does that leave the historical aspect?
Ah, I see.
History leaves its marks. Which, for me, is why it’s real and thus interesting unlike your impossible hypothesis.
Regards,
By: James D - 4th January 2009 at 12:35
S o r r y. Care to reframe your statement, so it’s clear to me what you mean?
Its a question, not a statement, and I suppose I can try.
Couple of false assumptions, here, IMHO.
1 – I could tell the difference. If I couldn’t, I’d be interested in finding out; I know people whose job is to differeniate, I’d ask them.
2 – I don’t get ‘dewy eyed’ about either, or ‘dismiss’ except when offered as false coin – the original contains useful historical information, which the modern repro doesn’t. The modern repro will go towards making a safe flying aircraft – rather a good (different) thing.
I´ve not made any assumptions on this thread. Those are all yours. I was merely attempting to offer up a morsel of hypothetical food for thought.
” I could tell the difference. If I couldn’t, I’d be interested in finding out; I know people whose job is to differeniate, I’d ask them.”
No – for the purposes of this discussion you can´t tell the difference. Nobody can. Our two hypothetical parts are identical (as I said before) and nobody knows, or can tell which is which. Where does that leave the historical aspect?
By: JDK - 4th January 2009 at 10:11
You haven´t understood what I´m saying at all.
And you´re telling me what I already know.
Never mind.
S o r r y. Care to reframe your statement, so it’s clear to me what you mean? In the meantime, your statement –
“you have two bits of metal skin. One brand new, and one sixty years old and flew during the battle of Britain. You don´t know which is which because you haven´t been told. They are, to all intents and purposes identical.
Which one do you get all dewey eyed about, and which one do you dismiss as a mere reproduction?”
Couple of false assumptions, here, IMHO.
1 – I could tell the difference. If I couldn’t, I’d be interested in finding out; I know people whose job is to differeniate, I’d ask them.
2 – I don’t get ‘dewy eyed’ about either, or ‘dismiss’ except when offered as false coin – the original contains useful historical information, which the modern repro doesn’t. The modern repro will go towards making a safe flying aircraft – rather a good (different) thing.
Er, that’s it, isn’t it?
By: James D - 4th January 2009 at 10:00
Not at all – that kind of detailed information is how and why can tell the difference (most restorers would be able to tell you the difference) and why we can achieve highly authentic accurate restorations using them. Watering down the original data pool of original material is a problem for all in the long run, and creates ersatz history, perverting the chances of accurate accounts and understanding.
This forum wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a major ‘layperson’ interest in genuine Spitfire history (what would we discuss?) likewise the need and use of specialist knowledge. Many of us enjoy the gee whiz element, but look further or work in more depth in the field.
That’s why major collections take care to incorporate as much possible original material in their restorations or conservations of original aircraft, and that source provides quality data for all.
You haven´t understood what I´m saying at all.
And you´re telling me what I already know.
Never mind.
By: JDK - 4th January 2009 at 08:14
That is another arguement entirely. Yes, a genuine part (or painting) can tell you a lot of things. But as I said before – if you don´t know which of our hypothetical parts is genuine, then it makes no odds.
Not at all – that kind of detailed information is how and why can tell the difference (most restorers would be able to tell you the difference) and why we can achieve highly authentic accurate restorations using them. Watering down the original data pool of original material is a problem for all in the long run, and creates ersatz history, perverting the chances of accurate accounts and understanding.
This forum wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a major ‘layperson’ interest in genuine Spitfire history (what would we discuss?) likewise the need and use of specialist knowledge. Many of us enjoy the gee whiz element, but look further or work in more depth in the field.
That’s why major collections take care to incorporate as much possible original material in their restorations or conservations of original aircraft, and that source provides quality data for all.
And I´d really rather not contemplate anyone gaining “gratification” (:eek:) from looking at the original Mona Lisa, thanks very much! That may have been OK in the 1500s, but er… well….
Well, what else do you call the millions of people who go past the thing in a scrum each year? They look at it because they are told to; it’s sold on mystique, and 99% of the audience couldn’t tell the difference between the real thing and a fake or why it’s ‘important’ or indeed ‘great art’. That’s why we have experts and why they need the original material.
Some art professionals are actually overcome with emotion in front of great paintings – before anyone here scoffs, those awed by a killing machine need to be careful of stone-flinging.
(We were at the Louvre this June, and the people watching was interesting. I’m sure a Duxford stepladder might be of use there.)
Shorty – there have been a number of ‘lost’ Spitfires ‘found’ in that period, and wrecks that weren’t viable for restoration that now are. Also I have a data-plate metal stamping machine in the shed – what Mark would you like? 😉
Regards,
By: mark_pilkington - 4th January 2009 at 05:50
That is another arguement entirely. Yes, a genuine part (or painting) can tell you a lot of things. But as I said before – if you don´t know which of our hypothetical parts is genuine, then it makes no odds.
It makes a lot of odds, which is exactly the ponit of the thread, and JDK’s post.
“If” transparancy and honesty isnt maintained then future historians/ researchers will be led to believe these new build aircraft are authentic 1940 built examples, and therefore will mislead as to the quality etc of wartime production and materials.
The quality of the reconstructions, and the accuracy to design and fitout are to be applauded.
Despite their best intent to be accurate, many of todays “reconstructions” and ‘restorations” take warbird’s to “better than new” condition, with polished skins, ripple and blemish free gloss paint work, sometimes dual cockpit conversions and updated engines or avionics, and in most cases rivet lines and metal work equal or better than the hurried wartime production.
Theres nothing wrong with that, flying warbirds should be at the highest mechanical condition, and a pride in the quality of presentation is understandable, but they are not preserving history in the fullest sense, they are providing a different and important experience.
All that is asked for is transparancy in what original components exist within the airframe, and their true provenance, simply to distinguish to other more original examples, flying or static.
regards
Mark Pilkington
By: Shorty01 - 4th January 2009 at 01:34
I’m intrigued by the quoted number of current Spitfires extant, 220. Some years ago Flypast did a survey of all survivors and concluded that the grand total of survivors was 147. That gives an increase of 50% in the last 10 to 15 years. Having only missed a few issues of Flypast ( my main source of info before the internet) since Issue 2 it hasn’t been apparent that substantial remains of Spitfires have been emerging from the bushes etc., at a rate of at least four a year. I can only surmise that a large portion of the new ones are Data Plate Specials. Am I correct ?
By: James D - 3rd January 2009 at 23:22
Sometimes they have. However for people interested in history, rather than whiz/noise and instant, superficial gratification, both the original Mona Lisa and an original bit of Spitfire metal contains and offers information that the copy /modern reproduction doesn’t.
In the case of the Mona Lisa, for instance, the original gives data about Leonardo’s painting technique which helps date and authenticate other examples of his work (or exclude them).
In the case of a piece of Spitfire skin, it gives information as to the riveting accuracy, skill and tools used (by witness marks) the workers at Castle Bromwich, Westland or Supermarine. That in itself is a trivial point, but these trivial bits of data add up to an accurate picture of the life, work, skills etc. of the people of Britain in 1940, not those of the 2000s.
That is another arguement entirely. Yes, a genuine part (or painting) can tell you a lot of things. But as I said before – if you don´t know which of our hypothetical parts is genuine, then it makes no odds.
And I´d really rather not contemplate anyone gaining “gratification” (:eek:) from looking at the original Mona Lisa, thanks very much! That may have been OK in the 1500s, but er… well….
By: JDK - 3rd January 2009 at 22:52
Just my point – because they know they´re reproductions. If you hung a perfect copy in its place and didn´t tell anyone, people would still be oohing and aahing over it. (In fact, how do you know they haven´t!?):diablo:
Sometimes they have. However for people interested in history, rather than whiz/noise and instant, superficial gratification, both the original Mona Lisa and an original bit of Spitfire metal contains and offers information that the copy /modern reproduction doesn’t.
In the case of the Mona Lisa, for instance, the original gives data about Leonardo’s painting technique which helps date and authenticate other examples of his work (or exclude them).
In the case of a piece of Spitfire skin, it gives information as to the riveting accuracy, skill and tools used (by witness marks) the workers at Castle Bromwich, Westland or Supermarine. That in itself is a trivial point, but these trivial bits of data add up to an accurate picture of the life, work, skills etc. of the people of Britain in 1940, not those of the 2000s.
Sign In
December 21, 2008 at 8:44 pm