Restored vs Recreated

Now thats nice!

And the MK XII EN224, can we expect that beauty too before long?

Cheers

Cees

Im with you here. A real Spitfire has a low back, Griffon and 5 blade prop. Oh and maybe clipped wings. oh and maybe cannon. Come to think of it I like the bigger verticle stabiliser and rudder as well.
There is a reason the late marks look like that. Because they are better. 🙂

Benyboy,

Apart from the number of blades, I think you might have something there. 🙂

With a fair wind it should not be too many years before we see the below.

Mark

Im with you here. A real Spitfire has a low back, Griffon and 5 blade prop. Oh and maybe clipped wings. oh and maybe cannon. Come to think of it I like the bigger verticle stabiliser and rudder as well.
There is a reason the late marks look like that. Because they are better. 🙂

Someone deliberately made a low back into a high back?!!! Ruddy `ooligans.

Wheres the throwing up smiley??

Hi all, I cant see any reason why someone would want to turn a MK XV1 low back into a high back. Only possible reason is just to get those classic lines !!!!! Cant see any milage in messin with origional airframe. I cant think that it would do much for the value either. Not enough low backs flying anyway !!!!

Steve.

I would have thought that in practical terms, that is just a modification. Aeroplanes are modified for all sorts of reasons and the owners desire to have the aeroplane look different from its original configuration is one of them.

Just a thought, what category does TE184/G-MXVI fall into restoration or recreation. Originally built as a low back Mk.XVI then converted to a high back configuration, how does that work with the CAA rules?

Someone deliberately made a low back into a high back?!!! Ruddy `ooligans.

Wheres the throwing up smiley??

Thanks very much, MarkV.

Just a thought, what category does TE184/G-MXVI fall into restoration or recreation.

Restoration

Originally built as a low back Mk.XVI then converted to a high back configuration, how does that work with the CAA rules?

You advise them you are re-building the aircraft to high-back configuration (many 16’s were built that way), in a similar way to modern day conversions of single seat Mk IX’s to T.IX’s.

Just a thought, what category does TE184/G-MXVI fall into restoration or recreation. Originally built as a low back Mk.XVI then converted to a high back configuration, how does that work with the CAA rules?

Wasn’t this airframe dubbed a late production prototype using many superior design components from later Spits (Mk VIII ailerons etc IIRC).

It was, in discussion – but officially it was a 1942 Westland built Spitfire V, albeit incorporating a mix of later Mods (and some modern ones) to create an ‘idealised’ early airframe. Just put G-MKVC in to G-INFO for full details – its still there.

We do have a ‘Permit to Fly’, which is the closest you can get to a US Experimental category in the UK, but it is still quite strict with regard to what can and cannot fly.

We could not do a replica build in the manner of the Gerry Beck aircraft, nor indeed can we fly (at the moment) the Flugwerk Fw190’s, or the new build 262’s.

Seems a bit restrictive, overly controlling….and rather at odds with the rest of the EU & world (since the 262s do fly in Germany, etc).

May seem a silly question, but has anyone tried asking the CAA to revise those rules?

PFA perhaps? (since the EAA does a lot of similar efforts in the U.S. working with the FAA).

Jack,

Yes, you are right.

We do have a ‘Permit to Fly’, which is the closest you can get to a US Experimental category in the UK, but it is still quite strict with regard to what can and cannot fly.

We could not do a replica build in the manner of the Gerry Beck aircraft, nor indeed can we fly (at the moment) the Flugwerk Fw190’s, or the new build 262’s.

The allowable percentage is debatable, and it is up to the restorer to prove to the satisfaction of the authorities that they have what they claim.

Bruce

????

So am I understanding this correct?
I the UK there is no experimental/exibition catagory for certification just standard??
So your Spitfire or Mustang must be a restoration of a documented airframe?
Nothing like Gerry Beck’s P-51A new build is allowed unless you can cobble up some paperwork that makes it something it not?
What percentage of your the a/c would be required by the UK FAA to consider it the actual aircraft and not a “home/new built???

That is a problem with large public collections, they collect so little and much of what they do hold is not on display and slowly deterorates.

I personally know over 150 owners of vintage/warbird/historic aircraft – these are privately owned. Most of these aeroplanes would have long dissapeared if not for these private owners.

Take my own example, My Tiger Moth (A17-300) had not flown from its days in the RAAF until I rebuilt it and put it back in the air in 1982. My Proctor hasn’t flown since 1962 and sometime in the distant future it will fly again after the rebuild is completed. Neither of these aeroplanes would have surrived if their future had depended on some public-owned instution.

The Proctor owned by the National Museum of Australia VH-FEP (Fred Edmunds Proctor) is it on display, it was rebuilt to flying condition involving several thousands of hours of work by Fred. I think that FEP may be a bit like my rebuild in that a lot of non-original material was introduced. How does that fit with a collection policy of public-owned national bodies.

The Moorabin Aircraft Museum has a Proctor (VH-AUC), it is a Mk.1 done up as a a Mk.5 that was once owned by the RAAF. Now a Mk.1 and a Mk.5 are very different aeroplanes structurally.

Off on leave for a week to work on my Proctor and get ready for the QVAG Festival of Flight at Watts Bridge airfield (in a week’s time). Hope to catch up with a couple of you there.

JDK – Have we met?? You seem to know a lot of Australian vintage aeroplane history that I do.

cheers

Ross,

The Moorabin Aircraft Museum has a Proctor (VH-AUC), it is a Mk.1 done up as a a Mk.5 that was once owned by the RAAF. Now a Mk.1 and a Mk.5 are very different aeroplanes structurally.

The colour scheme on AUC was a compromise to allow it to be displayed at the RAAFM Point Cook in the late 1970’s when Ken Baird first completed it as there was no undercover display space for it to fit at Moorabbin at that time, the presentation’modification is only skin (paint) deep, and will be rectified eventually when time/resources permit.

You are correct that without the efforts of the private restorer/enthusiast, many of the remaining examples would not exist, and in some cases, such as yours – are brought bake from death’s knell.

The issue of this thread is more to do with airframes that in reality are new construction based on little or no original parts from the subject airframe.

There is nothing wrong with these airframes, (or yours) claiming provenance, when there is openess and transparency as to what surviving parts existed at the commencement, and what parts are re-used, and which are reconstructed, it is this aspect that creates the problem.

You are publicly doing that with your airframe, and it obviously holds the provenance of the original, that cant be said for many other apparant recreations.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Hello All

Been away for a week and went to the QVAG Watts Bridge ‘Festival of Flight’ – boy what a great fly-in over 100 aeroplanes in attendance, most vintage/warbirds. There was a Mustang doing joy flights for most of the weekend, so we had the background noise of a merlin, along with a couple of T28’s and Yak’s doing joy rides as well. Plenty of Tigers, Austers, and Cubs as well as many of the rarer types – went for a ride (and flew) in a Fleet biplane built in the 1930’s and was lined up to go for a ride in a Stinson Reliant built in 1935 – what a BIG aeroplane.

Spoke to a mate of mine who lives in New Zealand about this thread and he made the point that one way of determining the proverence of an aeroplane is that there can only be one aeroplane and it should be the one which contains the greatest amount of the original aeroplane.

Another point he made was that the former RNZAF Skyhawks only contained about 25% by weight of the original Shyhawks at the time they were retired. He made the point that operational aeroplanes are a work in progress as far as originality goes.

cheers

New build around an Australian dataplate…with an an estimated RAF number.

Mark

Hi Mark,

Wasn’t this airframe dubbed a late production prototype using many superior design components from later Spits (Mk VIII ailerons etc IIRC). Dick Melton also said that this aircraft could do things operational Spits couldn’t do (something to do with the roll rate) Read this in an old FlyPast issue in the late eighties.
Sorry for the delay, just got back from a few days holiday. Nice thread by the way.

Cheers

Cees

‘Proper care’?! You are kidding, right? See my remarks about historic value and financial value being different and sometimes potentially in conflict.

James, with all due respect: your remarks are just that. The apparent ‘conflict between historic and financial value’ that you see is, IMHO, another gross exagerration of a relatively marginal thing.
Just as examples, were the DH-9s brought from overseas and restored, the Hawker biplanes recovered, the Vulcan put back into the air thanks to national level museums to the lack of effort from private institutions? Or, perhaps, were all these projects done improperly and should have been left for the state-run museums to handle?

museums in the UK, happily, tend to be amongst the best of their kind vis a vis restoration standards and documentation.

Would this not be, at least partly, due to the large number of collections, large and small, private and state-owned, in a relatively small area, so that they can learn from each other, but also compete for sponsors and visitors?

Oh dear! I think we are agreement in intent – you are being very glass half empty, I’ve been more optimistic. It is often agreed that the NASM / Smithsonian does achieve these standards I outlined

Well, it may well be so that my take on the situation is glass-half-empty. I would, myself, attribute that to cynicism borne of many years’ work with these museums, and the frustrations resulting therefrom. I was delighted to read Bruce’s comments about the work of the NAHSI– long may it continue. And, I also agree that were a major restoration project to start today, the museum in question would certainly employ improved standards and documentation in that work.

However, I suggest that the case of NASM is an example of the inflated reputation which I have described. I have been involved personally with three restoration projects related to the NASM/Garber collection, and each of those were conducted in the not-so-positive manner which I have detailed. I am aware that the somewhat earlier Fw 190 restoration was the recipient of considerable documentation work and attempts at proper finish and colouration (I do not wish to debate their conclusions, only the effort associated with the work), but again I must point out that this was a maximum interest exhibit and thus subject to unusual standards. It is possible, of course, that I was unlucky enough to be involved in the three projects which did not get proper treatment, but I rather suspect that this is unlikely and that the procedures I witnessed are basically typical at the museum. These standards are indeed typical across the aviation museum community, globally speaking.

Let me just finish by saying that museums in the UK, happily, tend to be amongst the best of their kind vis a vis restoration standards and documentation. This is not meant as a slight against other fine museums around the world! I suspect, merely, that it reflects a certain ‘crossroads of practice’ and understanding (as JDK has mentioned) which is probably inter-mixed with such new ideas of authenticity as those we see emerging in the UK– Warbird restoration via Warbird Colour Services, the NAHSI programme, and such other cases to name a few. I am happy to see a bright future for museum work and restoration, but I equally must caution against any unrealistic attributions of historical accuracy to those exhibits which currently reside in museum collections world-wide.

I want the important historic aircraft to be around for my great grandchildren’s generation. ,

That is a problem with large public collections, they collect so little and much of what they do hold is not on display and slowly deterorates.

I personally know over 150 owners of vintage/warbird/historic aircraft – these are privately owned. Most of these aeroplanes would have long dissapeared if not for these private owners.

Take my own example, My Tiger Moth (A17-300) had not flown from its days in the RAAF until I rebuilt it and put it back in the air in 1982. My Proctor hasn’t flown since 1962 and sometime in the distant future it will fly again after the rebuild is completed. Neither of these aeroplanes would have surrived if their future had depended on some public-owned instution.

The Proctor owned by the National Museum of Australia VH-FEP (Fred Edmunds Proctor) is it on display, it was rebuilt to flying condition involving several thousands of hours of work by Fred. I think that FEP may be a bit like my rebuild in that a lot of non-original material was introduced. How does that fit with a collection policy of public-owned national bodies.

The Moorabin Aircraft Museum has a Proctor (VH-AUC), it is a Mk.1 done up as a a Mk.5 that was once owned by the RAAF. Now a Mk.1 and a Mk.5 are very different aeroplanes structurally.

Off on leave for a week to work on my Proctor and get ready for the QVAG Festival of Flight at Watts Bridge airfield (in a week’s time). Hope to catch up with a couple of you there.

JDK – Have we met?? You seem to know a lot of Australian vintage aeroplane history that I do.

cheers