Air Defence Collection

I thought I recognised them, I was at Old Sarum on Friday and just looked at the photos again, they are very nice. Thanks

Thanks Ruskiin
Chers
Ian

the hunters are ay the BDAC museum at Old Sarum

Is the collection available for public viewing and where is it located?

Would like to see the Hunters

Yep myself and the family. Feel free to pm me – the website is run by more of a webminion than a webmaster!!

I think i right in saying that one man is behind ADC and that would be Tony, thus….

http://forum.keypublishing.com/member.php?5932-Rocketeer

Well I think thats a great site! Look forward to updates of progress on all the projects when time allows…

Well done

TT

(as for TD248 we ALL had bits of her at one stage or another didnt we?! Mine went to AA last year!)

Website…my last word……the wording has now been amended that should please all regarding my lump of Seafire…

I hope none of you have any illusion that I have anything but respect for Peter/Mark12. It is fair to say that my love of aviation heritage and the dream of owning a Warbird was boosted by his lovely Seafire project on the lawn outside his house in a 1982 Flypast! His contribution to the spitfire world is immense and driven by a passion for that beautiful elliptical shape.

Please check the website for updates…

over and out
Rocketeer aka Tony Dyer (or vice versa)

Stuart,

I am saying that aircraft (flying ones at that) have been built from less, and can think of at least two that are currently airworthy, and a few that are on the way back up.

A competent metalworker will make the best of this item, and will re-use a number of parts without any problem.

The CAA are not the issue – the signing inspector is. So long as the work is good, I see no problem with re-using some of these parts.

Bruce

Bruce, if by “this piece” you mean the whole piece, then I agree that there are quite a few usable, albeit minor brackets /stiffeners etc, that could be used, if you mean frame 8, then I very much doubt that will go again; it could be patched up for a static, but if I were in the position of having to sign it off, knowing a mans life could be at risk, then I would err on the side of caution, and I know of at least one other man “in the trade”, who would do the same.

As I understand it all Spitfires are rebuilds, because of the design authority issue (or something similar), yes I can think of two mkI “rebuilds”, both i believe went in at about 400 mph, and at least one of those has bits spread about over several owners, none of which amount to anything significant; as to whether there is an ownership challenge in the future, we’ll have to wait and see.

Seahawk, I think the D type analogy is a good one the spitfire does indeed have an aluminium “tub” with a tubular front section (engine bearers) but whilst they really do just hold the engine, all of the front end past the fire wall fixes to the engine ,which in turn fixes to the engine bearers, which fixes to the thigh bone etc etc , truly monocoque.

Incidentally, I didnt think it was the D-Type that had the court case problem, was that not one of the ‘Lister’ Knobbly Jags? In the case of the D type with questionable provenance, the owner of one bought the other, and had all the real bits combined into one car. Bit more difficult with a Spitfire!
Bruce

Yes I believe that this is correct. But surely the real issue with using the D-Type Jag case as an example is the peculiar nature of its construction – having both a semi-chassis subframe and a semi-monocoque aluminium tub as a kind of pre-Lotus 25 monocoque. This means that it has always been a matter of debate as to which of these two main components constitutes the true identity of the car. This is something that I would have thought is a somewhat unique feature of the D-Type and does not make it the best example to make.

There is also the “Old No.1” court case of course, in which (in my humble opinion) quite minor remains were held to constitute an original car.

But on a broader level I am not sure that cars are a very good example to take as a simile for aircraft – I would argue that the litmus test of originality is the FIA rules for historic racing eligibility – which opens a whole new can of worms – remember the case of the Dutton Type 35 Bugatti, which if I recall correctly was openly built up in the 1980s from more than the required number of authentic components to demonstrate the farce of it all.

In an aviation context any flying aircraft is always going to be less authentic than an unmessed with stuffed example in a museum – keeping any working transport artifact in service involves the continuous replacement of original components and ultimately dilutes the authencity. Furthermore more needs to be replaced to keep aircraft sfe and airworthy than is the case for other modes.

If we are taking cars as an example of this I still have the Golf GTI that I bought new in 1984 and the Jetta GTI 16V that I bought new in 1988. Othern than consumables like oil filters I have kept everything that I have taken off the cars since I bought them – even though they have both been incredibly reliable I still have a goodly pile of bits. I have owned and cosseted the Jetta continuously since new whereas I was fortunate enough to be able to re-aquire the Golf in 2001 and consequently had to have it restored – so that, unlike the Jetta, it has completely lost its patina and air of originality.

Stuart,

I am saying that aircraft (flying ones at that) have been built from less, and can think of at least two that are currently airworthy, and a few that are on the way back up.

A competent metalworker will make the best of this item, and will re-use a number of parts without any problem.

The CAA are not the issue – the signing inspector is. So long as the work is good, I see no problem with re-using some of these parts.

Bruce

The only part of that section of cockpit section, that is large enough to be considered “structure”, is frame 8, and I would be amazed if the CAA would allow someone to”let in” a section on the diagonal, in order to preserve the top stbd section ; these frames join down the center, so other than that you just have a port section of 1 frame.

The port aft face is heavily damaged (possibly the forward one as well), as is the “u” channel, it may be possible to use some of the stiffeners/intercostals, but on their own they do not in my opinion constitute “significant structure” ;(a different matter if you had most of the fuselage and once disassembled re used all the stiffeners/ intercostals); if, as Bruce is saying that A/C have been rebuilt from less, then this exposes them for what they are, frauds.

I think knackered is the technical term ! 🙂

The only part of that section of cockpit section, that is large enough to be considered “structure”, is frame 8, and I would be amazed if the CAA would allow someone to”let in” a section on the diagonal, in order to preserve the top stbd section ; these frames join down the center, so other than that you just have a port section of 1 frame.

The port aft face is heavily damaged (possibly the forward one as well), as is the “u” channel, it may be possible to use some of the stiffeners/intercostals, but on their own they do not in my opinion constitute “significant structure” ;(a different matter if you had most of the fuselage and once disassembled re used all the stiffeners/ intercostals); if, as Bruce is saying that A/C have been rebuilt from less, then this exposes them for what they are, frauds.

Cheers..

We are getting to that stage whereas any substantial rubble of Spitfire can be turned into a full aircraft.The Providence issue is cloudy as hell sometimes but I think the correct thing is being done.As long as the parts full history has been noted and publicly shown honestly and from the heart.For many collectors who have accumulated many parts off different aircraft it is not so easy.As Tony noted about 100 Hurri projects donated parts to his pit section.Same as us.Many of our Spit parts are remains of clearance sales that were scattered to the winds after WW2.Only thing we do have is a few Master Contactor boxes with the AC serial number on them.Not enough for providence I,m sure and no way we would ever consider putting our project on the ground with it.
I also would like to appolagise to Mark 12 for my little bit of cheekiness at the end of my last post.It is an Aussie thing and on viewing his later posts now have a much clearer vision on his views on the scene there in England.:)

Again, I do not wish to divert attention away from Tony and his work. (incidentally Tone, what happened to the Swift??).

However, I would back up what Mk12 is saying here.

It is my considered opinion that in the absence of any other parts, and with a known provenenance, the Seafire cockpit section could be incorporated into an airworthy rebuild without any problem. Far more has already beeen done with much less. I can see sections of Frames 7,8 and 9 that could be utilised, and a number of detail parts, notwithstanding that certain ‘prize’ items have gone.

I know the current owner of the identity of the aircraft very well, and have viewed the remains in the past. It too could be resurrected without problem, and there is a very real possibility that two aircraft be born from the same identity. To some extent it has already happened…

Spitfire TD248, which we all know flies from Duxford, was resurrected from its scrap skins, and is on display at the Norfolk and Suffolk Museum. It is a worthy display of original Spitfire parts, many of which did originate from that aircraft – but it is NOT TD248!

There are other examples of other types. I am certain that Tony has no wish to represent it as other than he is doing, but who knows about the next owner, or the next, or….

Incidentally, I didnt think it was the D-Type that had the court case problem, was that not one of the ‘Lister’ Knobbly Jags? In the case of the D type with questionable provenance, the owner of one bought the other, and had all the real bits combined into one car. Bit more difficult with a Spitfire!

Bruce

I am aware of the D type court case , but not the out come; who won?

Jaguar’s made a habit of stamping chassis no’s into the front “A” frames, but Supermarine didn’t (mores the pity) ,nor are there any on the piece of cockpit section in question, in fact the only evidence that it is LA546 is, er your own, as one of two people that found it (the other now deceased), if you said it isn’t LA546 then no one can prove otherwise….

The key lies with ownership of the data plates, if you don’t have those you are going to struggle proving the identity, as this piece has been stripped thats it, but it still remains a part of the original aircraft that’s it’s history I think its well documented now for the future.

JC,

There is no direct linkage to a Spitfire/Seafire military identity on either the cockpit or firewall data plate.

Oh that there were, as I have several firewalls with plates.

Provenance is much more complicated than that.

Mark

I can see MK 12’s point , inasmuch that having spent something approaching £1m, you don’t then need an ownership wrangle, but I do not believe in this instance, that this section is significantly large enough, or indeed intact enough to be a threat.

That is exactly what the owner of the works ‘D’ type Jaguar said when he discarded the bent front subframe.

It did incidently just happened to have the chassis number details stamped in to one of the welded tubes.

Mark (the unknown)

Ok I do not normally get involved in these arguments but here is my worth.

1, Tony has said he does not claim ownership of LA456

2, The owner has not complained here himself, this has come via a 3rd party who in his opinon has said he wont be happy.

3, MK12 who are you? I dont have a clue.

4, If you look at Tony’s Hurricane it is made up from over 100 other hurricanes donators?

5, as this item is the basis of another cockpit project I cant wait to se it completed to tonys high standards.

I have know Tony for about 18 years of so and he would not try and foolanyone into saying he owns the I/D when he knows he does not.
Rant over.

I can see MK 12’s point , inasmuch that having spent something approaching £1m, you don’t then need an ownership wrangle, but I do not believe in this instance, that this section is significantly large enough, or indeed intact enough to be a threat.

The key lies with ownership of the data plates, if you don’t have those you are going to struggle proving the identity, as this piece has been stripped thats it, but it still remains a part of the original aircraft that’s it’s history I think its well documented now for the future.