Airworthy Spits?

The depth of knowledge on here still astounds me…

Thanks guys. 🙂

Digressing slightly, Daz’s link to the Vintage Fabrics website shows pics of a completed Bf109-F belonging to Aero Vintage. But having just checked the HAC website, I cannot find any mention of it at all – does anyone know how old the images are, whether the -F was for static or airworthy, and of course her current status…?

This was the static restoration that went to a Canadian Museum.

Mark

Digressing slightly, Daz’s link to the Vintage Fabrics website shows pics of a completed Bf109-F belonging to Aero Vintage. But having just checked the HAC website, I cannot find any mention of it at all – does anyone know how old the images are, whether the -F was for static or airworthy, and of course her current status…?

Mark,

I would have to dig out the issue when I get home from work but IIRC the shot was taken from the rear of the starboard side with the fuselage formers and stringers in yellow primer. I seem to remember that Ralph Hull was working on it as well, or it was his workshop the photograph was taken.

These jigging problems were they caused by the same jig?

Cheers

Cees

Both these Seafires have been with Ralph Hull. He was tasked to inspect and has endeavoured to resolve/rectify the problems.

Not the same Jig. Not the same restoration facility. Not enough quality control – which usually equates, but not always, to under quoting, usually in difficult times, to a ‘bargain hunter’.

“Measure twice, cut once”.

Mark

Pay attention, you at the back! 😀

Ahh, I thought those were prior to the engine run shot! Sorry!

MkIXe TE554 (flown recently for Ezer Weisman’s funeral, I believe) (Israel)

It has flown as recently as June 28 and 30. See http://www.pbase.com/xnir/iaf_academy

A quick look at Vintage Fabrics’ website shows PP972 having her engine run.

http://www.vintagefabrics.co.uk/completedjobs/pp972.html

Any idea when this was taken, and why she’s not up and about yet?

Mike
This doesn’t sound like SX336 to me.

Cees
There have been ‘jigging problems’ with both RX168 and PP972. I favour the latter for your Warbirds World Wide shot but you would have to direct me to the issue for 100% confirmation.

Mark

Mark,

I would have to dig out the issue when I get home from work but IIRC the shot was taken from the rear of the starboard side with the fuselage formers and stringers in yellow primer. I seem to remember that Ralph Hull was working on it as well, or it was his workshop the photograph was taken.

These jigging problems were they caused by the same jig?

Cheers

Cees

Sounds like SX336 to me. I remember the visit well. 😉

Although I seem to remember a photo of PP972 appearing in there as well at some point.

Mike
This doesn’t sound like SX336 to me.

Cees
There have been ‘jigging problems’ with both RX168 and PP972. I favour the latter for your Warbirds World Wide shot but you would have to direct me to the issue for 100% confirmation.

Mark

Did I say sixteen? Probably nearer…

Ah ‘slow time projects’ – a new category definition.

‘RX168’ – a very impressive collection/kit, with most of the ‘tricky’ engineering bits acquired and restored. I saw it fully laid out in plan form for inspection at the back end of last year. It could well be on the move in the short to middle term.

Mark

Mark,

Isn’t this the same airframe I saw a photograph of the jigged fuselage in a Warbirds World Wide issue many years ago? It looked well advance then. Or is this a mix up with PP972?

Cheers

Cees

Definitions, definitions

Did I say six? Probably nearer sixteen but depends on your definition of ‘active restoration’.

Clue. Have look and reconcile the Spitfires currently on the British civil register.

Mark

Did I say sixteen? Probably nearer…

Ah ‘slow time projects’ – a new category definition.

‘RX168’ – a very impressive collection/kit, with most of the ‘tricky’ engineering bits acquired and restored. I saw it fully laid out in plan form for inspection at the back end of last year. It could well be on the move in the short to middle term.

Mark

I had a head scratch, and I reckon these are currently under active restoration to fly in the UK only. I havent included a few private projects that are being done in slow time.

RR232
TA805
JG891
HFL’s Burmese Mk9
RM689
SX336
LZ842
SM520
PP972
TD314
AR213
TE311

There is also at least one recent change of ownership that will see another one added to the list, but it is not my call to announce it.

Any more?

Bruce

Is MJ772 “maintained in airworthy condition”? With the recent change in ownership, it is now parked in a museum who have no apparent intention of flying any of their collection. Is any maintenance being done? How long does it need to sit in this condition before we re-classify it as “static – musem display”?

That’s why I queried it. I guess, in that case, we can wipe it off the “flyers” list.

A fairly interesting source is an article that appeared in Aeroplane magazine, probably about 2 years ago now.

This lists ALL worldwide projects of ALL aircraft being restored to airworthiness. I can’t access it at the time of writing this, but there are a good 40-odd spitfire/seafire projects on that. Is it possible that this list includes pretty much all the aircraft discussed in this thread so far, as well as those that haven’t been mentioned? I shall try and dig out the article and post findings.

Thanks to all replies so far.

“Potentially airworthy” ropes in a lot more aircraft that have never flown since being SOC – this data plate I have in my hand for example. 🙂

Mark

Then we’d have a load more to add to the mix! :rolleyes:

Just resting.

I would say ‘airworthy’ because if the carb problem is solved, it’s ready to fly right?

Er no.

There is the small question of a multitude of systems and components, rubber etc, that will be out of life.

I have in mind a couple for starters – the engine and the propeller.

“Airworthy/resting” still best fits the bill. “Potentially airworthy” ropes in a lot more aircraft that have never flown since being SOC – this data plate I have in my hand for example. 🙂

Mark

You could call it ‘temporary resting’ if they can’t solve the problem within a few weeks/months.

I would say ‘airworthy’ because if the carb problem is solved, it’s ready to fly right?

Theoretically, but who knows what else has to be done to it?

We can put it down as “maintained in airworthy condition” (would this apply to MJ772 and MT818? Any others?)

This needs some serious thought, methinks! I can see how Mr Arnold had problems now! :rolleyes:

I will be controversial

It is airworthy only if it has a current permit to fly or associated military permit. Otherwise it is resting.

I believe TE184 has a new owner, so it may be up and about again sooner than you think!

I will scratch my head and see if I can work out what is under active restoration at present.

Bruce

I would say ‘airworthy’ because if the carb problem is solved, it’s ready to fly right?