Andy Saunders DH9 Book

Sadly, this thread is going nowhere, and is now closed.

Bruce

It seems to me that Mr T has had a business deal turn pear shaped with Mr B…..reading between the line..

Keep up the great work Mr Black and his great team of engineers..

Mr T. Jealousy is a terrible thing….best left indoors.

Civil Aero

Sound advice……….!!!

Wow, axe to grind mixed with X Files.
Bob you have made a point and, if I may be so bold to say this, you are doing yourself no favours. I see no wool over any eyes.

Bob T.

Fair enough comment – which one is nominally the original? But I think that people, reading the posts above, fully acknowledge that the airworthy aircraft is an almost complete recreation of a DH 9, and it would not be possible to have an airworthy aircraft otherwise. I don’t think anyone is passing it off as an ‘original’ E 8894, it’s just that the Indians have not claimed that serial for their rebuild – which is also an amalgamation of parts from various aircraft, which is probably the reason no serial was attached to it.

That this wonderful new airworthy recreation carries the serial of the only other identifiable aircraft amongst the parts recovered (and actually does contain a few of those parts) seems to make sense to me, as it ties this recreation to the story of the Imperial gift aircraft, the recovery from India, etc., etc., which seems fair enough to me. And if it wasn’t going to carry this serial, what serial should it carry?

TonyL

It seems to me that Mr T has had a business deal turn pear shaped with Mr B…..reading between the line..

Keep up the great work Mr Black and his great team of engineers..

Mr T. Jealousy is a terrible thing….best left indoors.

Civil Aero

I agree with Danwheeler65, post 46, how did a simple query get this far.

I’m looking forward to the Guy Black/Andy Saunders book on the DH.9 restoration/rebuild/reconstruction call it what you will, it is still a fantastic achievement.

If sop with.7f1 has any factual evidence to back up his accusations, maybe he could write his own book regarding his own first hand experiences involving this aircraft. He could even supply corroborating images .

Tony

I understand where you are coming from. However, try to imagine a situation where say the wreck of a Spitfire was restored, and all the usable parts from the wreck were incorporated, but the owner decides not to paint the rebuild with the ID of the original wreck . Then some one comes along and acquires what was left “basically all the unusable bits from the wreck + a few odds and sods from other aircraft”, then built a replica/repro and gave it the ID of the wrecked airframe. In your eyes, which is the original, the one incorporating the parts from the wreck, or the replica/repro that carries the ID of the wrecked aircraft ?.
I believe this has already happened a number of times, in the vintage car world.

Bob T.

Or then again ignore it and enjoy a job well done.

Bruce

I suggest you trace the source of their information, you might be surprised at who supplied them with it. I wasn’t……

Bob T.

Sopwith.7f1 – is your actual contention that the aircraft in India should carry the serial E 8894, as this took the main fuselage parts of the original E 8894, and the airworthy restoration has, at best, only been based around the leftover parts and hence should not carry that serial? That seems a little pedantic when there appears to be no serial claimed for the Indian aircraft, and there are definitely parts from E 8894 used in, or associated with, the airworthy build.

Has anyone got a list of the serials of the Indian Imperial Gift aircraft, that could provide possible identities to the other parts recovered?

I wish we had welded the tail unit of Mk XVIII Spitfire TP367 in to a box at Kharagpur, India, in 1991.

Stolen at some time after dismantling and before arriving in the UK…but reported as seen in a certain workshop way outside India c.2012. Shame on you if you read this.

Mark

This is all reading like a rather bad conspiracy.

Firstly, and to pick up on the link to Jagans website above, there is a statement that 3 DH9’s made their way to the fort at some point. They kept one, and it is said, sold two to Aero Vintage. I note that back in the 1970’s it was reported that two were to be found there, but hey, I guess they missed one! A perfectly rational and logical possibility.

We also know that Andy packed the container himself, so unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is lying to us, we have to assume that all conjecture as to what may or may not have been in the container is just that. I have no idea why anyone would weld up steel boxes to ship wooden aircraft components, so again, unless there is evidence, other than ‘some bloke told me’, lets leave it there please. I am hovering over the delete button every time this thread pops up, but am just waiting to see if anything appears of any interest. It isn’t looking hopeful.

I am, and most of us are, absolutely delighted that this project has succeeded to the point where we now have a representative DH9 in the national collection, and the likelihood of another, however original it is, flying this year. No, it isn’t utterly original, but the time, effort and money put in to bring this to fruition is hardly negligible, and so much more than just ‘another’ bloomin Spitfire! (no offence!!). I am delighted that we have those with the wherewithal, the knowledge and the ability to carry out this work. Long may it continue.

Bruce

Tangmere

I was referring to the steel boxes/containers, that the various items were sealed in, before being put in the shipping container. If I recall correctly, the contents of at least one of them, caught fire whilst the box was being welded shut, and instead of cutting it open to put the fire out, they decided to continue welding it shut, and allow the lack of oxygen to extinguish the burning contents. From memory, I believe that it was either the tail feathers, or wings that got partly cremated.

Bob T.

My only further response that I make to Sopwith.7f1’s various and peculiar assertions is in relation to his comment regarding ‘boxes that were welded shut to prevent anyone from seeing what was inside’.

I personally supervised the loading of the standard shipping container. You may be assured that it was not ‘welded shut’.

Supremely baffling.

I would also add that the ‘DH9’ seen here http://warbirdsofindia.com/rajasthan/70-de-havilland-dh9-at-karn-mahal.html is hardly a ‘DH9’ per se as anyone with even the remotest idea of a DH9’s appearance would be aware!

As to the number of DH9s recovered, there were two substantial identities but lots of bits of more than just the two – including wings.

Having just counted up the stacked wings in the photos I took in India, we have more than the sets of wings for two DH9s – unless one of them was a rare DH9 triplane.

May I say that I find it difficult to comprehend how a simple query regarding the publication of a book can turn into such a curious state of affairs. This forum is such a fantastic place for enthusiasts to exchange information and knowledge on a subject close to all our hearts and this is usually done with decorum and respect.

It is hard for the moderation team to sit on their hands as one individual flogs further the already deceased horse of “what is a replica, reconstruction, tribute band or rebuild”. Bruce has weighed-in with excellent points above.

We have so far, and we will continue to for a little while longer, but it is becoming exceptionally boring.

My opinion is that Guy Black has contributed much to our living history of aviation and continues to do so; he doesn’t deserve sniping from those who have done infinitely less

Moggy

Presumably anyone with sufficient funds to purchase the DH9 will also have the wherewithal to fully investigate the provenance of the airframe and if they have any concerns then they can always cross the road and buy a different one at DH9s-r-us.

Logically one has to wonder if the airframe will ultimately end up on an island in the Southern Hemisphere

Bruce

Personally I don’t consider an aircraft that has been dug out of the hole it plowed into at hunreds of miles an hour, and now contains about 2% of the original airframe, to be the original airframe.
I do consider the Mosquito’s that have been rebuilt so far, to be recreations of the originals, due to the use of reasonably high percentages of the original airframes.
I do not consider an aircraft that is built using the identity from the remains of one that has already been restored for display, and is almost 100% new build “dataplate or no”, to be anything other than a replica or repro.
There is nowt wrong with repro’s/replica’s, as long as they are not misrepresented as originals, or recreations of the original. Personally I am looking forward to seeing the replica/repro DH 9 in the air.

Tangmere

Would these containers you refer to, be the steel boxes that were welded shut, so that no one could actually see what was really inside ?.

Bob T.

Sopwith.7fi. If, as you say, your motivation is to alert a potential buyer of the misrepresentation of the origins of this aeroplane, then you have probably done as much as you can. Any potential buyer has quite a good chance of finding this thread, and will perhaps give your concerns due consideration.

Your use ( twice ) of the word ‘towt’ (sic) is not altogether complimentary to Guy Black, and suggests persistent or persuasive salesmanship. I was not aware the DH9 is even being actively marketed, so that observation could be seen as a bit inflammatory.

Most observers would probably concur that Guy Black has contributed hugely to the cause of airworthy vintage aeroplanes which is why you are somewhat isolated in your position, in this instance. It may be unsophisticated, or naive, but speaking purely from a personal position, I am not really bothered what bits did, or did not go into the reconstruction of any particular airframe, and indeed if GB could conjure up a fourth DH9, I would be even happier! I consider his work to be outstanding, and it is a privilege to see these aeroplanes in operation.

Data plate rebuilds have been with us for quite a while now, and for flying restorations/recreations they will become ever more prevalent. I think one just has to go with it, accept the new reality, or else seek some alternative recreation.

In any case, this is no different to the many other aircraft that have been extensively rebuilt from very little – Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquito’s, Mustangs – I could go on.

Exactly.