Doug Arnold Spitfire Rebuilds

Another comment that could be made is that I suppose DM008 could be classed as a spares source for MH367 – after all, when the aircraft were built, the individual subassemblies were built for stock – not for a particular airframe.

That’s my take on it, anyway – as long as there’s honesty about what’s new and what isn’t, I don’t have a problem – you can make up your own mind.

Ah, well…. (eating small slice of humble pie) 😉

I’d be verging on the “not happy with it”, as they were incorporated, which I think is way different from “using as a basis” or something similar.

But, it’s STILL another Spitfire flying…!

(shut up, Daz, it’s no use trying to dig yourself out of a hole! ;))

Daz,

Here is what I said again.

” This front fuselage was stripped of all usuable components and STRUCTURE and they were retrospectively incorporated into DM008. This was an expensive process.”

That is hardly – just slap on the serial. 🙂

Mark.

Perhaps the Walrus is DM00?

The remains of EE606 still exist, last seen with a collector in the UK.

I wonder if the Hurricane or Buchon were involved with DM numbers during their rebuilds.

All,

These are the ex. Charles Church Spitfires that I can remember off the top of my head,

EE606 (G-MKVC) (Fatally crashed 01/07/1989, Charles Church killed)
MV262 (G-CCVV) (now at PPS in bits owned by Kermit Weeks)
PL344 (G-IXCC) (now flying in Florida with Tom Blair)
PT462 (G-CTIX) (now flying in Wales with Anthony Hodgson)
SM832 (started the conversion back to Mk.XIV from Mk.VIII config) (now flying with TFC, Duxford)
TE517 (G-CCIX) (now at PPS in bits owned by Kermit Weeks)

and of course DM008/MH367

That makes 7 in total so far, but it seems I’ve forgotten one…..any takers?

I have no idea which was which though, i.e. which was DM001, etc

Hope this is useful

John

I had intended to post this yesterday, but couldn’t! 😡

If DM008 were to simply be described as a “new-build” Spitfire, like the new-build Yaks we’re been seeing (although I have yet to!), then I would be fine with it. Hell, they could even keep the DM008 part!

If they’d used a substantial chunk of (usable) airframe as a starting point, complete with serial, like PT462, I’d be fine with it also.

If they’d used simply the data plate and completely recreated the whole airframe, like the Grumman F3F biplanes, again I would be fine with it.

Of if they’d taken what they could from MH367’s airframe and used this, and the ID, then I would be OK with it.

If they’d got the remains of a crash and used that as a basis, yet again I would be fine with it. But to build this Spitfire and slap a serial on it from a crashed Spitfire is a bit disrespectful IMHO.

Hopefully someone sees what I mean!

Not for certain, however if I had to guess I would have thought that DM001-DM007 would include PT462, EE606, PL344 etc, as I say, just a guess but I imagine that either Mark V or Mark12 would know more judging by their in depth knowledge of all thing Spitfire.

So, does anyone know where DM001-DM007 are now?

Originally posted by OFMC Fan
From my point of view I would take BR601 over the swapped identity of MH367.any day.

Unless the reason for buying MH367 was that it has 2 seats. It would be interesting to analyse BR601 and MH367 to see exactly how much 1940’s original Spitfire structure each one has as opposed to 1990’s re-manufactured Spitfire structure, when once we have gone through that exercise we can perhaps look at a few others which have had a thorough rebuild.

At the end of the day the vast majority of pristine Warbirds have been rebuilt incorporating many new parts over the years and do they look, or perform any different at Airshows etc for us all to see?………………………..No

If the identity of DM008 had not been given earlier, the rebuilders had avoided giving it any identity and it had been rolled out as MH367 we would have been none the wiser. At the end of the day it is a Spitfire.

From my point of view I would take BR601 over the swapped identity of MH367.any day.Sometimes as noted on this thread they change identitys/airframes with P-51 ‘s.I cant reason seeing a new P-51 with a data plate from a wreck(ie wraped up in a ball)and then saying it has a combat history .

Interesting – BR601 has a clear provenance in terms of wartime
history and is sitting unused – MH367 if it hadn’t acquired the identity form the scrapyard would most likely be sitting unused
in Florida. The doesn’t seem to be much sense in that equation !
The problem most people have with this is that some projects
start with a pile of parts not far removed from scrap and from that a phoenix arrises – in the case of DM008 her fuselage was built and then a scrapyard section came along and she became that. I personally wouldn’t mind if she was serialed as DM008 –
it doesn’t make that much difference to me.
Regards how difficult she might be to sell without a wartime identity well she made it to Florida through sale so in reality anyone who could tell quality would buy her on the basis of what she is.

Mark V & DAZ,

I don’t think the current owner of ‘DM008/MH367’ was really looking for acceptance from the Warbird enthusiast community. He needed personally to feel comfortable with a provenance thread, and an RAF identity the aircraft could carry, BEFORE he finalised the purchase that would put him on track for a spend ITRO £1m.

In all probability without the link to MH367, DM008 would still be a ‘kit’ sitting at Bartow or possiblbly along side BR601 at Lone Star.

First flight is currently scheduled for February next year. I wonder if you both will be averting your gaze on any images that will surely surface in the new year.

May I ask if you wou would find DM008 stencilled on the rear fuselage more acceptable?

May I ask if it is the order of events that is not acceptable – the retropsective aspect?

If it is the scale of the donor originality that is the problem, I can point you to a serious number of ‘current’ Spitfires that started with the same amount of material or less.

If we discourage this activity, where it is done openly and honestly, we do run the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of enlarging or maintaining the airworthy fleet.

Some good few years ago I did have quite lengthy discussions with D*ck Melton on the wisdom of incorporating serial provenance from day 2 into the DM000 series, predicting the situation and the concerns that some have today. At that time Charles Church wrote the rules, but he laid the path open for some of the problems we have seen recently with the GT40, Maserati and D type brigade.

In 2025 it will be interesting to look back on this archived forum. By then I project that we will be recovering substantial buried remains from the European mainland as the starting point for a Spitfire reconstruction having already built several Battle of France and BoB Spitfires to fly.

Mark

Originally posted by Mark V

PS: I do have a problem, despite the unediably good intentions of the current owner, with this airframe suddenly changing its identity. It was a complete fuselage when it left the UK and the ‘donor’ a/c was nothing more than you can see in Marks pictures. If the majority then accept that this airframe is now
MH 367 then fine, it worked. I don’t though.

As much as I love Spits, and relish the thought of another one flying, I’d be inclined to agree.

OK lets try to finalise some of these issues:

JG891 – as Mark 12 says: doing very nicely at HFL, fuselage relativley complete and final fitting out under way but still some distance to go.

ML417 is very likely staying in the USA as she is owned by Friedkin Family Warbirds (although they have no aversion to crating and sending their a/c over here on vacation).

The parts from ML417’s 2-seat days that were incorporated into the airframe originally known as DM008 were the structural strengthening braces and additional longerons that were particular to the 2-seat conversion along with associated brackets and reinforcing plates. All in all rather more original parts than many airframes that might be termed restorations.

The reason the airframe was serialed DM008 is more to do with the way the proprieter of the re-build company chose to present and identify the project than it had to do with the ‘new to original parts ratio’. Obviously there would also have been issues connected with assuming the identity of ML417 or its later foreign identity as a 2-seat conversion.

The fuselage frames of this airframe were new manufacture including 10A and 13A (I know because I made the latter two frame parts).

There are some vestiges today of ML417s former 2-seat identity including the blanked off port wing root fairing footstep recess but not much else (at least in the fuselage).

The 2-seat parts of PT462 were new manufactured items using the ML417 items as patterns. These were then stored and later used in ‘DM008’.

Hope this helps clarrify.

PS: I do have a problem, despite the undeniably good intentions of the current owner, with this airframe suddenly changing its identity. It was a complete fuselage when it left the UK and the ‘donor’ a/c was nothing more than you can see in Marks pictures. If the majority then accept that this airframe is now
MH 367 then fine, it worked. I don’t though.

Please use another term for her rather than ‘orphan’ – I have an image in my mind of the poor unfortunate Spitfire fuselage being banished to the colonies in search of her ‘parents’!
Luckily for her ‘salvation’ came in the shape of a remnant of Spitfire pulled out of the Chippenham yard. How little did I know
when clambering round the yard rescuing Beaver parts in 1997
I was probably standing on a debutant Spitfire waiting in the wings !

Are the ‘Arnold Spitfires coming out of hybernation any time soon?
I am thinking of NH238 ,but they have some others as well dont they?
Also ML417 is located in the States..Chino .Is this ong term/permanant location .Or coming back to the U.K at some point?

OFMC Fan

………….and a close up of the stencil. It is a straight top ‘3’.

David Burke,

When the new build Tr IX left Micheldever facility for Florida it was an orphan carrying the nominal identity DM008. D*ck Melton Number 8. It may well have ‘incorporated’ parts of ML417 but only where expeditious and not for provenance purpose.

For the potential new owner, Peter Godfrey, to move ahead with the purchase and take the project to fruition it was important that it had some thread of provenance to an RAF identity. To this end the front fuselage of MH367 was acquired in the UK. From the photograph you can see the RAF serial stencilled on the spar cover and also the frame five data plate and mod plate. This front fuselage was stripped of all usuable components and structure and they were retrospectively incorporated into DM008. This was an expensive process.

If not incorporated into DM008 I can assure you the remnants of MH367 would be fronting a new build Spitfire in the UK. That is the way it is with Spitfires in 2003. We are moving down the barrel.

Mark

OFMC Fan,

When ML417 was reconverted to single place fuselage, and it was over 20 years ago, I believe that not all the two seat structure was removed if it did not interfere. There may well be the odd ‘redundant member’ lurking in there and perhaps some of our TFC friends can confirm.

It would be logical that the fuel cells and locations in the wings, part of the original Vickers two seat conversion, would be retained in the reconversion back to single place.

JG891 – Some movement in the right direction.

Mark

Mark V – I would like to know what parts were transfered from ML417 into the new build TR.9 ? I cannot imagine that any fuselage longerons or frames were transferred over . She has always been called a new build from the early days of FlyPast’s visit to her . It’s amazing how she seems to be acquiring more and more pedigree as the years go by.