Restoration of Spitfire NH341

Yes, it’s definitely reached that point.

This thread reminds me of something……………….

I didn’t notice anyone here saying that the aforementioned Spitfire is not a Spitfire or Fournier Boy’s Minor is not a Minor (from my perspective these two are very different cases anyway). I’d love to see either of them at the airshow myself. Nor did I read here anything even remotely suggesting Trumper doesn’t like watching warbirds fly, or he “disapproves” warbird movement. The problem arises when NH341 (and similar “warbirds”) is being advertised as a “WWII veteran” when even the dreaded stencil / dataplate is new. That’s what Trumper was getting at I assume, and his involvement, or lack thereof, in the restoration business is completely irrelevant here (so is Fournier Boy’s, actually). If I create a perfect copy of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, using modern, computerized techniques (very much doable nowadays), and add a little bit of original’s wooden backplate to it, damn, even perfectly recreate author’s signature (should I say “dataplate”? 😉 ) on it, that won’t quite make it THE Mona Lisa, will it? Even if the original gets destroyed in fire or lost somehow. I don’t have to be a painter or museum curator to say that.

I know that people who reconstruct these planes and people who spend 7-digit numbers buying them “know better” what’s exactly installed (or not) inside, but the “genuine WWII veteran” notes being written all over magazines, newspapers, airshow advertisement posters etc. somewhat do fall into the “deliberate misleading” category Bruce was writing above, at least in relation to ordinary folks attending the shows. That’s my point of view about it.

:applause:

T J

If I create a perfect copy of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, using modern, computerized techniques (very much doable nowadays), and add a little bit of original’s wooden backplate to it, damn, even perfectly recreate author’s signature (should I say “dataplate”? 😉 ) on it, that won’t quite make it THE Mona Lisa, will it?

I do think that there is a distinct difference between the NH341 ‘situation’ and a copy of the Mona Lisa. If Da Vinci had been so inclined and had some wood and paint left, he could have created a second painting but that would still be distinctly different (perhaps not at first sight but still) from the first one. I’m not sure of the official terms but I think that in the case of a piece of art like the Mona Lisa part of the value is in the fact that you cannot create an exact duplicate, copy, etc. The main difference here is that a Spitfire is an object that was designed by Messrs. Mitchell, Smith et al to be produced, reproduced and repaired. If you follow the original procedures, use the same material, stick to the drawings and such then what you get is exactly what they intended for it to be: another Spitfire. So in essence, the opportunity to create more Spitfires was already inherent in the original design. Everyone who has ever seen one fly (I can recommend an air-to-air session for that) and has a bit of enthusiasm for aeroplanes like this knows that it is certainly worth the trouble to get one up in the air, so there we have a motive. The last thing missing is the means, and fortunately there are people willing to spend the large amounts of cash to see another Spitfire in the air. Without taking away from all the other views in this discussion I am willing to say that what is happening here is just a continuation of the original work that was done on the WWII Spitfire production lines.

If there had been no airworthy example left then I’m sure that people would applaud this ‘recreation’, but now that we have several Spitfires flying around, with varying degrees of originality present in their airframes, this is different.

No, this thread is a hamster wheel!

Andy

Is this thread a data plate rebuild then? :eagerness:

I didn’t notice anyone here saying that the aforementioned Spitfire is not a Spitfire or Fournier Boy’s Minor is not a Minor (from my perspective these two are very different cases anyway). I’d love to see either of them at the airshow myself. Nor did I read here anything even remotely suggesting Trumper doesn’t like watching warbirds fly, or he “disapproves” warbird movement. The problem arises when NH341 (and similar “warbirds”) is being advertised as a “WWII veteran” when even the dreaded stencil / dataplate is new. That’s what Trumper was getting at I assume, and his involvement, or lack thereof, in the restoration business is completely irrelevant here (so is Fournier Boy’s, actually). If I create a perfect copy of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, using modern, computerized techniques (very much doable nowadays), and add a little bit of original’s wooden backplate to it, damn, even perfectly recreate author’s signature (should I say “dataplate”? 😉 ) on it, that won’t quite make it THE Mona Lisa, will it? Even if the original gets destroyed in fire or lost somehow. I don’t have to be a painter or museum curator to say that.

I know that people who reconstruct these planes and people who spend 7-digit numbers buying them “know better” what’s exactly installed (or not) inside, but the “genuine WWII veteran” notes being written all over magazines, newspapers, airshow advertisement posters etc. somewhat do fall into the “deliberate misleading” category Bruce was writing above, at least in relation to ordinary folks attending the shows. That’s my point of view about it.

Wasn’t that the thread that was created by merging two Spitfire related threads? I know one of them covered NH341 (albeit briefly), but what was the subject of the other thread again?

It has nothing in common with any part of the original thread. But it’s still recognisably a thread, and it may as well carry the same identity as it did when it began its service life. I would say that its useful service life is over, but there’s no reason it shouldn’t remain active for the edification of the masses (liked that, propstrike).

There was once a thread on NH341, which was cherished by some on here, but when you looked at it closely, it was not really in very good shape, and it eventually became static. Some time later, a lot of new material was added, and purists might argue that it had very little in common with the original thread, but it was nevertheless very impressive to behold.

Thankfully, the original parts of the thread were not put in a skip at Key Publishing, for fear that they might end up with the very same title on UK Aviation Review.

I don’t think that there was enough of NH341 in that thread to make it a genuine thread, it was more of a replica.

There was once a thread on NH341, which was cherished by some on here, but when you looked at it closely, it was not really in very good shape, and it eventually became static. Some time later, a lot of new material was added, and purists might argue that it had very little in common with the original thread, but it was nevertheless very impressive to behold.

Thankfully, the original parts of the thread were not put in a skip at Key Publishing, for fear that they might end up with the very same title on UK Aviation Review.

Correct but then things sometimes spiral………… so………. back on topic

I have a feeling this thread is very misleading if you want to know more about NH341:D

Mk.12……… very well said. Engineering is marvelous and you and I both know what it is like to be involved in a major project and see it coming together

Not to worry. That 51 suddenly became a veteran with proven history anyway. If ever so fragile… :rolleyes:

T J

Ah yes, I remember it being that rare but known of variant, the “i-stang identity shuffle”… 😉

The detailed responses in this thread remind me of a welcome trend in aviation magazine articles both print and on line. Although I served in the Royal Air Force I was not involved in airframe or engine work. So to gradually be educated into the skill, materials,innovations,blood, sweat and no doubt tears which go into the flying machines is a welcome change from squadron histories and airshow reviews. It helps the interested onlooker from taking for granted what they see flying or even ground running.

Agreed…’wonderful engineering’………that would normally be the last words that need to be said!

Like button certainly needed in this thread!

If you decided to truly scratch build a Spitfire from all new material, the engineering cost on a ‘one off’ independent basis would probably exceed £10m. I am talking prop hub, undercarriage legs, every casting, every forging etc etc.

The reality is that there is a whole industry and a food chain, ranging from the flying restorations down to the instrument panel brigade all scouring the world for original Spitfire parts and fittings for their respective projects and most keen to trade up and down the chain. A discarded skin here, a crumpled cowling there, perfect for a static rebuild. Precious little actually gets thrown away.

A number of sub-contractors have built successful businesses focusing on certain speciality aspects of the Spitfire, radiators, header tanks, windscreens, cowlings etc to facilitate the economy of scale.

I have an image, that I currently cannot trace, of Spitfire fuselages at an MU or a CRU that have been neatly cut between frames 6 and 7 in the fuel bay area prior to what looks like to be the grafting on of the firewall and first couple of feet of fuselage from another Spitfire. The Battle Damage Repair manual AP certainly shows that it is permissible to splice the upper and lower longerons.

A difficult one for the ‘original’ fraternity.

It is all just engineering…wonderful engineering. 🙂

Mark

.

RAFM’s Lancaster S for Sugar is an example. During it’s major overhaul in 1944 only the cockpitsection is actually from the original machine. So should we scrap it?
My car is due for maintenance soon, I think I shall ask not to replace any parts fearing it would not be the original car anymore.