Scrapping warbirds – a real waste

hi guys
i agree with the idea’s that have been said here and if i had more garage room i would offer to store any parts that could be saved in victoria australia.
i only wanted point out the problems with identity of the resulting aircraft.even now we have at least two aircraft claiming to be the same seafury tg114 [september fury and argonaut] and a seeminly intact airframe that may have multiple identities[australain war memorial seafury-vx730-vw232-tf925] the race car thing is personal experence in dealing with cam’s here downunder .
the provance b.s. is somthing that may take some education to overcome in the short term as some owners like to think that no mater what you do to the wreck that it is still a peace of history.
mark v i stand corrected on the 2 seat spitfire.
paul :confused:

Hi Gnome

So when do we start the company offering to collect all those nasty dirty old junky aircraft bits from those nice clean restoration shops – We should even do it for free as a public service !!!!

Kindest regards
John

The Case of Old Bentley Number One

HUBBARD vs. MIDDLEBRIDGE SCIMITAR LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice, London.
No. 90/MJ/2474 – 27th July 1990
Before: MR. JUSTICE OTTON

http://www.gomog.com/articles/no1judgement.html

Fascinating – everyone here make sure you read it.

Very quick precis – racing cars change all the time, new this, new that … the car you buy many years later can be both the “authentic” car and not be “original” at all.

Oh, and if the rules applied in this judgement applied to the vast majority of the aircraft we’re referring to here – they would not be authentic or original. They’d be “resurrections” or “reconstructions” at best – probably just new build copies frankly. All those variations have no provenance it seems.

Made me think about what I want to see in a historic aircraft. But first a clear statement of my position. I have no vested interest. I am not the owner or likely owner of a million dollar/pound plus “warbird” or other historic aircraft, I’m not a restorer or museum conservator, I’m just your everyday guy with an amateur historian’s interest in the airwar of WWII and I love aeroplanes in all shapes and forms – and I love fast things (horse racing, boring too slow – F1 and MotoGP, now you’re talking). Bring all those things together and you can see why I like warbirds, WWII and later.

So I go to an airshow – a Corsair flies over my head. Wicked! Do I give a toss if it’s 10 or 20 or 50% Joe so-and-so’s “original” aircraft from such and such a place and time. NO. I just love the thing.

So if what I see is a “copy” AND I could get to go to a museum somehere and see the real thing. That would make me doubly happy. I’m with you John.

Oh, and as in the car world – Buyer Beware. It is up to the buyer to do the research to determine if what he is buying is truely what it claims to be. If historical provenance is so important, then he will be aware of what is original and what not. Of course, if he just wants to fly the ar2e off it, it wont matter!

Bruce

This is not an area that could ever be policed effectively. It is always down to the individual, and when wrecks are coming onto the scene on a regular basis, it would be difficult to know who had what.

The example of the 2 D type Jaguars with the same ID is a good one. Eventually, the guy who owned the monocoque with the ID, also bought the one with the original frame, and had it turned back into one original D type Jag, and one err less so – good for him!

If I spent the day on the phone, I could easily secure enough parts from contacts and friends to build a Spitfire fuselage from original parts. Not all from the same airframe, but all original. Not airworthy parts either, but all good enough to be used in a reconstruction. What the hell would we call it?? That would give Mark12 some nightmares!

Bruce

John,

I can’t speak for the P-40 society but I would be interested to know how much airframe material as a percentage is typically being scrapped in the restoration of a starter kit to airworthy status. You seem to be implying that there are complete aircraft out there that are being raped during the process.

Isn’t the norm now that starter kits in 2005, and I am thinking Spitfires here, are often no more than a vestige of a firewall or a part fuselage with confirmed military serial provenance and linkage?

I don’t actually buy the ‘data plate special’ deal with Spitfires. If you have a Spitfire factory fit data plate in your hand , and there are many located over the aircraft, you will have only a limited idea of the mark and approximate location in the RAF serial range that it came from. I have a couple of firewalls both with plates, one a Westland built Mk V and the other a Supermarine built Mk VIII. I have no way of knowing the original military serial identity that these firewalls were fitted to. Thirty years enquiring where the inspection records might have ended up that would link construction data to military serials have so far drawn a blank.

Whilst there might be some loss of non airworthy heritage in some Spitfire rebuilds I think it is minimal, in reality I think the majority of ‘sensible’ non airworthy discarded material gets fed down the food chain for good will or trading purposes. This generates airworthy material in the hands of enthusiasts and entrepreneurs in the reverse direction.

I think it would be wrong to give the impression that typically complete museum treasures are losing vast percentages of their original material in an endeavour to get them flying.

We have our Spitfires in the UK (and NZ), but what of these recovered wrecks from New Guinea, the Rob Greinert P-47s for example? With a starting point like that what would be your rules of engagement for material replacement?

Mark

Hi Mark

I certainly don’t think it need be the case that anything needs to be “scrapped off”.

This is all based on a financial imperitave – the comercial value of a finished article – in a hundred years when all this stuff is in a museum the replicas will not be thought as highly of in financial or historic terms but the authentic remaining parts are another matter.

Just because someone wants a flying Spit/P40 etc doesn’t justify the destruction of an original airframe / wreck and that is the position black and white – easy.

I understand all the provinance BS and all the reasons why the case has been made for scrapping the discarded stuff . I understand I am not going to convince anyone here who has a fixed position. At the end of the day though when I see a perfectly usable and historic load of components go to a smelter I am still going to be upset about it and create a fuss because it is historic vandalism and it needs to stop. We don’t let people go and tear down Stonehenge because it can be crushed and made into road base.

We can have the best of both worlds here if sanity starts to take over. I am a big fan of the replica Warbirds – they are safer – cheaper and a very cost effective way for people to enjoy their favourite historic aircraft. But why should we destroy historic airframes to facilitate it when it isn’t necessary.

Governance arrangements are the key here – Lets just move on to an idea that could help – just suspend all current concepts and work with me a little here.

Ok someone recovers a P40 and wants to create a flying restoration and sends it to a shop to get it done . The restoration facility is geared to rebuild P40s and quite correctly has the capacity to create a scratch build replica – they don’t really need the reference airframe except for Identity because they build these things in a series like a production line and all the parts are built in batches so nothing much goes into the airframe. Next because they are more concerned about identity and because they don’t make money out of static restorations they set aside the original airframe. One of two things then happens sell/ pass on the original material or Scrap it because of provinance issues.

I would hypothecize that a new approach be devised whereby each recovered airframes identity be established and registered. The registration authority would be global in much the same way as a domain registration applies and only one airframe could purport to be that machine be it static or airworthy – if the identity was moved on to another rebuild then the source material could not also be registered as the same aircraft – no registration no provinance – easy. I would also support the idea of allowing aircraft to take on the identity of aircraft known to be totally destroyed and a register of available identities eastblished from which restorers could select appropriate identities – but only once. This already has happened where no identity ever existed on a restoration and an Identity was just invented and the data plate concocted – No issue with that

Anyway some ideas for further discussion

Regards
John P

Painful but sometimes you have to scrap it off.

hi setter

but in the historic race car world if new major parts are made for a historic car during resoration if the original can’t be used then it has to be scrapped so as a second car can’t be identified as the original estorations but which should wear the original identity.
regards paul

…the case of the two D type Jaguars that both won the same classic race. Le Mans I think it was? A bent and discarded front sub-frame tube assembly subsequently replaced on the original monocoque tub. But the works ID is always stamped into that tube assembly! It just took an enterprising engineer to subsequently straighten that tube assembly and make a new tub and …bingo!

Mark

the former charles church 2 seat spitfire project that started as a replicar but after his death the new owner had to have a real identaty that came from a firewall from a scrapyard.

The 2-seat Spitfire you mention was not a Charles Church owned aircraft (it was then owned by Mr R E Melton). The re-build was commenced after the tragic death of Mr Church.

hi setter
this is an interesting subject that brings up a lot good points and i agree with a lot of what you say especially with regards to provance [ the former charles church 2 seat spitfire project that started as a replicar but after his death the new owner had to have a real identaty that came from a firewall from a scrapyard].
but in the historic race car world if new major parts are made for a historic car during resoration if the original can’t be used then it has to be scrapped so as a second car can’t be identified as the original [frank gardiner’s fibre glass xk 120 original body was scrapped during the cars resoration].having said that i belive that like you that the left over parts should be used in static restorations but which should wear the original identity.
regards paul

Hi Bruce

Your post is fantastic and definately what I witnessed at the HFL facility was as you stated. The point I am making is that this is not the case at a lot of shops at the moment where machines are built on production lines – quite correctly – and may discard most of the reference parts and only use the identities – The point is a lot of these parts are being scrapped and as your Hurricane example identifies they could be dispersed amongst a host of static restorations.

I salute your efforts and I am sure there is always a way around the provinance issue if people try harder – well done and thanks

Kindest regards
John P

Hi all

This is going very well – well done chaps a very good and interesting debate and a lot more of what the forum should be than where we have been of late. The Mossie thread is also very facinating stuff at present.

Thanks for the input and lets keep it going

Kindest regards
John P

This is a difficult and emotive issue.

If you want a fully authentic, 1940’s airframe, with all the bells and whistles, then it cannot fly – there is no getting away from that. Building a flightworthy airframe is a compromise – between originality and serviceability.

Different shops have different views on what to do with the unserviceable parts – and the view is changing. When HFL started back in the late eighties/early nineties, skins and other scrap parts were quite simply scrapped, for the reasons outlined by Mark12. TD248 slipped through the net as the then owner asked for the skins to be passed to his engineer. He then sold them, and a static external Spitfire has been created from them. Make no mistake though – the vast majority of the flying TD248 really is from that airframe. There is no doubt in my mind that the flying TD248 contains more than 70% original structure. I was one of the team that rebuilt it, and remember removing those contentious skins!

In many cases, things have moved on. HFL when I left wouldnt dream of scrapping skins and other similar parts, and would keep them for future reference. Most scrap detail parts were also retained as future patterns, and could be used in the future for static aircraft if necessary.

Hurricane LF363 serves well to identify the problems one has when restoring these things. On arrival, it had been through a major fire, and it was not immediately clear what would be saveable. In the end, about half a dozen fuselage tubes were used again, plus the rear centre section spar, and 99% of the aircraft systems. Some parts of the wings were also re-used. At the end of the project, there was a whole heap of parts left over, which have gone to feed other projects. Many parts were used on the IWM static Hurricane. Paul Rodgers of the Cambridge Fighter/Bomber society also benefitted for his project. I believe that Rocketeer also ended up with some parts.

The point is that LF363’s provenance has been maintained. It arrived in the workshop as a substantial, if damaged aircraft, and every attempt was made to use all parts that could be made serviceable. It left the same workshop as a fully restored aircraft, and long may it continue to grace our skies.

9 times out of ten, the engineer will do everything they can to restore damaged parts. Sometimes it just aint possible!

Bruce

Off the topic, but the details are engrossing.

The Case of Old Bentley Number One

HUBBARD vs. MIDDLEBRIDGE SCIMITAR LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice, London.
No. 90/MJ/2474 – 27th July 1990
Before: MR. JUSTICE OTTON

http://www.gomog.com/articles/no1judgement.html

Jagan,

Fascinating.

I’ll print that off for my evening read -all 24 pages.

Some familiar names there from my time at Astons and Tickford.

Mark

Jerry,

Part of the problem is that if you do not scrap some/most of the discarded parts of a deep restoration to flight, with the percentages involved, the residue can come back and bite you on the ‘provenance’ so to speak.

There is one interesting Spitfire where all the fuselage skins were discarded – normal practise. An enterprising party acquired them or was donated them and duly clad a very built ‘Spitfire frame’ with them. It was probably made from wood. There stood an apparently complete Spitfire fuselage with every thing you could see original and off one aircraft.

Do you see where I am coming from?

Mark

My Hurricane project is built purely from stuff acquired from peoples bins, scrapyards BoB crash sites, hence it is a complex composite…it is a fair way off, wont fly but will be amongst the most original airframes around. I have many parts from one particular airframe, but would never profess to have that aircraft (it is still flying and is as gorgeous as ever!!).

Off the topic, but the details are engrossing.

The Case of Old Bentley Number One

HUBBARD vs. MIDDLEBRIDGE SCIMITAR LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice, London.
No. 90/MJ/2474 – 27th July 1990
Before: MR. JUSTICE OTTON

http://www.gomog.com/articles/no1judgement.html

I have only a very limited experience of this, but I’ll try to give an example of how the restoration shop I worked with do things.

We were involved in a restoration to flight of a very rare type, of which none are currently airworthy, and only around a dozen examples survive worldwide, in any condition. Parts therefore were, and I would imagine still are, very hard to come by. This being compounded by the fact that the standards required for airworthy parts are understandably much higher than for statics.

Before I became involved in the project, the shop were fortunate enough to be tipped off about the existence of some buried cowl gill rings which may or may not ‘go again’; the rings were found, retrieved, and my job was to dismantle, clean, inspect, and then restore the bits which we thought would go airworthy. I would estimate that, of the total number of assemblies and parts that I worked on, maybe 10% were able to be re-worked and prepared to go onto the aeroplane. Most of the rest were either bagged or boxed, and then stored, with the exceptions of parts of steel tubing or mag alloy which had corroded so far that they just flaked away when you touched them; these bits went in the bin.

At first, I was quite surprised by the idea that we would keep non-airworthy bits, as I couldn’t see what benefit there would be to keeping them boxed up on a shelf when we clearly couldn’t use them as flyers. But then one night I was asked to sort through the box of cowl gill nut plates, and seperate a quantity of good static ones out. We then cleaned them, packed them, and off they went, to help with another restoration in another country. We wouldn’t have been able to do that if we’d just binned the non-airworthy bits, and the guys doing a very important static restoration would have found themselves either having to fabricate non-original parts, or looking elsewhere, or even stalling on their project.

Conversely, we had a marvellous find of our own. A UK-based museum traded a badly corroded cockpit frame to us. At first glance, it was fit only for the knackers yard, but the boss had other ideas. Mounted on the frame, was a gunsight mounting arm, of the correct type for our aeroplane, and in what seemed to be good condition. A few weeks later, that arm had been dismantled, cleaned, inspected, found to be potentially airworthy, restored, and fitted to the aeroplane. And it’s historically accurate for this type.

Moral of the story? Never scrap anything. One man’s crap is another man’s gold nugget.

Steve,

Thanks on behalf of NA337, she owes you a lot. Although a lot of original skins etc were binned during the restoration of her as well.

Cheers

Cees

Mark12

I was sure that it was the MG that “went to court”, but agree the outcome whether it was or not!

http://www.mgcars.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=mgoc&p=emg/no1one.htm

Some more than others of course! I guess some are essentially the same airframe with various parts replaced, others are amalgams of original parts and others (The one in the Portugese AF air museum?) are little more than new build around an original data plate. I don’t have a problem with the latter, but I think it is important that historic relevence shouldn’t be lost in the quest for value or flyability.

And there has been a test case on this, the MG car “Old No.1” which was sold on after a major restoration, and judged to have historical provenence that made it “the same car”, even though the restoration had been extensive.

Webpilot,

I think you will find it was ‘Old Bentley Number One’. In this case there nothing from the original chassis and body the had survived to the 1990’s with successive race crash repairs and restoration. The judge still found for the restorer that there was continuous history and I believe the purchaser lost his case .

http://www.motolit.com/0953582701.html

We are not quite at that stage with Spitfires – but close.

Transparency above all else!

Mark

Setter,

Your term “replica” is surely better substituted by the modern term “Full Size Model” (FSM).

Myself, I have very mixed feelings about originality:-

In an article by Air Cdre Allen Wheeler, then Aviation Trustee of the Shuttleworth Collection, about the rebuild of the SE.5a at Farnborough in Air Pictorial (c.1959) he wrote something like…

“The first thing we did was to replace all the wooden parts…”

This does nothing to detract from the pleasure I (and thousands of others) get from seeing her in the air.

On another tack some types can maintain/increase their monetary value the rarer they are. It could, perhaps, be that an owner would not want additional examples floating around because of a presumption of lessening the value of theirs.

Roger Smith.