Seafire F.Mk 46 LA546, repeat LA546

I am not sure this is that exciting Robert??!!!
I am not a trained tin basher…..so it is not up to the high standards of Airframe Assemblies, Stuart Gowans or their ilk….I am merely a paper engineer….

Oi, I’m not an ilk.

I am not sure this is that exciting Robert??!!!
I am not a trained tin basher…..so it is not up to the high standards of Airframe Assemblies, Stuart Gowans or their ilk….I am merely a paper engineer….

Searching for some suitable metal to skin frame 12 to 13 starboard side below the datum longeron, I was lucky to find a piece of LA546 skin……it is unuseable on a flyer but great to reuse on my main spit….is this the ultimate in recycling???!!!

We are all waiting with bated breath to see photos at or after Newark!!

Searching for some suitable metal to skin frame 12 to 13 starboard side below the datum longeron, I was lucky to find a piece of LA546 skin……it is unuseable on a flyer but great to reuse on my main spit….is this the ultimate in recycling???!!!

thought it was still a kit of parts, Mark

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/gp/kit_gp_seafire.shtml

The restoration seems to be progressing nicely.

The wing is obscuring the hole in the fuselage side. 🙂

Mark

David, you raise an interesting point. With so little material constituting an “acceptable” starting point and with the inevitable watering down of these standards over time, it’s not difficult to anticipate the point where material from the same original “donor” becomes a candidate for the chosen identity of more than one rebuild.

Precisely. Which brings us back to ‘Post 1’ on this thread.

Without question starting point provenance has and is being watered down over time.

The ‘accepted standards’, in my view, are determined by the market place…conditional to full transparency prevailing.

Mark

So what options are there?

A written document stating that the owner “A” who has bits of aircraft “X” currently owned by owner “B”would never claim to have the right of the identity?

Could be potential legal quicksand

Wonder how this develops over time.

I was fooled by the pics of “TD248”. In Holland the skins of MK732 were discarded but acquired by a collector who used the fuselage skins on his reproduction Spitfire cockpit but I was shown the complete skin package of the tailsection. What happens if this is sold?

Cheers

Cees

Where exactly are the ‘currently accepted standards for restoration starting point provenance’ coming from ?? I don’t believe the CAA work to those standards – are these standards being generated by the industry that actually rebuilds them?
It raises interesting questions about who exactly in future will cast judgement on whether a project is substantive enough to jump into a Spitfire listing .

Quite. The lion’s share of the material gets flogged off to another project yet the identity is still claimed. It’s rather like selling a car, keeping the numberplate and then claiming yoiu still own the car.

Not really Rob.

In August 1983 Craig Charleston acquired the fuselages of both SX336 and LA546 at the same time. Both were ex scrap yard and in severely bruised and dismembered condition. A core project was to be built around the ‘superior’ front end of SX336 but using parts from the ‘superior’ rear end of LA546. Notwithstanding the inner and outer wings of this project were from Seafire XV/XVII source.

Craig started work on the fuselage construction at his facility and the following year sold the SX336 project to Peter Wood and continued restoration, tied to a build contract, to generate income stream. The almost complete fuselage was brought in house by Peter Woods in 1988.

The front end parts of LA546 including the firewall and both data plate details, have been retained by Craig to this day with occasional acquisitions along the way.

Craig was one of the pioneers in the Spitfire restoration world having rebuilt both NH749 and TP298 up from Indian decoy to full airworthy and knocked out a couple of Me109’s to fly along the way.

The past twenty five years have seen tremendous changes in Spitfire restoration from almost ‘Cottage Industry’ to major production and all the controls and procedures that come with that.

Rob, the retained parts of LA546 come well within, and with substantial margin I would suggest, the currently accepted standards for restoration starting point provenance.

SX336 and LA546 depart Newark Boiler Works 6 August 1983.

Mark

I have seen the project, and there is a lot of it. Plenty more than some projects have started with…..

Bruce

“There was nothing of use on the airframe for a flyer….frame 8 was brittle….”

…but not it seems frames 12-19, currently flying. 🙂

Mark

So if frames 12-19 are flying in SX336 one wonders just what CC has registered ….. :confused:

“There was nothing of use on the airframe for a flyer….frame 8 was brittle….”

…but not it seems frames 12-19, currently flying. 🙂

See here what happened to the original skins of TD248 that were replaced by HFL. Indeed a few years back, and with 70-80% of the original external surface area of the fuselage, serious approaches were made to include this in the recognised listings of surviving Spitfires!!! TD248/A & TD248/B perhaps.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90856

Mark

You know I meant on the piece I have (which clearly suffered worse than the rest of the airframe).

nowhere does my STATIC lump say its that aircraft. The then owner gave me first dibs (and is a long standing good friend of mine). It was not cheap but enabled me to bring something to the masses (and inclusion of the often excluded disabled). There was nothing of use on the airframe for a flyer….frame 8 was brittle….
all in all, i think the right course of events has happened…..Craig will produce a flyer and the ‘great unwashed’ will have access to a cockpit….I am firmly into diplomacy and live and let live……

Now I need to get back to my rivetting!

“There was nothing of use on the airframe for a flyer….frame 8 was brittle….”

…but not it seems frames 12-19, currently flying. 🙂

See here what happened to the original skins of TD248 that were replaced by HFL. Indeed a few years back, and with 70-80% of the original external surface area of the fuselage, serious approaches were made to include this in the recognised listings of surviving Spitfires!!! TD248/A & TD248/B perhaps.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90856

Mark

I don’t know an awful lot about this seafire. Is it currently stored pending a restoration?

Also as we are on seafires, any news on PP972?

I am sure if said no doubt wealthy Seafire owner wants that bit, he should make an offer that can’t be refused, we have all had to do it to get stuff we wanted in the past.

nowhere does my STATIC lump say its that aircraft. The then owner gave me first dibs (and is a long standing good friend of mine). It was not cheap but enabled me to bring something to the masses (and inclusion of the often excluded disabled). There was nothing of use on the airframe for a flyer….frame 8 was brittle….
all in all, i think the right course of events has happened…..Craig will produce a flyer and the ‘great unwashed’ will have access to a cockpit….I am firmly into diplomacy and live and let live……

Now I need to get back to my rivetting!

LA 546.5?

Now you are just being silly.

It would of course be LA546/A & LA546/B. 🙂

Mark

first 2 seat Seafire ?

LA 546.5?