SM520 – High Power Engine Run

..Gear doors an optional extra!:diablo:

Seems you dont need them south of the Thames.

..Gear doors an optional extra!:diablo:

SM520

SM520 – For sale for two million of your english pounds

according to the other historical aviation monthly…………

There were more references to the workmanship of the various Doug Arnold restorations, what caused this? Couldn’t be money could it? AFAIK very experienced people were involved with the collection.

Cheers

Cees

can anybody enlighten me on why this has never flown since re-build ?? previous message’s quote 10 hours since last re-build, since stored, re-built again and now it seems it’s off stateside !!
it cannot be the mark or engine as i believe SM845 is virtually a sister ship and PS853 must be more technical, no ??
or has the bottom dropped out of the Spitfire market ????
can anybody put me right, cheers

Unfortunately it’s been paperwork issues holding up the test flying of ‘969.

The Spit came to TFC as part of a 2 aircraft deal and AFAIK the intention was to restore it correctly (it was hideous on arrival to TFC) and then move it on. The team at TFC have done a superb job and should be proud of their efforts. It’s been known for some time that this particular aircraft would be going Stateside upon completion. At the end of the cliche, money talks and the purchaser has a nice late model Spit to play with. TFC still have their very similar Mk XIV for us all to enjoy.

To give you an idea of what 969 was like I’ll liken it to an old banger that would past an MoT, but rough around the edges. Now it’s like a new pin. In it’s previous colour scheme, it would appear the have been painted using the technique of dropping a hand grenade into a tin of silver and standing well back! It was the only Spitfire I’ve seen to have patented rivetless construction and silver painted wheel grease……the paint was so thick and badly applied,no exaggeration!!

If you want a Mk XVIII, then I believe there’s still one for sale with ARCo/HFL.

C 6

Paperwork, perhaps? Bentwingbomber will better enlighten us. Maybe.

SM969

can anybody enlighten me on why this has never flown since re-build ?? previous message’s quote 10 hours since last re-build, since stored, re-built again and now it seems it’s off stateside !!
it cannot be the mark or engine as i believe SM845 is virtually a sister ship and PS853 must be more technical, no ??
or has the bottom dropped out of the Spitfire market ????
can anybody put me right, cheers

great news, another Spit flies, a lot of hard work involved to bring another Spit to life, congrats to all.
here’s a question apart from SM969 which must be the next to fly soon, which Spit project is nearing completion & flight ??
so anybody care to enlighten me on another two Spits
– in what state is RW382, i thought it was involved in a fatal in the States ?? and wot is the status of PK624 ?? & is it at Duxford ??

Hi woodbridge yes good news about SM520. RW382 is in the early stages of rebuild. Dont know about PK624 !!

Steve

congratulations

great news, another Spit flies, a lot of hard work involved to bring another Spit to life, congrats to all.
here’s a question apart from SM969 which must be the next to fly soon, which Spit project is nearing completion & flight ??
so anybody care to enlighten me on another two Spits
– in what state is RW382, i thought it was involved in a fatal in the States ?? and wot is the status of PK624 ?? & is it at Duxford ??

not every part – there is plenty of what might be termed ‘secondary’ structure that doesnt require the ministrations of a stress engineer!

Bruce

Bruce, i wasnt infering every part. We rebuild in lots of original parts that once cleaned & inspected are fit for flight.

Steve

Going on what you are saying then the CAA would ground every historic aircraft flying.

Steve

Trust me, they are working on it……..:mad:

Hi Oxcart, in a lot of instants its more of a quality management issue that parts are deemed fit for flight. If a part needs major repairs to make it airworthy then any repair would have to be ok’d by a stress engineer & a drawing of repair incorporated in aircraft delivery paper work. Going on what you are saying then the CAA would ground every historic aircraft flying.

Steve

not every part – there is plenty of what might be termed ‘secondary’ structure that doesnt require the ministrations of a stress engineer!

Bruce

My question would be-how can the CAA believe that any of those scrapyard parts have been incorporated into the ‘restoration?’ -if they were, they’d never let it fly

Hi Oxcart, in a lot of instants its more of a quality management issue that parts are deemed fit for flight. If a part needs major repairs to make it airworthy then any repair would have to be ok’d by a stress engineer & a drawing of repair incorporated in aircraft delivery paper work. Going on what you are saying then the CAA would ground every historic aircraft flying.

Steve

Just to add my congrats to the team….bringing an aircraft to airworthy status is such a team event with many links in the chain. From the finder, the owner/financier to the restorer and makers of sub assemblies and then the ‘driver’ and even the CAA….all are necessary.
Wish I had seen/heard it (only live 2 miles from the threshold and work at BD)…but spent all friday in A&E, oh well!!
Steve (mackeral), I have always said that when I win the lottery I will pay you to build me a beautiful Fuz like the many you have produced….would save me so much time and we could actually fly it lol!! In the mean time I will keep chuntering away on my static stuff….anyhoo, finally completed Frames 6 & 7 (minus the top flanges) yesterday.

Hi Rocketeer, yes lots of people in chain from start to finish. Exellent work by all concerned. You win the lottery & we’ll see what we can do !!!! Untill then keep up the good work on the static.

Steve

So as long as there’s the smallest part involved it will be classed as original?-my brain hurts!

My question would be-how can the CAA believe that any of those scrapyard parts have been incorporated into the ‘restoration?’ -if they were, they’d never let it fly

Nonsense – potentially there is a lot of material there that could be re-used perfectly safely. I cannot however speak for how much was actually used!

Bruce

so how many two seat Spit’s can be amassed now – 6 ?????

MJ627
ML407
PT462
PV202/IAC161
SM520

(The first three were involved in a memorable Top Gear episode recently!)

There’s also the prospect of the original Spitfire trainer – MT818/G-AIDN – flying again in the near future…

I do believe that, outside of the UK, there’s only one other two-seater flying in the world at present, and that’s MH367 in New Zealand. Bill Greenwood’s TE308 is undergoing repair after its Hurricane collision, and the former Doug Champlin MJ772 is still a semi-single-seater in a museum.

My question would be-how can the CAA believe that any of those scrapyard parts have been incorporated into the ‘restoration?’ -if they were, they’d never let it fly

Just to add my congrats to the team….bringing an aircraft to airworthy status is such a team event with many links in the chain. From the finder, the owner/financier to the restorer and makers of sub assemblies and then the ‘driver’ and even the CAA….all are necessary.
Wish I had seen/heard it (only live 2 miles from the threshold and work at BD)…but spent all friday in A&E, oh well!!
Steve (mackeral), I have always said that when I win the lottery I will pay you to build me a beautiful Fuz like the many you have produced….would save me so much time and we could actually fly it lol!! In the mean time I will keep chuntering away on my static stuff….anyhoo, finally completed Frames 6 & 7 (minus the top flanges) yesterday.

Wot, no gear doors??

First maiden flight I’ve ever seen of an aircraft that wasnt finished!

Especially as the gear doors suport the brake pipes??

Bruce

Yes , did wonder about those doors !!!!

Steve