Spitfire EN179 Resurrected

A starter kit for your very own original Spitfire project is now for sale, £200,000.00

Light Aircraft, For Sale | Vickers Supermarine , MK IX | 200,000.00

Spitfire MK IX – Restoration Project

Serial Number: EN179

Registration Mark: G-TCHO

For sale: Identification along with an extensive list of parts both original and new made along with items recovered from the crash site.

History
EN179 was part of the 316 Polish Squadron she was shot down during 1943 whilst taking part in a ramrod operation over France.

For further information contact: Martin Phillips on 07980 720030

https://afors.com/index.php?page=adview&adid=36733&imid=0

One point in this argument that I don’t get at all, and that is the suggestion that there are those who care about the history and those who enjoy the flying, as if the two were completely independent and self-contradictory. I suggest that we all enjoy the flying. Some of us also care about history, and some of those think that misrepresentation of it is fraudulent. I don’t see them as enjoying the flying any less, but I do think that those who don’t look beyond the flying are missing something important.

Steve,
Yes very impressed with the work undertaken and the effort AA do to restore Spitfire’s, a grand day out it was too.
Thank’s very much for putting me ‘right’
Equally impressed with the restoration effort’s of numerous Mk.1’s on a recent visit to ArCo, and a chance encounter with the Spitfire ‘guru’ himself.
I thank you

food for thought here guys,
im only a trainee aircraft merchanic but with the work it do i see lots of parts being replace on a fairly regular bassis for example undercarrage legs – number of landings, engines – rebuilt after x number of hours, if an aircraft is damaged in an accident and so the list goes on,
therefore surely some of the spits that have been flying the longest (not nessacerly the older) have had so many different components that they are no more ‘orginal’ than some of the dataplate rebuild?
just something worth thinking about 😀
regards Sam

Rebuilds

there you go, Airframe Assemblies & hey presto, a brand new Spit, just need a wartime history, might as well forgo the history, just paint it in a sparkling scheme and show the true grace and elegant lines of a ‘real’ aeroplane.
G-FIRE for example

Hi all, i’ve just been looking through some old threads & found this ! As i recall Paul when you visited us last year you were very impressed by the work we are doing !! Hope after your visit you changed your opinion of the restoration business !!

Steve

… the whole “authenticity”debate is made up by modellers and “armchair historians”…

I’ve just been talking to some curators and conservators at a national memorial about originality, and therefore ‘authenticity’. They’re core concepts in their professional job. Rather important, I’d suggest, and not just the province of jokers on the internet, like us.

There is no such thing as a fully 100% authentic aircraft (or whatever), it’s all a moment in time and adds to the history of an aircraft. Sometime ago there was a discussion whether W4050 should be restored back to the state it was ater it’s first flight. That would mean that the rest of it’s career would be ignored. Also when machinery is used parts needs to be replaced, repaired etc. Nothing is infinite, the whole “authenticity”debate is made up by modellers and “armchair historians”. Although I think it’s great to restore aircraft as close to their operational conditon, just use it as a template and not as a religion. Keep those restorations with robust provenance coming please.

Cheers

Cees

Sorry to bore you, but my project is made up of non airworthy parts…..85% original wartime manufacture….these parts would have otherwise been thrown away.

Don,t be sorry mate it is guys like you and Stuart that keep us mere mortals appreciate the fact that there is someone out there who is prepared to save the “junk” for future generations..

If “EN179”, real or imagined, gets one kid to learn the story or dig a bit deeper into the history, she’ll have done her job regardless of her pedigree.

Absolutely and amen.

I think in many ways folks are missing the essential point.

The machines are just that. What they represent are the men and women who built them, supported them and flew them.

If my grandson or daughter someday see’s a flying Spit that has been built around a ‘shaky provenence’, it will not matter one bit, as long as it might get them to look beyond the machine to the people.

How many of us out there are really that caught up in Spitfires (in this case) to the point where we know the types, serials of the survivors and all the details? I’d suggest the numbers is very few in the overall scheme of things.

Preserving the history is important, as is presenting the history as a tool for learning.

If “EN179”, real or imagined, gets one kid to learn the story or dig a bit deeper into the history, she’ll have done her job regardless of her pedigree.

When I saw P9306 as a kid at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, I couldn’t have told you what kind it was, if the paint was right or anything about it’s story. 40 years later I can talk Spits and then some. But it was that instance that I caught the Spitfire bug. Later it was AR501 at Duxford while I was in England for a a semester of College in 1980. Clipped winged Spit. That sent me into my Spit XII obsession. Again I knew nothing about it, but it got me going learning about the pilots and the history.

So I don’t know that I care if a flying Spit is all original, or how weak the provenence might be. The sound of that Merlin or Griffon and what that Spitfire represents in terms of the history and the people is what matters.

Otherwise it’s just bits of metal.

I don’t mind if you agree with me or not – I’d hope you’re smart enough to revise your opinions in the light of additional information

Umm…. James you didn’t actually give any additional information at all, you simply disagreed with the points I made which could be summarised as reproductions are a good thing because hopefully they will prevent the destruction of originals in museums.

The best example of this philosophy is in another area in which I am interested – antique firearms.

In the 1950s with the upcoming centennial of the American Civil War there was a huge interest developing in America amongst shooters who wanted to shoot the cap and ball blackpowder longarms and pistols of that conflict. Most soon discovered that this was not so easy because the by now nearly a century old originals were either rare, or expensive or not in safe firing condition. No one was eager to shoot examples in top condition because this would lessen their value, and the cheaper examples were generally in not so safe condition and one risked injury.

So an American collector and dealer Val Forgett took examples of originals to the gunmakers in Northern Italy and placed orders for them to make reproductions. Certain discreet alterations were made in areas of shape so that these would not be mistaken for the valuable originals, and they were all heavily stamped with Italian proofmarks. Sales of these rocketed and since the 1950s they have remained popular with blackpowder shooters. Ironically they also appeal to collectors of the real ones, like myself, because for a few hundred dollars I can fill a gap in a sequence of pistols with a reproduction, the original of which would cost me many thousands of dollars instead of less than two hundred. Experts and afficianados know that they are reproductions and they are treated as such.

Now there is little difference between these firearm reproductions and many of the “historic” aircraft magically called into being from a data plate and a few minor bits of metal. And there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is good because both reproduction industries are serving to ensure that the real things are preserved free of danger from actual use. And importantly they are providing jobs.

By all means lets have more of these reproduction aircraft, and let’s have, if the market can bear it a move to more complex types, but also let’s make sure that they are adequately documented and marked as reproductions just so that in a few centuries’ time they don’t get mistaken for the originals.

[QUOTE=AndyG;1336478]

Harsh and ignorant too.

Did you forget that these airframes wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t been restored to fly?

Much of the metal we do see flying is worthless trash on the ground …

But that’s exactly what the two Blenheim restorations became after the accidents so stop being insulting and accept that my assessment was correct. One sincerely hopes that this time they will be more careful.

Sorry James but in this case I disagree with you, and do not retreat or amend my observations. I made them in the post and I will not repeat them.

I don’t mind if you agree with me or not – I’d hope you’re smart enough to revise your opinions in the light of additional information – perhaps not. I made my points as well; several of which counter, gloss or correct your statements. Of course there are many here who ‘know’ they are ‘right’ I’ve better things to do than engage with that beyond a point, likewise I’d not thought you sat in that box.

Nope just citing their track record.

Their track record is a lot more than you’ve cited – a lot more than most in terms of demonstration of a relatively overlooked type. Should they not have had the accidents? Of course. Should they have done better? I’m sure they would be the first to say so (In fact I know so).

Should they have not bothered restoring and flying the aircraft? Should they have given up after either accident? Whose investment of money and energy was lost in the accident? – Primarily theirs, and one that’s inconceivable to those not having been in the position. Remember it’s effectively impossible to insure warbirds for loss and damage – yet, a Blenheim will fly again. Should they quit now?

Do they need my advice or yours, or do we think they will have taken all reasonable steps to remove reasonable risk of accident?

Where is the IWM’s ‘Blenheim’ coming from? Has the IWM secured and displayed a Blenheim in the period a privately operated example was restored, flown, crashed, another restored and flown (and crashed, and now under restoration?)

Who is rebuilding a Blenheim for the IWM? Where is that expertise coming from?

Noting only accidents is stupid – the person who never made a mistake never made anything; and the credit balance, IMHO, is greater than the loss in this case. You may as well write off a racing driver because they broke a car, or a museum conservator for dropping an artefact and smashing it (I’ve seen the result).

Regards,

[QUOTE=Malcolm McKay;1336464]

Nope just citing their track record.

Harsh and ignorant too.

Did you forget that these airframes wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t been restored to fly?

Much of the metal we do see flying is worthless trash on the ground with no value and with no popular interest in preserving were it not that they could once fly again with significant human and financial endeavour. Plenty of UK museums that would rather have their exibits in the air than on the ground. There is no shortage of real museum exhibits for appropriate preservation.

The fact that you are able to have your rant on a historic aviation forum is alone down to the fact that we have historic airframes flying at airshows to enjoy. Their wouldnt be a flypast forum otherwise and we wouldn’t be typing this thread.

This is a perennial argument…..as an aero engineer I always want compromise….do we get it? Not always.
The point is,if you want to fly an aircraft it will suffer wear and tear and will require parts replacement. Often people cite cases of aircraft that have flown (more or less) continuously since they were born:- P7350, MH434, PZ865, RR299….the 3 survivors have surprisingly little of the original as produced airframe in them….and rightly so….take a Hurricane, by the time she has been flying for, say 40 years she will have had 3 or 4 Merlin changes, 30 sets of tyres, numerous fluid changes, numerous instrument changes, woodwork replacement….the list is endless, so the original parts probably comprise basic tubular structure, wing internals….and that is the best you can hope for ( an accident would replace even more)…..but hey, does it matter? Not one iota if you want to feel, smell and see that aircraft in the air. Sorry to bore you, but my project is made up of non airworthy parts…..85% original wartime manufacture….these parts would have otherwise been thrown away…..maybe not as exciting as a flyer but it shows that you can have ‘originals’ in museums. Even so, it was not deemed worthy to go in the Hurricane Salute whereas a data plate did…….!

I think that people sometimes get annoyed when an aircraft is deemed ‘original’ when it has been rebuilt from a plate….I cannot get het up about it personally as I know what it takes to keep an aircraft flying……losing originality is the price you pay for that ‘priceless’ spectacle of a flying warbid….
If you want to preserve originality you would have to ground them all…..what a wanton waste and shame that would be

[QUOTE=merlin70;1336075]

And I hope that crowd who keep building and wrecking Blenheims finally get their act together with the current Mk1 reproduction and treat it with a bit more care.
QUOTE]

That’s a bit harsh isn’t it?

Nope just citing their track record.

Usually, Malcolm, we’re on the same page. But…

Just being awkward!

Sorry James but in this case I disagree with you, and do not retreat or amend my observations. I made them in the post and I will not repeat them.

I will add one other observation that we attach too much well meaning and totally “praise worthy” but ultimately silly sentiment to worrying about the human cost. If for example a qualified sculptural restorer was climbing up and down Michangelo’s David and due to their overlooking some vital bit of kit required to brace the statue in an upright position it fell over and was shattered, which destroyed it and killed them in the process, I must admit that my feelings about which was the greater loss would lie with the statue. The reason being that the restorer is replaceable.

As I see it the production of reproduction aircraft which, lets face it, are what the main flying types currently are, is a welcome step to allowing real remaining originals to be safely housed in museums (which by the way have a far greater current standard of conservation and protection than most historic aircraft operators), where in a few centuries they will like other historic artefacts be available for study.

In any case the way our oil supplies are diminishing flying displays will probable be a thing of the past in 30 or so years time as fuel costs really rise.

[QUOTE=Malcolm McKay;1336044]And I hope that crowd who keep building and wrecking Blenheims finally get their act together with the current Mk1 reproduction and treat it with a bit more care.
QUOTE]

That’s a bit harsh isn’t it?

Usually, Malcolm, we’re on the same page. But…

Actually although they aren’t in any way the genuine article, these new builds created around a salvaged data plate serve a very important purpose. The real things with proper provenance can be retired to museums for their protection while the reproductions can take their place in the risky world of air shows.

Generally agreed. However airshows don’t have to be that risky – it is possible to operate aircraft safely for decades. And, while some would like to skew the stats further, museum’s aren’t always as safe repositories as they’d like us to believe.

I don’t have any real problems with that. I remember some years back one year in which IIRC we lost two airworthy Mosquitos – sheer bloody waste.

I don’t think so. The British Aerospace operated Mosquito RR299 was lost with both crew a week after the TFC P-38 was lost with the pilot. Should BAe not have operated it? They certainly would not have intended to crash it, and while it’s easy to preach from the safety of our computers, like ARC and the Blenheim Trust their investment and effort is a greater stake in safe operation than yours or mine. It’s legal, the public are protected, and while we’d like a zero accident operation, it remains elusive. That’s not a good enough reason to quit, though I’d not overlook the loss of those irreplaceable men to their families and friends.

And I hope that crowd who keep building and wrecking Blenheims finally get their act together with the current Mk1 reproduction and treat it with a bit more care.

As above. ‘That crowd’ made a lot of Blenheim crews and families very happy to see the type back in the air – the Blenheim as a type, and the story behind it was shown to thousands more than would otherwise have seen it. I was told by a very important Blenheim team member that if those Blenheims had not been restored to fly, they wouldn’t have been restored at all – a point often missed. Thankfully no one was seriously injured in either crash. To err is human – knowing that, should they stop rebuilding and flying a Blenheim? Not for us to say, but to choose to support or not. I’ll support them.

The other point is that so many of the current examples flying, that have provenance have been repaired/serviced/rebuilt so many times by now that they are a bit like the fabled “original” hammer that’s had five new heads and three new handles but is still the “genuine” original.

This bit of rubbish floats around a lot because people don’t look very hard. There are important, original airworthy aircraft out there which contain the majority of their metal as constructed – they just tend to be less glamorous transports, trainers and bombers. While I’ll step up to defend the museums as a rule, I’d also point out that some flying restorations are either more original or more authentic (accurate) than many airframes in world class museums.

Frankly I think don’t think anyone wealthy enough to fork out the large amount of money needed to purchase and fly one of these reproductions would be silly enough to be conned into believing that the new build is the genuine article.

You’d be surprised. P-51 grifters exist, and some auction house catalogue entries for airworthy warbirds are only-just legal and hardly ‘full and frank’. People like to believe rich people are ‘smart’ about how they spend their money. Current stock market evidence alone shows otherwise for a start.

However for the sake of historical accuracy these aircraft should be pretty well defined in the record as copies/reproductions just to put them in perspective. In any case without them airshows would be pretty dull.

Major museums are very careful over classifications, and work done by people like Geoff Goodall make sure there’s a degree of public scrutiny – sadly absent by the governmental and official custodians of that data such as the FAA, CAA and CASA et al.

Just being awkward!

If one has to use an original identity in some manner to build a new aircraft then it isnt a problem.

It isnt a problem for any of us to see more of these aircraft in the skies. As long as there are wealthy people who are willing to build them, with less and less as a starting point, then I am glad of it – I may even be glad of the work in years to come.

With regard to the damage caused to original material that may have been dug out of the ground – well there is plenty of it about, and the Spitfire is a well understood aircraft. If the parts are from a historically very significant aircraft, then there may be an issue but only of all the recoverable parts are kept together, something which rarely happens. I actually see much more of an issue in restoring or dismantling parts of an aircraft which no longer survives…..

It certainly isnt an issue to those of us who make a living out of these things. We can make anything, as long as there is a demand for it!

It only becomes an issue further down the line if that aircraft is misrepresented as an original aircraft by the seller. Caveat Emptor….

Bruce