Spitfire, X4593 of 266 Rhodesian Squadron to be recovered.

For example I wouldn’t be tempted to ‘restore’ the Halifax that is on display at Hendon; it is a far more interesting and evocative exhibit displayed as it is. To restore it would destroy or hide much of the original fabric of a genuine wartime aircraft lost on an actual operation. However I would also find it hard to criticise the restoration of the Halifax in Canada. If another Halifax were recovered to the United Kingdom in a condition that would make a full restoration possible, even if that involved a lot of new-build components, then I would probably think it was a good idea, depending on its historic ‘significance’.

Another thing that always occurs to me about ‘data plate’ Spitfire restorations is that because these are relatively common the supply of spare parts to support the ‘genuine’ Spitfires must be much easier and affordable. Also would there be calls to ground these ‘genuine’ flying Spitfires if they represented a larger proportion, or the whole proportion, of a smaller pool of flying Spitfires? Would they be too irreplaceable to ‘risk’ flying them?

Having said all that I still think the most moving exhibit in the Battle-of-Britain hall at Hendon is the incomplete Hurricane displayed in virtually ‘as found’ condition.

Fully agreed: however it’s interesting how times have changed: when the Halifax was recovered, my impression at that time was that most people (me included) wanted it restored to as near to ‘new’ condition as possible. Over the intervening years I’ve come to realise what a close call that was.

And I concur regarding the Hurricane vignette: I always take a few photos of it because I find it so much more interesting than a bright, clean version would be. I suspect some of that is my technical background coming out, but I also think it brings to mind what actually happened to that machine, its pilot, and many thousands more like it. As such it’s a far better exhibit than a different type of display would be.

My apologies if the joke didn’t hit the mark – a witty response said in one’s head often sounds less impressive to the recipient(s)…

My apologies for the misunderstanding, I understand what you mean about trying to make jokes, and thank you for taking the trouble to outline your thoughts on ‘data plate Flyers’.

Your thoughts probably mirror my own fairly closely although I find it hard to criticise the sight and sound of a Spitfire flying overhead even when I know that virtually every component of that ‘restoration’ is a new-build component.

I suppose it is important to take these things on a case-by-case basis; it matters what is recovered, what condition the recovered material is in, either for rebuild or possible display, and how historically significant the airframe (or pilot) was. I am also very interested in the interior engineering of historic airframes, much of which is hidden in a complete or airworthy aircraft, but also appreciate that the restoration or re-manufacture of historic aircraft preserve these engineering skills and commemorate those that built them.

For example I wouldn’t be tempted to ‘restore’ the Halifax that is on display at Hendon; it is a far more interesting and evocative exhibit displayed as it is. To restore it would destroy or hide much of the original fabric of a genuine wartime aircraft lost on an actual operation. However I would also find it hard to criticise the restoration of the Halifax in Canada. If another Halifax were recovered to the United Kingdom in a condition that would make a full restoration possible, even if that involved a lot of new-build components, then I would probably think it was a good idea, depending on its historic ‘significance’.

Another thing that always occurs to me about ‘data plate’ Spitfire restorations is that because these are relatively common the supply of spare parts to support the ‘genuine’ Spitfires must be much easier and affordable. Also would there be calls to ground these ‘genuine’ flying Spitfires if they represented a larger proportion, or the whole proportion, of a smaller pool of flying Spitfires? Would they be too irreplaceable to ‘risk’ flying them?

Having said all that I still think the most moving exhibit in the Battle-of-Britain hall at Hendon is the incomplete Hurricane displayed in virtually ‘as found’ condition.

More from the local rag:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Wreckage-crashed-Spitfire-starts-emerge-Great-Fen/story-27930281-detail/story.html

Hardly. It is a component of a long term project to preserve an ancient wetland environment. An important part of the whole Fenland ecosystem. The land is long owned by the Wildflife Trust for the area. Of course growing food is important but equally so is the balance between the cultivated and natural environments in rural areas.

Sorry if I jumped before I was bitten, but local to me the Environment Agency proposed ceasing pumping of a very large area of arable farm ground and the conservationists/environmentalist were all celebrating the thought of turning this area into a lake during the winter months and unusable at any time, with apparently not a thought that people live there, work there, fortunately local pressure (not just from farmers) put the blocks on this at least temporarily.

To clarify, this was not a case of few fields becoming wetland, it would have flooded or isolated at least three villages, would have cut off one town for much of the year and destroyed thousands of acres of arable and very productive farmland.

http://www.archaeology.org/news/3759-151006-england-spitfire-excavation

This is just a simple question, but is/has there actually been any suggestion that the recovered wreckage of X4593 might become the basis for a rebuild project?

Haven’t seen anything official only supposition on this thread.

The chances are that the only major part they will find, will be the engine. If they did indeed recover the
complete human remains.

This is just a simple question, but is/has there actually been any suggestion that the recovered wreckage of X4593 might become the basis for a rebuild project?

Agreed: and there’s a big difference between the ‘Murphy’s Broom’ airframe (where there has been a continuous but recorded replacement of major items and a single, cohesive machine at the far end) and these novel ‘restorations’, where there is no clear connection between two entities.

Moreover, the process of creating something new but with an old identity results in the wilful destruction of something far more valuable.

Sadly I’m talking about value in terms of cultural and educational worth, whereas the opposite side of the same coin is measured in pounds, shillings and pence.

One day in the not-too-distant future, we’ll look back and wonder how on earth we allowed such wanton pillaging of our collective heritage.

But for X4593 it looks like we may at least see common sense prevail in the meantime.

To add further to my remarks, above: I do see the need to establish a single-airframe i/d and this is, essentially, a paper exercise – cooking the books straight. There can only be one.

I think what sits most uncomfortably with me is the destruction and disposal of the original remains to allow this. If the definition could be widened to allow both the remains and the rebuild to co-exist then this destruction wouldn’t be necessary. What is wrong with displaying the crashed remains and stating “these are the original and unusable remains of the components which have been replaced to bring the aircraft back to a whole and usable state”?

This, of course, would give rise to many questioning why there is so little in the rebuild – and that is the subject of most of the dataplate rebuild discussion we, as knowledgeable enthusiasts, already have. I would guess though that it would be less acceptable in the eyes of the public without the usual lengthy discussion, which many would disagree with.

Perhaps we need an adequate way of describing the (dataplate/minor parts) rebuild that doesn’t sound like a hoodwink but more accurately describes what the greater public are looking at. Engineers have not beaten all the original parts back into shape and put the whole lot together to fly again, what they see is not the original. “Rebuilt with a few original parts” might be enough to satisfy all but the deeply curious and not appear to be a lie when the facts become known.

The whole process is understood, it’s the description which is in error, designed to keep the lid on the box of facts to which only those deeply curious and who persist can get access. It’s the acceptable and credible face of a flawed process. In our modern world, from government to insurance companies to regulators, everything must fit in its own pigeonhole – one or the other, never both.

Anon.

Good that this excavation is taking place, but has anyone looked at the reason for the timing, apparently the “conservationists” are turning the land into a wetlands area, in other words turning farmland to a home from home for birds etc.

Maybe I’m missing something, but surely growing food and providing a living for people, is more important than attracting a few birds to the area.

I have no doubt that this stems from the same weasel thinking from the Environment Agency, who are trying to save money by simply not pumping water from low lying land, a tactic tried where I live, seemingly unaware or simply didn’t care that people would be flooded out of their homes and business’ along with the loss of productive farmland.

Hardly. It is a component of a long term project to preserve an ancient wetland environment. An important part of the whole Fenland ecosystem. The land is long owned by the Wildflife Trust for the area. Of course growing food is important but equally so is the balance between the cultivated and natural environments in rural areas.

This clip from Only Fools and Horses comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE

the aircraft cannot exist in two incarnations at the same time as that would expose the folly and pretence of the whole “rebuild” exercise.

Problem is not the folly and pretence. Problem is provenance. Proof of provenance is needed to make a project eligible for registration with the CAA (or, for that matter, any other national aviation authority). Proof of provenance gets very difficult indeed if the aircraft it claims to be also exists in a different location, in a different form.

There have been long discussions of this forum regarding provenance, both from a legal and historic point of view. I am quite sure forum member will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

My personal point of view is that an airframe’s physical history is not a matter of black and white. Take an aircraft I operate. It looks original, sounds original, even smells original. It has been in continuous (well-documented) service for 55 years. However, it has had its wings replaced on four different occasions. It has seen two new front fuselages in this time, and had a rebuild of the aft fuselage and tail. This is not even mentioning wear-and-tear parts. In fact, looking at the paper trail, only about a foot of fuselage forward of the horizontal stabilizer, the stabilizer struts and part of the rudder are factory-original. All other components and sections have been replaced or remanufactured according to factory standards somewhere along its chequered history (which by the way was entirely normal in the service history of this type). What has been thrown out during its life time would more than suffice to rebuild two static aircraft. However, having one of these statics claim the identity of the original (which, to be fair, it partially would be), would threaten provenance and operation of the flying example. You know, the one which looks, sounds and smells original.

…I still think Dorian’s painting is the more interesting however.

It is the painting in the attic syndrome, where one must lay unseen, corroded and withered, so that the other may stay young and pristine.

Trouble is, they (the wreck and the resultant “rebuild”) don’t sit side-by-side. The wreck (apart from a few components) is scrapped to make way for the rebuild – the aircraft cannot exist in two incarnations at the same time as that would expose the folly and pretence of the whole “rebuild” exercise.

Anon.

They should exist side by side. Both sides have their merits.
IMHO
Cees

Sounds good for me!

They should exist side by side. Both sides have their merits.
IMHO
Cees

Creaking Door: my apologies if the joke didn’t hit the mark – a witty response said in one’s head often sounds less impressive to the recipient(s).

I don’t per se have an issue with ‘data plate flyers’, but I do have a problem with two aspects of the phenomenon.

First of all, I don’t appreciate being told that ‘x’ Spitfire is “…the aircraft which so-and-so flew in the Battle of Britain”, when often there’s nothing in the particular machine which saw service at that time. I greatly admire the efforts and craftsmanship which go into such creations, and long may people continue to do it, but I do feel cheated some times when I know full well what the true provenance of something is.

Secondly, on a number of occasions, the ‘real’ aircraft on which such a recreation is based, has disappeared from the public eye, and I do feel that this is a great shame. I find these recoveries immensely interesting, and though it’s good to see a bright, spanking new aircraft on the ramp or in the air, I also feel it’s of far more value to display an artefact as-recovered (or as close to), since – for me at least – I find such things immensely educational, and much more readily explain the sacrifice which many brave men and women made, than the newly-created item.

Hope this puts a bit of depth behind my off-the-cuff reply: it was a genuine ‘sigh’ response, but also a hope that the right thing might be done of such a valuable object.

Was it; if it was, I’m sorry, I don’t get the joke?

My original question was quite genuine; I thought, wrongly perhaps, that Sabrejet had a problem with ‘data plate flyers’ and wondered, if that was the case, what his reasons were. That was all. I apologise if my question fell below the standard that would elicit the courtesy of a sensible response.