This Quote True or False ?

Hi All,
Many thanks for all your input still a little contentious subject then yes ?

Geoff.

“If you have one original part from the aircraft in the rebuild we can carry on that serial number”

Whether they can or not, one thing they will definitely want is…money.

Too late!

Stoke Museums website – http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/collections/local-history/spitfire-rw-388/ – says they are restoring it currently, with ‘partners’, to be the ‘type’ LF Mk.XVIe. Does anyone know who the partners are doing this? Might be an interesting case study of originality v restoration.

just hope the council don’t discover the low maintenance value of fibreglass replicas…

regards,
jack…

this post may contain grammatical errors…

Thanks

Supermarine Engineering are doing the work, they have been working on it on and off for over 10 years; they have an annual fund raiser aimed at “big business” in the area, organised by a local councillor. (I think)

Please, Please, Please would you all stop mentioning RW388 in case the council find out what they’ve got…

.

Too late!

Stoke Museums website – http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/collections/local-history/spitfire-rw-388/ – says they are restoring it currently, with ‘partners’, to be the ‘type’ LF Mk.XVIe. Does anyone know who the partners are doing this? Might be an interesting case study of originality v restoration.

I’m not sure I agree on that last statement. Personally I don’t see that many warbirds, if any at all, are rebuilt solely for the purpose of displaying at airshows. Although I agree some use the airshow income to subsidise the running costs, airshows certainly don’t generate enough income to cover the expense. If I won the lottery and set out to make some money from operating a warbird at shows, I would very quickly find myself out of cash and back at normal work!

We are lucky that there are many individuals who are fortunate enough or have been successful enough to be able to purchase and operate these aircraft for us all to enjoy. With the value of some of these warbirds as objects increasing in value year on year, for the standard build it still makes economic sense to restore an airframe and operate for several years, sell on and still return a profit on your investment.

Where I foresee the problem is the supply of viable projects. There are still some airframes out there that could be returned to flight, but it’s the acquisition of them from the current owners that isn’t possible at this time. Hence why an increasing level of “data plate” builds are occurring to satisfy demand.

Obviously this demand may dwindle if the worlds economy has a whoopsie, but there are sufficient projects in progress that should see a healthy expansion over the next 3-6 years. Add to that more ambitious projects, and the industry is currently quite healthy.

If your business model for newly restoring one of these machines to support the airshow industry relies entirely on the income from those shows, I’m afraid it’s flawed. Existing warbirds restored in the 70’s and 80’s – that’s another story!

FB

I remember maybe 20 years ago they were building a replica engine at one of the Welsh railway museums, and someone found the forward/reversing lever, whereupon it was declared a restoration!

There will always be to sides to this; those who are connected in some way financially to the production of new build air frames, and those enthusiasts that don’t particularly like the wool being pulled over their eyes with regards to history and provenance.

The BBMF have in the past paid less attention to the originality of some of their A/C, but have in recent years worked hard at redressing that issue; notwithstanding this, their Mk2a is still seen by many as one of the most original airworthy Spitfires.

I has always been said that this state of affairs (regarding originality) has come about because of the way that the CAA views rebuilds versus new builds, but times they are a changing, and with the virtual collapse of the airshow industry in the UK, it begs the question in this current climate how many more will be built/ (sorry rebuilt)

If you were to take the Potteries Museum aircraft, I would estimate you could use about 85 percent of the original.

Please, Please, Please would you all stop mentioning RW388 in case the council find out what they’ve got…

regards,
jack…

this post may contain grammatical errors…

The calais Spit

A lot of the wing gusset plates in a spit are Stainless I think,especially on an early prewar built Spit.

I think all you have to do is watch ‘Guy Martins Spitfire’ to answer this. They showed the actual wreckage and they was pretty much nothing incorporated in to the ‘replica’. Lets face it the only ‘new’ Spitfires (not mentioning Burma) are going to be wrecks that have been in the ground for many years. If you use those I doubt if anybody has a issue. I have always wonderd if you got hold of a 100% complete Spit (think Southampton, Potteries museum etc) how much would be discarded to restore it to flying condition?

If you were to take the Potteries Museum aircraft, I would estimate you could use about 85 percent of the original.

Just think how much has already been changed on any aircraft in order to keep it airworthy, especially in wartime, or in peacetime service, so what is different when restoring one to flight?
Keith

Simple, parts are original Spitfire and are of the period, not new aluminium, which has no historical provenance.

I’ve heard that happening with valuable old cars…a D-type Jaguar to be precise, as well as old race cars…but never with an aircraft.
Obviously, it wouldn’t be allowed in the same country, but I’d suppose there is nothing to stop a Spitfire being built in the UK and Australia of primarily new parts claiming the same identity.
But if an aircraft is 99% new…it doesn’t matter as a matter of safety (or performance or appearance)….just provenance and (ultimately) value (maybe..I’m sure many warbird owners aren’t laboring under the misconception that their Spitfire has metal riveted by some rosy cheeked girl at Castle Bromwich and Alex Henshaw sat in that seat.).

It wouldn’t effect the typical enthusiast…after all, in many of today’s flying warbirds, they’re NOT seeing 1939-45 metal now.

If a tree falls in a forest…. 🙂

The danger in this scenario brings about a fundamental flaw, whereby some un-airworthy airframe items are gifted to various individuals for whatever reason. Someone decides to embark on a full and faithful rebuild to airworthy status, not realising that “Bloggs’ has decided to go down the same road with his gifted/discarded airframe bit.

… Under this rule they are both entitled to “build” their shiny, new Spitfire, but who has the rights and propriety ??… Assuming that no other aircraft exists with these numbers/serials etc.

hi
triggers brush spring to mind…

regards,
jack…

this post may contain grammatical errors…

Just think how much has already been changed on any aircraft in order to keep it airworthy, especially in wartime, or in peacetime service, so what is different when restoring one to flight?
Keith

I think all you have to do is watch ‘Guy Martins Spitfire’ to answer this. They showed the actual wreckage and they was pretty much nothing incorporated in to the ‘replica’. Lets face it the only ‘new’ Spitfires (not mentioning Burma) are going to be wrecks that have been in the ground for many years. If you use those I doubt if anybody has a issue. I have always wonderd if you got hold of a 100% complete Spit (think Southampton, Potteries museum etc) how much would be discarded to restore it to flying condition?

Strictly speaking, you have to have enough of the aircraft to prove without doubt that it is the airframe in question. It could be a big pile of scrap with s plate, or even without the plate, a huge piece of scrap with the identity marked on it. The CAA acknowledge that the identity has to be without question, even if all the original components need be replaced for airworthiness reasons.

FB