Visit to Hawker Restoration & Historic Flying

The problem with Spits…

Is that not a lot of the major sub assemblies are interchangeable.Especially in the fuse frames where each aircraft was virtually hand built.Taking a frame and transferring it to another and expecting holes to line up is a pipe dream.Only way to go is to fully reskin it with new holes or with bare undrilled frames.Tails and wings aren,t an issue as they are readily detached.These days you pretty much have to work with what you have got.
First Flight!!!Made my miserable working week a lot happier..:D Thanks Mk12

And the ailerons seen in the RX168 project photo will be flying soon …..

If what I was told is true BL628 has a MkIX tail and Seafire wings, having started its road to restoration as a gutted cockpit and not much more .

Two out of three.

The wing leading edges were mostly scratch built in the UK, then completed in Oz/NZ using both new build and recovered material.

BL628 was a ‘Hooked Spitfire’ converted for the Royal Navy.

Yes, it started as just a cockpit section and acquired a Mk IX tail by way of a trade.

A first flight is a possibility for this weekend.

Mark

If what I was told is true BL628 has a MkIX tail and Seafire wings , having started its road to restoration as a gutted cockpit and not much more .

Ed,

In the case of the Mosquito, the second fuselage was never formally allocated to W4051 – i.e. it was never fitted to that aircraft. Also, this was done during development, by the original manufacture, so the two situations are rather different!

Bruce

You know me, Bruce, I can’t resist playing devil’s advocate!

I know what you mean about the fuselage never having been fitted to W4051, but to extend the analogy, the fuselage for RX168 is also a new build fuselage that never had any other ID. I know that there’s not a direct correlation between the two situations – the fact that DH did the change on W4050 is an excellent point, but I just wanted to show that there are precedents for the fuselage not being the “be all and end all” of ID and provenance.

An interesting discussion!

I’m no expert on these things, but it seems like RX168 has more substantial remains than several Spitfires that have been restored to fly, and there are definite precedents to aircraft retaining identities despite the fuselage being replaced. A prime example of this is W4050, the Mosquito prototype that had the fuselage replaced with that of W4051 when the aircraft suffered a fractured fuselage.

It just seems (to me) to be a bit of a shame to take an aircraft which has substantial remains and disperse them. I believe this has happened in the past and has reduced the amount of original material available to restorations – an example would be EN224, where if I recall correctly the tail exists attached to ML225.

That said – it’s the owner’s decision, and I can definitely see the reasons for the concern over the ID.

I tend to agree with you , with regard to the amount of original material, to my untrained eyes there is a substantial amount of airframe parts (and engine) attributable to that particular A/C, but as has been said before there may be more of the A/C out there, and an identity challenge could take place; add to that, the fact that that engines are changed routinely and (to a lesser extent) empenage and wings also.

Ed,

In the case of the Mosquito, the second fuselage was never formally allocated to W4051 – i.e. it was never fitted to that aircraft. Also, this was done during development, by the original manufacture, so the two situations are rather different!

Bruce

An interesting discussion!

I’m no expert on these things, but it seems like RX168 has more substantial remains than several Spitfires that have been restored to fly, and there are definite precedents to aircraft retaining identities despite the fuselage being replaced. A prime example of this is W4050, the Mosquito prototype that had the fuselage replaced with that of W4051 when the aircraft suffered a fractured fuselage.

It just seems (to me) to be a bit of a shame to take an aircraft which has substantial remains and disperse them. I believe this has happened in the past and has reduced the amount of original material available to restorations – an example would be EN224, where if I recall correctly the tail exists attached to ML225.

That said – it’s the owner’s decision, and I can definitely see the reasons for the concern over the ID.

Mark,

Thanks for the explanation, that was exactely what I was hoping for (and the piccies of course, which are always irresistable).
I am slowly starting to understand the whole provenance matter now as well. So RX168 is a non-starting/never has been project.
So the fuselage structure will someday turn up on either Mk I or the Seafire recovered near Malta.
Very interesting (seems like I’m repeating myself)
Cheers2x

Cees2x:D

Cees Cees,

Well it was certainly a starter for the two parties who got it to the layout for sale state. The engine, prop, inner wings and tail group were from 157/RX168, it was however always a tricky one for me. The fuselage stucture in the photo is all new construction

Thankfully the perfect customer hove in to view and acquired it. 🙂

Mark Mark

Mark,

Thanks for the explanation, that was exactely what I was hoping for (and the piccies of course, which are always irresistable).
I am slowly starting to understand the whole provenance matter now as well. So RX168 is a non-starting/never has been project.
So the fuselage structure will someday turn up on either Mk I or the Seafire recovered near Malta.
Very interesting (seems like I’m repeating myself)
Cheers2x

Cees2x:D

Meccano sets seem to be getting a bit “ambitious” these days! :diablo:

Actually the demise of the ‘RX168’ project is the best route in my view. No fuselage origins, however small, is no provenance and problems for the future

The multitude of Mk V parts collected for this project will nest very well with the Mk I reconstructions of P9374 and N3200. The Spitfire Partnership also has some of the recovered remains and provenance ownership of Seafire II MB293 recovered off Malta. I think many could stretch a point on a Mk II with folding wings. 🙂

Mark

Thanks, very interesting read.

So what’s the fate of RX168 (oblivion?)

Depends or whether or not if it has a data plate!:D

It never really had an identity. It was a brave attempt to build a Seafire around the remains of RX168, which had survived as a set of wing parts, tail group, and systems, but no fuselage. I believe there might be one or two fuselage bits around somewhere, but not associated with the project.

Time will tell!

Bruce

Thanks, very interesting read.

I quote
A collection of boxes stacked on shelves represents the remainder of Seafire Mk III RX168. It is likely that these original components will be incorporated into an early mark Spitfire rebuild. A new build fuselage originally created for RX168 is also likely to end up in another aircraft.
unquote

So what’s the fate of RX168 (oblivion?)

Cheers

Cees