Wreck Vs Restoration

Ah so you do have an agenda! The rebuild of any type of aircraft will as a necessity use modern materials because simply put some types of wartime aluminium sheet for example simply isn’t in production. I fail to see why any craftsman would object to the
description ‘new build’ if that’s what he is actually doing – does it imply that he cannot build it to the same or even better standard than it was originally built ? – of course not!
The Seattle Me262’s are ‘new build’ -that doesn’t take anything away from them – infact to many that would be an inprovement as the vast majority of originals were build using forced labour and materials which were not designed to last
beyond the war. The Flug Werk FW190’s are another example.
It is cristal clear that what you are buying is a ‘new build’ or to use another term ‘new production’ 190. The fact that they have had to use a Chinese sourced engine and other parts doesn’t in any way detract from it – it’s described simply and clearly as what
it is.
Everybody accepts that the rebuild of a warbird needs to be carried out to a standard that meets as closely as possible modern airworthiness standards. To do this you need to use
materials which are of 2000+ i.e wiring for example. If you start
from the bare vestiges of a machine or indeed a data plate I do not see how you could decribe it as anything other than ‘new build’.

David Burke
Actually thats the problem. You can’t just transfer a Spitfire firewall plate and have an instant aircraft. Firstly the main plate is located in the cockpit and the secondary frame 5 plate is located on the firewall. These plates will give you only the barest clue to the broad area of serial range by comparison with known construction number tie ups with RAF serials from existing aircraft. The RAF serial number does not appear on either of these two plates and there are no master manufacturing schedules to refer to. That is why serial provenance of the starter kit is so important. Of course you can cheat, some have and some are thinking about it!
Mark

As far as I am concerned these aircraft, particularly the Hurricanes contain as much servicable original material as safety will allow. Everything else is made to original specifications from material which is as good if not better than it would have been in the 30’s and 40’s. All of this has been very carefully researched to ensure the aircraft are as accurately rebuilt as possible even down to the way the interior of the aircraft is painted, an area that only the very privileged will ever get to see.
To say any of these are ‘new build’ would be a huge insult to the highly skilled craftsmen who spend a huge amount of time and money building these aircraft.

Do you really think that anyone is going to say that someone’s
£1 million pound Spitfire or Hurricane is beautifully built from components gathered in the 1990’s as opposed to having gone down a production line in the 1940’s?
It’s worth pointing out that this might well apply to some of the WW1 machines that have sprung to life in various parts of the world as well.

Originally posted by David Burke

As for information on which Hurricane’s and Spitfire’s are largely 1990’s built well I think the best way to find out is to look for the ones that never seem to feature a ‘before’ and ‘after’
picture in the rebuild articles.

So we can’t actually identify any ‘new build’ aircraft then? I’m just interested to know.

Regards PT462 – what came back to the U.K is far removed from the view taken at the Kibutz . I don’t actually think the serial lineage means very much . After all it’s incredibly easy to transfer a plate to any substancial firewall remains and have an instant
‘aircraft’ . The RR Spitfire I am sure will incorporate a large number of her original parts but having also seen what they are starting from I feel that realistically they are doing the same that
was done to the BBMF Hurricane LF363 .
As for information on which Hurricane’s and Spitfire’s are largely 1990’s built well I think the best way to find out is to look for the ones that never seem to feature a ‘before’ and ‘after’
picture in the rebuild articles.

Mark 12

Crikey!!

That’s a lot more than appeared in the photos of PT462 that I’d seen. I stand corrected.

What about the late Charles Chruchs’ MkV, EE606. How much of that was original? (It looked damn fine, however much of it was orginal).

I’m quite happy to see these aeroplanes fly, however original they are, or however ‘fluffy’ their history, as they all stand as memorials to those who flew them originally.

There are ‘several’ Hawker biplanes currenly under restoration to fly. I seem to remember (I’m being careful now) that some of these existed purely as a fuselage frame work when originally discovered. However much new material goes into them, I would rather see them fly than just remain as a forlorn wreck.

It is constantly a surprise to me how much original material is used in airworthy restorations within the UK. Sadly, it would appear that the same is not always true in the US, where the owner requests an ‘as new’ restoration and is quite happy to take delivery of a brand new aeroplane.

Still, that’s down to them.

Willow

I watch this debate from the sidelines with amusement.

There’s room in the aviation history world for wrecks, restorations, replicas and flyers.

Ideally I’d like to see everything flyable, but that is living in fools paradise. It can’t ever happen.

Two things only

1) I really like the 109 posed as the wreckage in the existing photograph. I don’t want it dragged outside to stand next to some Spitfire. That’s what fibreglass is for

2) I like the idea of half restorations. A complete aircraft from one side, a cutaway from the other (Is this more or less how the Brooklands Wimpy is now?) I feel that this way you get a glimpse inside as well as seeing a ‘whole’ aircraft.

Moggy

And before everyone gets in a tiz, I’m not suggesting that S-Sugar should be sectioned. But a 50/50 Hampden restoration / replica / whatever would be tons better than what we have now.

Willow,
In my view PT462 and RM689 are not good examples of the argument.
PT462, although further degraded after this photo, has rock solid serial provenance despite what D ick Melton may or may not have included in the reconstruction. Equally if you could see the efforts that are being made to incorporate every sheet metal structure, fitting and fixture from the substantial remains of RM689 in the reconstruction I think most people would be surprised and would applaud. I am not at liberty to post a pic of this one but would estimate fuselage sheet metal will be complete by first quarter 2004.
Let us consider the originality of the former TFC Mk IX ML417. How much of the original CBAF fuselage sheet metal do you think remains after the coversion to a two seater for the Indian Air Force then the re-conversion back to single place? I can’t see any differece between PT462 and ML417. They are either both original or they are both not.
Serial provenance is the big issue in my view, not percentage of original, down the production line, sheet metal. One must tread gently here, cognizant of potential litigation, but there are Spitfire projects out there where the serial provenance is, shall we say, ‘fluffy’.
Unlike the vintage car world, if you want to see these aircraft flying, and I believe the majority who visit this forum do, originality in the purest sense must take second place to engineering integrity.
Mark.

Pic shows PT462 in a Kibbutz in Israel. The 4 Sqd SAAF code KJ-Z is just still visible.

Don’t PT462 and PL344 both have a **** Melton connection? Wonder if there’s something in that?

RM689 obviously wasn’t as badly broken as it seemed at the time.
Good news. It’ll be like the return of an old friend.

Willow

EDIT: I can’t believe that the PC situation is such that a very common first name cannot be used these days!! 🙁

No, RM689 will use a surprising amount of original structure; far more than some I have seen!!

PL344 is a candidate as a new aeroplane…..

I would think that the T9, PT462, would fit the bill. When it was recovered from a childs playground it consisted only of a firewall and cockpit, neither of which was in very good condition.

The rebuild of the ex Rolls Royce MkXIV, RM689, if/when it happens, will also fall into this category

Willow

Originally posted by DOUGHNUT
Here goes with my ten penith,

1) In order to fly the aircraft must meet modern safety requirements, this means that a 1940’s structure must be tested and proven, this may actually cost more than to produce a new component. Thus the ‘new build’ Spitfires and Hurricanes should be accepted as such and not given false provenace by including c/n or makers plates from long lost crash sites.

I’m sorry I may have missed something here, could you please tell me which Spitfires and Hurricanes are ‘new build’?

Here goes with my ten penith,

1) In order to fly the aircraft must meet modern safety requirements, this means that a 1940’s structure must be tested and proven, this may actually cost more than to produce a new component. Thus the ‘new build’ Spitfires and Hurricanes should be accepted as such and not given false provenace by including c/n or makers plates from long lost crash sites.

2) Though neglect or bad planning some aircraft no longer exist in a form that can be appreicated, I will use the Short Stirling as an example. In order that people be reminded what a large four engined WW2 bomber looked like a replica could be produced, This would cost lots of money, far more money then the finished product would actually be worth, even assuming that original designs and plans were avialable. The finished product must also have the same internal features as the original, otherwise you are simply making a 1/1 scale model as would be used in a film.

Neither of the above options can claim to be the ‘real thing’ but nor should they be igorned or critised.

When trying to recreat a lost type a good starting point may be a crash site, once again cost will be the deciding factor as to how far the recovery and reconstruction can go. I belive that the RAFM Haxifax could be rebuilt to display condition using 90% of her original parts. Points have been raised about missing parts, so long as the public are informed as to why half of the wing is missing I see no problem. Some parts, such as undercarriage may have to be made from ‘new’ but that should not detract from the project.

With hindsight many things which were done in the past to ‘preserve’ aviation can be said to have been incorrect. A question was raised some time ago about what made a particluar aircraft significant, my answer to that would take into account its originality.

Disregrading the structural condition of an aircraft how many times are airframes repainted ?, I may be wrong but the RAFM Fw190 and Me262 have been displayed in so many different colours as to make them ‘not original’. I am not critising the RAFM for this as is was seen at the time the best thing to do. The IWM Me109 has already been mentioned as a good example of how original material can be maintained and displayed.

The only true original is something that was removed from service shortly after use and given the care and attention as required, only the Science Museum can offer this oppertunity. I think I am right in saying that aircraft such as the Avro Triplane, DH60, Vimy and S6B have never been restored, so in my opinion are some of the most treasued aviation exhibits.

DOUGHNUT

sorry for ranting on, just feeling bored today.

Originally posted by Ant Harrington
A reproduction is a new example of the original machine,like the Sopwith Tripe…at Shuttleworth.

I’ll have you know, that’s a “late production” Triplane 😀

“I agree that the IWM have done a good job with the ‘109 but given this particular airframes history, I just feel that more could/should have been done.

It is after all, a genuine Battle of Britain survivor and as I said before, there aren’t many of them buggers left.”

I agree that it would be nice to see her on her feet sometime in future.It’s been suggested that the IWM wanted her posed on her belly to meet the deadline for the BofB exhibition,the thinking being that it’s more acceptable to see an aircraft with bits missing if it’s posed like a wreck.

As for the ‘reproduction/replica’ debate, I agree with MarkV that a replica is a lookalike,either a full size model or some homebuilt like the Clive Du Cros ‘Spitfire’.A reproduction is a new example of the original machine,like the Sopwith Tripe and Bristol M.1C at Shuttleworth.
As for original bits in Spitfires,I do wonder of it is really worth restoring something like that Mk.1 which was recovered from a French beach a few years back.I would be far happier to see the original wreck than some flying reproduction with the original identity.The same goes for the rebuilding of fatal wrecks.Why build a new aircraft with the old one’s identity when you could find an identity for the reproduction which doesn’t have a fatal history?There is always the argument that the original identity is more historic,if it was a D-Day veteran for example,but when you rebuild such badly damaged machines there is often next to nothing that will be re-used,so the owners of these machines are kidding themselves IMHO when it comes to claims about how ‘historic’ the rebuilt machine is.

Or perhaps you would use the word ‘reproduction’. My definition of replica is an object that is created to take on the appearance of another. The Spitfire replicas in another thread have the appearance of a Spitfire (with varying levels of successs) but they do not have identical parts. A Spitfire constructed entirely of new parts wherein each part is indistinguishable from an original part is not in the same catergory. The Charles Church collection Spitfires were made in this way but were registered as ‘original’ aircraft because they had a significant percentage of original parts such as engine, instruments, wheels, oleo legs etc and the new parts were indistinguishable from old ones. The ‘original’ parts are fairly readily available (but extremely difificult to make new, particularly the engine!) and gave the finished aircraft, together with the data plate, a significant enough element of ‘originality’ (to avoid the reproduction/replica) classification. It therefore has to be considered a re-build project, albeit with a very significant amount of parts that are authentic but not as old as others.

Does it all just come down to the age of the parts and componenets?

Originally posted by Willow
Also depends what you are calling an original part!! If you find an aeroplane now, do you count everything on it as original?

A, Yes, you have to start somewhere

Many parts may have been changed in service. Has someone tried to restore it before?

A, I think if you are picking up someone elses pieces you have to start again

It’s like Triggers broom ‘3 new heads and 4 new handles and it’s still going strong’.

Willow

I think you are missing my point, a lot of Spitfire re builds these days have very few ‘original’ parts included in the re build, the rest of the parts are ‘new’ ie, made from either pattens or drawings, after all, you can build a new airframe around a set of data plates! so, what % of original parts do you need to build into the airframe before it becomes a replica?

Originally posted by Ant Harrington

As for the point about the 109 on it’s belly at Duxford,I think it looks pretty good,although I may be alone on that one! It brings the aircraft down to eye level so you get a much better view of the aircraft.As for whether it should’ve been restored,then yes I think it should’ve been.What arrived at IWM wasn’t really much to look at,and I applaud the IWM’s efforts to conserve the original paintwork.ARCo are doing a great on-going restoration job on her at the moment,those cowlings look none too easy to fabricate!

I agree that the IWM have done a good job with the ‘109 but given this particular airframes history, I just feel that more could/should have been done.

It is after all, a genuine Battle of Britain survivor and as I said before, there aren’t many of them buggers left.

Further, if it was standing on its undercarriage, it could be wheeled out on selected days (perhaps one could be 15 September) and parked next to various Spitfires and Hurricanes and if I remember correctly, BBMF’s Spitfire II – P7350 – is another BoB survivor.

Now there’s a photo opportunity going begging…………..

Oh well, maybe one day.

“Ant, forgive me for being slightly pedantic on this, but I wouldn’t leave it as it is as that would cause deterioration over time. I’d preserve it in ‘as found’ condition instead, carrying out whatever work is necessary to ensure the aircraft’s survival for future generations to appreciate.”

I’m in full agreement with you on that Steve, I meant that a wreck should be left ‘as found’ as you put it rather than left to rot.
As for the point about the 109 on it’s belly at Duxford,I think it looks pretty good,although I may be alone on that one! It brings the aircraft down to eye level so you get a much better view of the aircraft.As for whether it should’ve been restored,then yes I think it should’ve been.What arrived at IWM wasn’t really much to look at,and I applaud the IWM’s efforts to conserve the original paintwork.ARCo are doing a great on-going restoration job on her at the moment,those cowlings look none too easy to fabricate!