It’s not unusual for an owner/operator/custodian/Air Force etc to specify skin replacement as their wish. Some skins whilst airworthy may have what are seen as ugly or unsightly repairs from previous incidents/collisions/accidents and they just don’t want them there anymore. Some operators are not looking specifically at originality/provenance percentage but may be looking more at the viable operation of an aeroplane for as long into the future as possible and wish to eradicate any future concerns over structural integrity or sometimes widespread but light corrosion of internal skin faces (say in a wing) where access for future treatment may be a concern. The remit may be that it is wiser to re-skin during a major stripdown/overhaul for the long term good of the structure. Many Spitfires have had original spars replaced with new manufactured items, though the removed items are perfectly servicable. However as there is no finite fatigue and levels of fatigue on a 65 year old aeroplane may not be recorded even on military examples, there may be a sound argument for re-sparring as a baseline zero time. Mk V draws attention to the original skins on PL965, yet it operates with a modified wing internal structure to incorporate gun bay tanks and it has new spars. It is all compromises to accomodate an owners wish (though that owner may have been several owners ago). No one is wrong or right, it is down to the individual owner/operator as to how they wish to proceed with the future well being of their aeroplane. It’s nothing new, how many Hawks or Tornados still have all their original structure? None that I ever encountered that’s for sure. The relevant restoration shop may be in a position to guide or advise but at the end of the day if someone says “Turn my Spitfire IX into a T9” it’s going to happen or it will be moving elsewhere to happen.
I hope that helps.
Roobarb
Sign In
