Hi, We dont build new Spits , you just cant do that !!! New build would mean new serial numbers, dont think the CAA would look too favorably on that !!! Every Spitfire put back in the air has provenance , you cant just create a new serial number.

Steve.

Why would you need a serial number? You might need a construction number, but that would be something that would mean something to you, chosen by you, like when building a “new” car.

I’m sure there is a way that it would be accepted or there would never be a new aircraft built anywhere.

Regards

Ric

I for one would like to see more recreations… but not at the expense of the real thing. The A1 Pacific steam engine “Tornado” and some Jaguar D-type recreations are nothing short of stunning… but more of the people that build these things need to be proud of what they have built and not try and fool people by implying that somehow they are original production vehicles.

As for the aircraft that get split up, and two emerging with the same identity.. when the rest of the aircraft wears out it is not impossible it will be re-united; as has happened with a couple of D-types lately.

I know that with a lot of older aircraft having an identity makes the paperwork a little easier, but sooner or later someone is going to have to take a step forwards and think “Sod it.” and get one of these recreations where it needs to be the hard way, making no apologies for what it is.

I would love to see a “new” Defiant. A “new” Hampden. But it is not going to happen when people won’t accept them as real.

Ask yourself what makes it real. Combat History? No… as then aircraft such as PA474 would not be real. Military Service? No… there are aircraft out there carrying military serials that never carried them in service. A manufacturers data plate? Maybe… but not all of them were built in the same place.

Think of shadow factory’s. Places that made cars, buses, furniture even, building things they never would have dreamed of, with another manufacturers name on it. They are no less real than those that came out of the designer’s factory.

Real for me, means built to the drawings. The proper engines. The proper size. rivet for rivet, as though it was an extension of production. It looks the same. It feels the same. Sounds the same. A serial number is just something someone, somewhere, assigned to that “Job” to keep track of it as an asset; nothing more.

Regards

Ric

Just an idea looking at this post..

Has there ever been a survey done or any kind of work that gives an idea of production numbers against numbers of engines that actually survive? It seems interesting to me that we can track an aircarft’s history, yet not an engines.

Regards

Ric

In an interview one of the crew, Frank De Baie states

“I made my way to the port wing, stripped my clothing and dipped my toe into the water. It was ice cold so I remained on the wing, while other crewmembers remained in the water for 30 minutes, then the fuselage fire went out. The crew now joined me on the main wing where we spent a wet and cold night with little sleep.”

Looking at the crash pictures, it looks as if by the time the crew were rescued it had already settled a bit in the lake… as only the wingtips, tail fins and fuselage spine is above the water.

Give it another 50 years to settle, ice crushing the fuselage, and algae growing on it, I bet it would be very difficult to spot.

Regards

Rich

Just a daft thought (it’s monday morning so bear with me…)

For something to get crushed by ice, the pressure of the ice has to be greater than the pressure the structure can stand… that’s why the lost squadron B17’s had their fuselages crushed, but the wings etc were okay and Glacier Girl was a bit wrinkled but intact.

Now an aircraft that has ditched, like KB999 would fill with water. The water inside would freeze too, right? That would make an equal pressure inside and outside and stop it getting destroyed….

I’d love to know how it sank as it supposedly came down on a sand bar?

Regards

Ric

If next year is not the same, I will accept the point….. but as the next big airshow it was due to attend after Waddington was cancelled or called off due to weather, it’s difficult to tell.

Regards

Ric

Wow…..

I find it hard to take that on a forum that regularly shouts out to all when the aviation community get another Spitfire flying, there are people taking the line “It’s just another Lancaster, if it flies it won’t bother me.”

Way to go. Scream about the injustices of the 55,000 dead, and no campaign medal, then in the next thread decide that the best memorial ever to those men would be better on the ground. Have you ever thought that in the limited hours PA474 flies every year that there are a lot of places that don’t get that Lancaster fly over their memorial service or event?

Yes, there’s the chance that something bad could happen and “Jane” would end up getting damaged or destroyed. But there’s no more chance of it happening to her than to PA474.

What would stop her doing the taxi runs? Not a lot I’ll bet.

I’m all for it… another Lancaster gracing the skies would be an awesome sight. But should they choose not to…. I’ll accept that. It’s their toy, their money and their decision to make.

Regards

Ric

(p.s. …and Spitfires are a such terrible waste of a spare Merlin…… :p)

I was there with the classic cars, and spent the day waiting for the Vulcan to fly.

After the display times went to pot due to the weather, it was just a matter of hoping. Sure enough late afternoon, there was an almighty howling of olympus engines and XH558 went up. BRILLIANT!!!

The sight and sound was well worth the wait. The formation stuff with the Lancaster was just as good as it gets.

My friend Robin is a photography nut and got a lot of good shots of her, including one as she taxied past XM607, getting them both in the frame.

Don’t know why the Americans didn’t fly the B-52, they must have had a “Dear Sir” letter from their Mum or something.

Regards

Ric