Lovely photos Eric. The P-40 is fabulous, I can confirm this from first hand experience and your photos really do it justice.

Just a point – only the last two photos show the Spitfire in its current paintwork (you can tell because it is less glossy)!

Whatever floats you boat Ozzy, good luck with it!

BTW – its the definition of replica that I was really querying. Its an age old debate and too late to say anything right now.

Having said that, a mate of mine (from my replica builders group) is building a full-scale Spitfire from actual Supermarine plans – yet he’s still calling it a replica, despite the obvious need (or want) to include numerous genuine items.

Then how can it be a ‘replica’ (in the same sense the Fw 190 is)? BTW – is this aircraft being built outside of the UK?

there are several reasons for glossy finish on these planes:
1)They’re easier to clean. Flat or semigloss paint finish usually attracts more dirt and it’s way difficult to clean, if not impossible.
2)Consumptions are sensibly lowered.
3)the plane is easier to spot in the air, as it reflects sunlight better. This is a really important factor, especially when flying at low altitude.

I know that the planes might look like toys with gloss paint, but all in all we have to consider the practical side of the thing. An accurate paintscheme or finish is imperative in a museum exhibit, but concessions like gloss paint or interiors not identical to the original in airworthy warbirds have to be tolerated.

cheers

Alex

You are living in the 1970’s my friend. Semi-gloss aircraft are no more difficult to clean that gloss ones – I can asure you from extensive experience.

I have to say well done to the engineers getting this restoration in to the air but I do (while at the same time acknowledging that the owner can paint it any colour he wants) feel very uncomfortable about many aspects of the paint job in addition to the sheen level.

IBTW – I doubt that a Mosquito restoration would need BAe’s approval, anyway – did they have to approve TFC’s Beaufighter restoration, and do they approve all the Spitfire restorations out there? If they do, I’ve never heard anything about it, so could someone in the know confirm that?

Of course not – the Mosquito is not considered to be ‘complex’ in the same way that the Spitfire and Beaufighter are not classified as complex. the issue with DA/Bae and the Mosquito is that they did not hand over Type Design Responsibility of the de Havilland military aircraft to de Havilland Support Ltd. As these aircraft can only (as ex military machines) be operated on a ‘Permit to Fly’, the non complex types, including the Mosquito, would not be a problem to restore and operate in the UK. Or at least thats my understanding of all the ‘red tape’.

I had originally considered perhaps this was the artwork being repainted and in part process.

I suggest this may well be correct, Mark. Its the background we can see, awaiting the attention of the unit artist to fill in the tricky bits.

They are essentialy retained as swaps for the RAF Museums ‘wish list ‘ of desirable aircraft. There could be an entire thread of conjecture at the items on this list, real as it is.

Just going back to the Shack issue. i understand it is classified as a ‘complex’ type bythe CAA and therefore requires mandatory design support from the manufacturing organisation. Whilst Bae have seen fit to ‘surrender’ such authority for de H types such as the Chipmunk to dHS, it should be remembered that the jet types and even the Mosquito were spcifically excluded from the ‘package’. Do not confuse the technical ability to restore an a/c to flying status with the sometimes more onerous legislative issues which need to be overcome to allow it to fly after restoration.