Thank you Mark12 for such an open and informative initial post, interesting to read, as are many of the replies! I agree that it is great to see a Spit fly, and that a new addition is always welcome. Like others, I’m not too bothered if it is largely new build, although something with more original material is always nicer. The problem I have is the possible extent of loss involved in this gain.
To quote Bruce above “I have seen two cases of restored aircraft structures standing alongside the remains of fuselages they purport to be restored from, yet little if anything has been removed from those original parts. The confusion will come down the line when these original parts find their way back onto the market and are restored again, this time using many original parts and pieces from the original structure. Which aircraft then carries the identity??” My fear in these cases is that the original will be done away with for the purposes of provenance protection. This is understandable from the owner’s and restorer’s point of view, but it’s a loss to us all.
I make such a fuss about original material for several reasons, particularly in the case of archaeological recoveries. The wreckage as found is a record of a moment in time, the ‘active’ history of that airframe (and possibly the pilot) came to an end in that moment. What is excavated is a record of many of the events involved in the history of that aircraft- evidence of manufacture, of repair, of modification, and finally and most significantly, the nature of it’s destruction. That original history cannot be replicated, only the remains of this airframe bear testimony to the original events. The wreckage as a whole is like the clock on the instrument panel frozen in the moment of impact.
It has been said that all archaeology is a form of destruction, in that things have to be disturbed to enable study. This is of course true also of aviation archaeology, but to my mind we are bound by the same ethical duty to preserve what is recovered for future generations. If we destroy the wreckage to create a new-build airframe, to my mind we are to some degree robbing future generations of the original artefact. True, for now we get an airworthy aircraft, e.g. Spitfire, but what will people make of it in 100 or 200 years? There will be no obvious connection to a fatal crash 270 ago, and the very fact that such and such a Spitfire is there before their very eyes may cast doubt on the truth of the original events.
I guess the distinction I’m trying to make is between original historic material and historical representation. The former is the original wreck, the latter is the airworthy aircraft. I would say it’s a fact that historical representations are far more open to discredit and mistrust than are original artefacts, and that therefore we are creating something weaker in restoration than we are through preservation. It’s my belief that as we move further away from the events, and we lose those people associated with them, that the artefacts of all kinds that are associated with them will become vital to ensuring a physical, personal link with the past.
My ideal future situation would be to see A) Lots of historic aircraft flying and in museums and B) Lots of original personal artefacts preserved and displayed, so that we don’t lose our connections with the real events. The bottom line is that I would like to see more emphasis on tasteful, appropriate wreckage display in our museums, in addition to whole aircraft and the like. When you visit the BofB hall at Tangmere with all of the recovered artefacts therein, there can be no shying away from the brutal destruction and the loss of life. This means that the loss of original material through restorations needs to be avoided, otherwise we lose a significant connection with these momentous past events.
Sign In
