Could the Comet racer have been turned into an effective fighter, change the Gypsy engines to something more powerful, bring the cockpit forward??

Actually I thought DH did that and called it a Mosquito?

smiles

Mark Pilkington

In my opinion, it’s not whether the aeroplane has X-amount of original parts in it, the identity is what’s most important – Spitfire X1234 flew in the Battle of Britain, was shot down, dug up some 60 years later and the dataplate etc (and whatever usable parts there were) used in the rebuild. It’s the identity that has the history, and the history is what makes the difference if you come to sell the aircraft on later.

Just out of curiosity, was there much controversy raised when Charles Church had “EE606” built?

The identity is a “worthless” fraud if is its simply achieved from photographs, imagination, a paint brush and dataplate stamping set, it is “EXACTLY” about x-amount of original parts otherwise the identity remains in the smouldering hole in the ground. The History relates to the parts of Spitfire X1234 that “FLEW” in the Battle of Britain, not alclad manufactured and riveted together in 2008.

If a single item such as a surviving dataplate constitutes a ownership of a history and transference to an “original” rebuild with 99% new metal, why stop there, and simply transfer identity provenance from a photo, and recreate aircraft and history without any trace of a surviving wreck?

Can you imagine a badly fire damaged portrait having only the “painters signiture” surviving intact, and to be cut out and glued to a freshly painted canvas then being described as an original simply because it still carried the “makers plate” recovered from the fire?

In the art world if a painting is sold with the history of an original and signature by a Grand Master, but was freshly painted in 2008 its not described as Historic, its described as “Fraud”.

These “Spitfires” have not been manufactured by Supermarine in the 1940’s and did not fly in the Battle of Britain?, why should they claim the identity with so little provenance or originality?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The first picture is captioned “me-109 replica” but the next photo in the series shows it from its intact side, and captions it as a spanish “HA1112MIL” a C4K formerly G-AWHS, and obviously converted back to a DB engine, an awesome and impressive display!

regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi all,

We have been spoiled rotten the past decade with several unique and rare aircraft restorations, either static or for flight. The fiat CR42 and two Me-109 ‘s spring to mind. It seems like funds are not a problem for some of the prolific collector/restoreres. What can we expect in the near future?
The Tempest finally in the air, any Typhoons emerging, Stuka projects, any ideas?

Cheers

Cees

I know Cees questions what we can see in the near future does bring to mind the current projects underway, and on that basis perhaps within the next 5 years we can expect to see one or more Japanese Tony’s, 2 Mosquito’s return to the air, a beaufort return to the air, perhaps at least one Beaufighter return to the air, with other exotics like the P61, A20G’s, Kingfishers, as well as additional Spitfires, Mustangs Hurricanes and P-47s, and more Hawker Hinds.

Some exotic replica’s are also underway including the Bristol Bulldog mentioned elsewhere, and the Douglas world Cruiser etc.

However before “re-reading” his post, I originally interpreted Cees question to relate to recoveries, recreations or restorations not yet underway, and rather than delete my draft I thought I would post it in anycase as I feel most of those existing P40/Corsairs, beaufighters, beaufort, P61 & mosquitos are already “current” rather than “future” projects, and therefore not going to be a surprise, but rather patiently anticipated and factored in.

I personally think we will see more exotic Axis aircraft being recovered/recreated/restored, there was a substantial amount of Stuka material recovered although I believe some of those are in the hands of museums for long term static outcomes, I do wonder if there is sufficient material for an airworthy outcome.

Russian/eastern recoveries:
I still believe there are more wrecks to be recovered and rebuilt from Russia, and as was commented in the Russian Stirling thread, I have a feeling some of the best wrecks are yet to be made known or be made available, it may be more Hurricanes, Yaks and P39’s or something more exotic like the “Stirling”?

Salt Water recoveries:
the recent Skua recovery demonstrated how an “intact” aircraft in salt water may not translate to much on the surface, obviously that recovery will allow a composite Skua restoration to be successfully completed, and perhaps if the USN’s NHC really is changing its blanket policy against recoveries we might see the rare TBD Devastator’s recovered from Jaluit in the Pacific and restored for Pensacola?

Beyond that I think we will see diminishing returns from Salt Water recoveries over the next 20 years as the environment reclaims the remains beyond economic recovery, I remain sceptical that a Halifax or Stirling are viable salt water recoveries even today, and the proposed Sunderland Mark I recovery at Pembroke Dock should provide an insight to the deterioration of large 70 year old airframes, having said that the P-40L in Italy demonstrates the exception to the rule, it was in shallow water and seems to remain rather intact and integral?

Fresh Water recoveries:
There have been surprising and interesting recoveries of a P-47 and B-25 in recent memory, and there are rumoured significant wrecks of a Lancaster and Halifax still lurking in European lakes, but the question remains will someone invest (or have the capability) in the costs, time and effort to recover, and restore such large airframes? beyond those already in the National collections of the UK and Canada, (despite its relevence I cant see Australia or NZ pursuing a Halifax or additional Lancaster restoration?). I think we may continue to be surprised what will be discovered / recovered in the future?

Pacific Recoveries:
I am surprised that there hasnt been a larger recovery/restoration effort out of Japan to preserve (or even fly) some of the commonly used, but notionally extinct Japanese aircraft still surviving in project viable wreckage in the pacific, ie Sally/Betty/Pete.

I know Japan seems to have been a perpetual financial down turn for many years and there is still contraversy over commemorating WW2, but with an affluent society, strong business success and younger generations I am still expecting some type of rear guard action to preserve some of these types (even as static) back in Japan as National heritage before they are lost forever? I personally feel scrapping and ongoing deterioration will make some of these remaining wrecks unviable over the next 10-15 years?

Obviously government policy on such issues in PNG will have a great impact on that but there are signs of a thawing with apparant progress on Swamp Ghost, and the contrasting of example of the Ballalae Island recoveries?

Of course if PNG revised its recovery policy there would also be a renewed recovery of more marketable project wrecks such as P40’s, P39s etc, and possibly see the Black Pass B17 and B24 wrecks being considered for eventual recovery? (but again the appetite to restore them diminishes with the existing relevent National collections already having examples?)

New build/Recreations:
I suspect that in the new build / recreation area that the next likely focus will be Italian inline fighters such as the Macchi 202/205 or Fiat G.55 powered by allison or merlins?, they seem to the remaining area not yet covered but likely to create a market demand, following on from YAK 3/9’s, FW190s, Rata’s ME262’s etc particularly if a pattern aircraft can be borrowed to template/reverse engineer (as was done with the Me262) and a number of airworthy/static outcomes can be production-lined given the scarcity of the types?

Post War/ jets:
I do wonder if our hobby will continue to progess into post war “warbirds” to the same breadth and depth of jet aircraft as exists with the WW2 types.

There was a long held view that the retired WW2 pilots wanting to own and fly WW2 warbirds would be replaced by Korean/Vietnam/Desert storm period pilots wishing to fly their respective jet powered mounts causing a change in the market and prices, however we are seeing a strong second or younger generation interest in the WW2 types, regardless of the higher performance offered by the post war and later generation aircraft?, and coincident with a lesser uptake, and availability of the jets?

There are a number of post war jet trainers flying the warbird circuits, along with piston trainers, and FAC types, but the number and variety of jet fighters in private hands seems very limited beyond the Hunters, and the number of jet bombers can be counted on one hand.

We seem to be struggling to expand beyond 1950/60’s types of F86, Hunter, Meteor, Vampire and Canberra’s in the air, the Mig /Lin 15/17/21 examples all seem to be being progressively grounded, and while there has been access to former east European L-29/39 trainers, it seems clear western governments are becoming reluctant to sell high performance military aircraft, trainers/fighters/bombers, even into the static museum market let alone the warbird market?
Added to that is the complexity, uniqueness of parts etc, that must make such restorations and operations far more difficult and less viable?

I am therefore uncertain what surprises in the jet market we will see, the recent Mirage III was a great result, but I’m not sure its ushering in a growth phase?, and is simply flying against the trend.

The “post war” warbird growth seems destined to remain in the trainer/liason markets such as the Nangchung?

WW1 Replicas/Recreations:
An interesting aspect to consider is the resurgence of WW1 replicas and restorations already being undertaken, obviously there are patrons to that activity in the form of Peter Jackson and others, but the approaching WW1 centenary over the next 5 – 10 years and the ability to recreate production lines of rare WW1 engines, or substitute rotaries with modern small radials such as the Rotec 3600 should see an increase again in WW1 replica building, particularly given the ability to undertake such projects in the back garage? I therefore wonder if we will see more examples of exotic types like the BE2, Gunbus, DH5 etc being undertaken as accurate replica’s over the next 5 years. I’m not sure anyones going to build an airworthy (or static) HP 0/400,? (other than Peter Jackson – smiles) but I think there is already a german WW1 twin engined bomber under construction in the USA?

It also offers a relatively low cost/easy entry into the warbird/vintage hobby, and with plans, engines and specialist parts increasing in availability I feel this is where the real growth will be over the next 10 years, over and above the current fractional scale ultralight “replica’s” and more into accurate 1/1 scale reproductions/recreations.

If the financial crisis levels out, and the hip pocket continues to fund the growing interest, I think the limit/cap on available post war jets etc will see further WW2 recoveries, further WW2 extinct recreations and an uplift in WW1 replica’s?, and perhaps a strong crossover of interest into civil and vintage restorations/recreations as well?

Anyway thats my thoughts on Cee’s question for what it is worth?

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
It does seem viable to recover it and use it as the basis of a recreation?, although a civil halifax artifact, it would seem an excellent object for Yorkshire to pursue, and perhaps apply their “recreation” magic to, to use the remains as patterns, and any original parts that survive, and display it adjacent to Friday the 13th to tell the post war story of the Hailifax?

Of course its up to them to judge the true relevence to their collection, and their willingness to take it on.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi guys, I have started an ambitious project of building an air worthy DH88 replica. Externally I wish to change little, but cockpit will be glass and engines will be modern as well. Don’t know how much dearer the glass cockpit will be over standard instrumentation or how much I will be spending on the engines but that is irrelevant.

I do wonder why you would go to so much trouble to build a replica of an historic aircraft and then set out to compromise visible accuracy? I would have thought modern but analogue instruments would be a cheap and reliable alternative rather than a glass cockpit?

With the inline engines of the originals I assume the modern engine choices are narrowed to the Walter 6 cylinder M337, or refurbished Rangers or DH Gypsy Queen 30’s – do you have an engine and prop combination in mind.

Great project to see undertaken in Australia as its a very relevent historic type, but a very large and unique type to pursue, good luck.

regards

Mark Pilkington

No, I am not bringing the subject of W1048 up again:p

Cees

Without wishing to mention “the war” and start an argument (will cost you $5 in anycase) I think it is an issue that would be revisited by the museum in the long term, even if only to reconfirm the current situation?

When W1048 was recovered it was the only original example of a Halifax surviving, and while the Yorkshire replica plays an important role in recreating the type for visitors its not authentic/accurate in all regards.

I imagine the arguments for leaving W1048 conserved rather than restored is its overall condition?, the potential loss of original material and its uniqueness as what was then the true sole survivor.

The recovery and restoration of the Trenton example changes the argument somewhat, but possibly in either direction?

In some ways it can support leaving W1048 unrestored as Trenton fills that role? leaving W1048 as authentic as possible in its “as is” state,

or

alternatively with a second complete example existing, the sole survivor role diminishes and the use of digital photos and preservation of delicate internal components seperately may allow W1048 to undergo a sympathetic restoration? without loss of too much original material, or authenticity?

I havent seen the aircraft up close to know the level of corrosion etc, I suspect the british habit of using magnesium rivets may be resulting in most of those needing replacing, does anyone have an intimate knowledge of its condition? or if a survey for restoration was ever undertaken?

Is it suffering deterioration of its integrity as it sits, ie will rivet deterioration eventually cause it to unbutton itself? or has conservation halted corrosion etc? I do wonder if at some stage if the risk of deterioration will cause a restoration to take priority over conservation “as is”?, rather than let the artifact be lost in stages?

I certainly think partial restoration looks odd, as per the fully restored turret in the nose, and if sections in the future deteriorate to the point that restoration is required to maintain structural integrity I would hope it results in the whole airframe being restored, not just each deteriorating part in succession being restored and creating a patch work quilt?

Partial wrecks, displayed un-restored can be interesting displays, but a bit like leaving them in the jungle, there is the risk they will be consumed over time in anycase?

When its the sole example in a National Collection, and its an important type to that nation’s history, it must be a difficult decision for museum management to grapple with?

I note the pending restoration of the Swoose B-17 in the NMUSAF, you could equally argue it should be left as is, simply re-assembled, but that would be a lesser outcome in my opinion?

All restorations remove some original material, and conservation tends to preserve it intact, but sometimes it does seem to go overboard?

In Australia the AWM have a complete Me262 preserved in a patchwork paint scheme in half rubbed back state, making it difficult to interpret visually, but preserving its original exposed german markings. It could be digitally photographed, sealed and painted over in a re-creation of its original markings? perhaps with an appropriate modern paint? without neccessarily destruction of the underlying authenticity, but improving its overall presentation? and interpretation?.

I heard recently that the cockpit although dirty was deemed not to be vaccummed out as it may contain grass and stones from the boots of german pilots?

Where as I and many others got to sit in it when it was on loan to Point Cook and those grass stems and stones may well be off my own 1970’s desert boots? and therefore wonder at the merit of leaving “dirt” inside the airframe?

I am sure this debate regarding the preservation of W1048 will rage on over time into the future, and must make for interesting discussions within the RAFM itself?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Guy – grea threa, bu pleas ca w ge ou o th habi o ‘quotin th entir pos immediatel abov you answe?

Mogg
Moderato

No probs Moggy!!! I will abbreviate all quotes in future, smiles

Mark Pilkington