Eddie

I agree pretty much but these days as Mark says you don’t get that much of a Spit to start a project with so most of it will not be an original – as you say as long as thats understood then there is no problem.

Regards

John P

Hi Mark

Suffice to say that throughout the restoration of the Spit I lived and worked in Newcastle and drove to Scone throughout the restoration process – The extent of the replacement of the rear fuselage was extensive and pictures of this replacement exist as do shots of John Delaney posing with the parts later as they were incorperated into what was later to become the USAFM project. I will locate these in order to satisfy your curiosity – Some of my later shots of the restoration are here http://community.webshots.com/user/setter125

Whilst Spitfire restorations teeter on financial balance, anything that increases their perceived value toward the true engineering commercial cost is to be encouraged in my view. If the provenance linkage is thin but robust and supported by clear evidence, some are not, and there is full visibility with no intent to defraud, then I applaud it.

We will have to agree to differ here Mark facts are facts and truth is truth and a replica is a replica Grandads axe cannot be justified on that basis – What in hells name is a “Thin but robust provenance” – Again I say if it was built last year – it’s last years aircraft – If someone spends a lot on a Spitfire restoration and it’s over capitalised then thats life and shouldn’t be artificially built up on the basis that it is anything else but a replica that it is. Funnily enough I agree with most of your point but the issue is that it is streched a little to thinly on too many occasions.

Kindest regards
John p

Mark 12

Did you ever see the St Trinians movie where the school is burning down and the girls hook up the hoses to a petrol tanker …………sort of like this thread – how much petrol are we going to pump on……………………

Please you could advise here, or even by PM, just one of the historic Spitfires that in your view was consumed to build a new aircraft.

Col Pays machine (Ex) – most of the fuselage and a lot of wing. I believe most of the fuselage internal structure now appears as the Fuselage structure of the Mk V at the USAF Museum in the US – If this is the case it is a real Provinance free mongrel and not what it proports to be – it has no provinance – no history and little purpose it is even the wrong model. I love the flying Spit but it may as well have been constructed from scratch and would still be as exciting

The Yeagan aircraft was way too far gone and is in any case being rebuilt with all of the original parts . I would use it’s original identity as I consider it is being rebuilt to represent the original aircraft Which it largely is.

Too far gone for what? A bit subjective . Some might say that historically ever shred of rotted balsa birch laminate should be treated and conserved.

Well too far for me and it is my thought – The majority of recoverable metal is going into it and that will do me !

Take this aircraft illustrated. A recovery in May 1983 and the then current state of many starting points. It is now a flying Spitfire.

Too far gone? Should it have sprayed in lanolin wax and preserved or carefully taken apart and every usable part incorporated in to a rebuild of an effectively new Spitfire using original components?

Actually no difference to just what No. 1 Civilian Repair Unit at Oxford was doing in WWII. Just chop out ( de-rivet) the non repairable and replace with cannibalised and/or new material as appropriate to the Battle Damage repair schemes AirPub.

Great as long as some poor sod isn’t purveying the New Build as a WW11 fighter which it clearly isn’t – it is a spiffy looking mostly replica and I would pay as I say good money to see it fly – what is the point here – I agree that it’s great that these things are manufactured and they are great as long as we don’t all live some fantasy that they are in any way original aircraft which they aren’t just to keep their values up with some hogwash about provinance. I would certainly say that it has served a good purpose

Regards
John

Hi Mark 12

I smell a tease to smoke me out here but I have risen to the bait anyway !!!

My thoughts.

How does consuming these vital historic metal parts, with provenance, in to new Mosquito structures fit with your recent thread(s) on similar activity within the Spitfire fraternity?

..and what serial or identity would you put not only on the aircraft but on the paperwork, if flying is the objective?

Mark

You well know that the “provinance” argument is bulldust – The emperor has no clothes !!

The point that I have made on many occasions goes to the matter of the destruction of complete or substantial remains of an aircraft being destroyed/ de”provinanced” or whatever to provide an identity to a Virtually “New build” airframe. This is particularly the case with a historic airframe which should be preserved with it’s identity intact in a museum. From my point of view pick any identity you like for a new build airframe so long as the original aircraft if it still exists is not forced to give up it’s identity or worse still destroyed/dismantled just for it’s “Provinance”.

A lot of Spitfires or P40s or whatever are meerly very nice replicas which I admire and enjoy but lets not pretend that they are WW11 built airframes – they aren’t. It is delusional in the extream to represent something which was rebuilt /constructed last year as a WW11 veteran – it is a new built representation. It is very convienient from a marketing and resale value position to represent such replicas as the original “provinanced” aircraft but it is a sham and we all know it

The Mosquito argument is entirely consistant with my view. I have said retire the original aircraft and display them for what they are – originals. There was never a suggestion from me that they should be consumed to provide parts or identities to New builds. The Yeagan aircraft was way too far gone and is in any case being rebuilt with all of the original parts . I would use it’s original identity as I consider it is being rebuilt to represent the original aircraft Which it largely is.

In terms of other Mosquitos if original material is used it could take on that identity or not – I DONT CARE – Just preserve the originals in Museums and fly the new builds – I love both and I’m not going to stand there worried about the “provinance” of the aircraft which is at the end of the day a mechanism meerly created to shore up the value of the aircraft and has nothing to do with fact.

Bruce

Some time ago the remains of approximately 19 Mosquitos – mostly 618 Sqn “Specials” from the old Narromine base in NSW were gathered together at Schyville near Sydney by HARS and were subsequently apparently stolen – I imagine that all of these metal components will one day see the light of day and could form the basis of many rebuilds They were not all complete Metal “Kit Sets ” but there was a huge amount of material – There are also many other parts sources and some of my old bits from Narromine have even made their way to Glynn as I discovered on my visit there this year. I also imagine that as more aircraft go through Glynns process more and more metal will be New Build – it is just convienent that the Yeagan machine has one complete set of largely reusable material – I would not imagine that this would always be the case so would it not be viable to completely rebuild a Mossie with nearly all ne material be it metal or wood ? I personally think this would even be more desireable. I am also aware of a lot more scattered collections of mossie parts both in Aus and NZ than you mention so perhaps a bit of a thread linking all of the owners /collections would be a good thing?

Kindest regards
John P