The idea of corporate aircraft wasn’t as developed in Europe at that time as it was in the USA. The Americans have always been lightyears ahead in this respect, and still are, today mainly because of the (relative) total lack of municipal airport facilities in Europe as compared to the USA.

First the Lysander, and then this. Absolutely fantastic work and a joy to behold! The Bf 109 looks more authentic than many restored originals…

Thanks for the reply Sonderman, also for the link to the Danish project. Never heard of this despite being an (expatriate) Dane. Just goes to show the placidity of Danish aviation media as they were…

With only four surviving examples, I think it’s fair that none are flown anymore. As regards the Science Museum’s example, it may not be on display, but at least it’s preserved. Who else would have thought of acquiring and preserving such a type in Europe? I’m sure the Science Museum would happily build an aircraft museum in Wroughton if someone would cough up the money for it….

It was certainly true until a few years ago. Probably more to do with the redevelopment or clearing of city centre bombed areas than pure new development.

It will continue to happen though. Like a lot of these things it’ll be worse some years than others. The likes of the French have to deal with the ordnance from two major wars, and not just in the built-up areas.

Anon.

Depends on how you define “a few years ago”. I’ve lived in Germany (Munich) for more than 25 years ago – and you?

In Munich, it’s rarely the city centre that is affected (one notable exception being the UXB that had to be detonated in Schwabing a couple of years ago). It’s at the moment in particular the former industrial wastelands of the north and northwest of Munich, where BMW, Krauss-Maffei, Knorr-Bremse, MTU (formerly BMW Flugmotoren) and railway maintenance yards were located. There is also a lot of immediate post-WW2 housing there which is being torn down to make way for denser housing schemes, and the last free areas are being redeveloped for the same purpose. Redevelopment of central Munich, e.g. west of the main station is done and there is no building space left there whatsoever. The only reasonably central area left for redevelopment is the Ostbahnhof area, where things are bound to turn up as well.

When Riem Airport was closed and redeveloped in the early Nineties, WW2 photographs were scrutinized to locate UXB and I think they got most of them in that way.

Just be glad we don’t live with the scale of the problem they have in Germany. It is much worse there and people are killed every year when stuff is disturbed, mostly plant operators.

Fortunately not true, happens very rarely that someone is killed. There was in recent years a single incident during roadworks where a digger hit and triggered an UXB.

So what is the actual operating costs involved, and how much of the asking price of these Spitfire flights is profit?

Does it matter?

Not a very long time ago, it was only possible to fly in a Spitfire if you owned one or if you knew one of the operators of the (fewer!) two-seaters that were around back then.

I clearly remember the fretting in this in and various other fora, “oh, please, were can I pay to fly in a Spitfire?”, “why is it not possible here when you can pay to fly in a P-51 in the USA?).

Now it’s possible for anyone willing to pay the price, and I think that’s great.

Operating costs (all; not only fuel for the aircraft), (future) maintenance fund, whatever profit is wanted and supply & demand will set the price, and anyone can decide for themselves whether they want to pay the price or not.

I’d rather have a handful of operators offering flights at the quoted prices than none at all.

A one-off that hasn’t flown for more than 15 years, that has engines which are becoming increasingly rare (only a dwindling number of Transalls still use the RR Tyne), and developed at a time where there were no Belugas or An-124’s. Is it not a bit naïve to hope that anybody would want it, except for the scrap man?