Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere. This one is completely new to me. Another fully restored data plate??
A Thousand Shall Fall
If that's your attitude to another airworthy Spitfire, then I suggest you go find another Forum
Totally agree! Im very thankful that we have the skills to restore/rebuild these amazing aircraft for the future to admire!
What I've loved most about this project is that Aero Legends has seen fit to post its progress on Facebook for their followers to see.
Almost makes you feel as though you've been a part of it.
I've followed this one from start to finish, so I'm really looking forward to the first post-rebuild flight.
It flew at 8am this morning, but according to the Facebook page, the flight was cut short after John Romain experienced carburettor issues.
According to this website page Aero Legends would provide 'two invitations to the maiden flight' for those who pre-purchased a flight in 2017.
Think I would be a bit miffed if I had spent that amount with the promise of a ringside seat to the first flight only to turn up on the day and find out the flight had happened and that the aircraft was now broken...
I would rather see a safe flight than one cut short by a technical issue.
What do you expect, something thats not been touched in any way since rolling out of Castle Bromwich?
Perhaps if this was a rusty bit of scrap dug out of a hole or a piece of something vaguely aeroplane-looking from an Aerojumble eh?
Its a flying Spitfire. If that doesnt please you, you need to go back to collecting stamps or standing on train stations with a thermos of weak lemon drink.
It's nice to have another one added to the list of "active" or "flown in recent years/could be flown in short order if desired", examples:
Mk.I's and Mk.II - AR213, N3200, P7350, P9374, X4650
Mk.V's - AB910, AR614, BL628, BM597, EP120, EP122, JG891
Mk.VIII's- MV154, MV239
Tr.VIII - MT818
Mk.IX's - BR601, MH434, MJ730, MK356, MK732, MK959, ML417, PL344, PV270, RR232, SL633, TA805, TD314, TE554
Tr.IX's - MH367, MJ627, ML407, NH341, PT462, PV202, SM520
Pr.XI - PL965
Mk.XIV's - MV293, NH749, NH799, RN201 and SM832
Mk.XVI's - TB863, TD248, TE184, TE311, RW386, SL721
Mk.XVIII's - SM845, SM969, TP280
Pr.XIX's - PM631, PS853, PS890, PS915
Seafires - PP972, PR503, SX336, VP441
Examples that I can immediately think of that are under restoration/repair/overhaul to fly - AR501, MK912, MJ772, PT879, PL983, TB252, TE294, TE308, BS410, LZ842, TE476, RM927, TB885 (obviously there are quite a bit more than this heading down the pipeline).
(I was just going through some old warbird magazines the other day and an article from 1985 stated that there were only 15 airworthy Spitfires known to exist in the world at the time (but that the number would be doubling in the next few years to follow).)
Last edited by JohnTerrell; 12th March 2017 at 16:15.
It only ever seems to be Spitfires that are called replicas or data plate restorations. There were certainly no barbed comments on the P2902 thread.
I must admit I find this one confusing. There are pictures of wreckage in a French museum which is said to be the basis of the rebuild but in Spitfire survivors that aircraft is said to be ML295.
I have just finished reading all of the rebuild reports on the owners website and it says that the fuselage, wings, tailplane, cowlings etc are all new build. One report says it takes its identity from markings found on a firewall which was replaced by a new build firewall. Other reports mention original Spitfire items but as they had to be sourced I'm guessing they weren't from NH341? There is no mention of a data plate or pictures of one.
If all of that is correct and there are no original bit's of NH341, can it claim to be that aircraft? Shouldn't it adopt the identity of the aircraft that the original parts fitted came from?
All of this shouldn't detract from the fantastic job ARCO have accomplished. Maybe someone will know how much of NH341 is actually in the aircraft and if it has an original data plate.
Last edited by DangerM; 12th March 2017 at 10:49.
The 'boo' says :-
When first displayed at the Musée Mémorial de la Bataille de Normandie at Bayeux in 1996 this very convincing crash diorama was identified as being based upon remains salvaged from the crash-site of NH341. When displayed at the Juno Beach Museum, which opened at Courseullessur-Mer, France on 6 June 2003, it was described as being based upon another Spitfire, ML295.
What is without doubt is that the exhibit certainly contains recovered wreckage from at least two Spitfires, combined with original and non-crashed engine cowlings, windscreen assembly and canopy, skilfully blended with crash-recovered airframe structure and an engine all mounted to a wooden armature. It is currently (2010) stored at the home of its owner, Jean-Pierre Bénamou, but may well be displayed at other museums in due course.
The collection of parts was subsequently acquired by Peter Monk / BHHH organisation and subdivided in to its two individual 'starter kits' - ML295 and NH341, the latter being sold on to the Aero Legends organisation.
ML295 is in the pipeline for rebuild as a two seater.
A couple of shots I took in September 1996.
Last edited by Mark12; 12th March 2017 at 12:08.
"...the story had been forensically examined and was deeply impressive. I knew that the whole story was a load of myth and baloney…"
Interesting, so made up of bits of wreckage from two Spitfires, new parts - presumably the bit that looks like a Spitfire and a wooden frame. That answers the wreckage identity question which just leaves the question of any parts from NH341 being suitable for use and incorporated into the new build airframe of NH341. I guess unless the owner expands on his restoration reports which seem to indicate no original NH341 parts were used then we will never know if there is a continuing provenance of that aircraft in the new one. If there aren't any parts of NH341 incorporated into the reconstruction I don't think any owner would admit to that publicly as it may have an effect on the aircrafts value possibly?
What Loaves into Spitfires sort of Thing?
Stop being such an argumentative git.
Just appreciate the effort of an individual to get another Spitfire in the air, like the vast majority of people do.
If YOU own the bloody thing, you can split hairs about the percentage of original parts if you want.
If I managed to get a flight in NH341, I won't give a rat's ass about the percentage.
Thanks for the advice, if I choose to express an opinion I will, maybe you should stop being an armchair warrior and attacking people who don't agree with your point of view. It seems to me many think some aircraft are replicas, fantastic machines in there own right but not the original article. That is their point of view and just because it isn't yours there is no need to get antagonistic.
It IS a Spitfire. If is built, using an original identity following original drawings and using original production techniques. It is no less original than many other warbird aircraft currently flying, including a reasonable percentage of currently airworthy Mustangs.
On the subject of the first flight, it is quite right that the public don't get to see the very first one. That's the time when you find out for sure if everything is working properly, and you don't want to declare a May Day or have to cut short the flight when other eyes are upon you. As it happened, there was a problem, which kind of proves the point.
Anyway, if you have followed the restoration updates, you will know that the work done is very nice. I'd be happy to fly in it, and would have no hesitation in writing 'Spitfire' in my logbook. (If I had one!!)
First of all I welcome the sight of any new Spitfire, especially a rebuild like this that was shared with anyone interested. The woners should be applauded for getting this bird airborne.
The can of worms regarding what is original and what not has been argued to death on this forum, and on many others. Fact remains that most "original" aircraft flying today have had major sections replaced in service or restoration, yet some people nitpick over rebuilds from relatively little original material. Personally, and from experience, I applaud rebuilding aircraft from any project material start to begin with, even more so when done to high standards as this Spit has been done.
This old chestnut rears its weary head yet again. Look which ever way you want to look at it this is undeniably a Spitfire. As I mentioned on here once before the late Tommy Sopwith in his life saw the Sopwith Triplane new build, constructed to original plans. So impressed, he personally gave it the next consecutive production number, the last one having been built at the factory in 1918. It was thus classified as a late build Triplane.
Were the great R J Mitchell around today I wonder what he would make of this thread. I am certain and sure as night follows day he would be delighted, and see it as a Spitfire, new build, data plate rebuild, restoration what ever you like.
In regards to originality, our Proctor 111 has retained 85 to 90% of its original Canadian spruce in its re build, but all new ply throughout. We have deviated from original factory build spec by using Aerodux glue throughout not the original casein glue.
Who in their right minds would use casein today when so much better is available. We have also covered the airframe in Diatex much lighter then grade A Irish cotton and a life time covering thank you. Again who wants to be recovering the airframe
again in 10-15 years time. Shock horror the paint we will soon be applying will be a modern two pack. At the end we will have a Proctor rebuilt to modern standards, with some modern materials but still a Proctor. Oh by the way we have substituted the Gipsy Queen 2 engine for a Lycoming 360 six cylinder horizontally opposed. Engine cowls need a lot of modification, sounds like a Cherokee six but hey who cares!!!
Would we, as enthusiasts and supporters of historic aviation, be better off if the practice of 'resurrected identity' airframes ceased ?
The answer is surely no, and on that basis, we should at least endorse, if not actively encourage those who make it happen. It is not as though any deception is practiced by any party, and as the years roll by, it is obvious that 'new metal' ( or wood) will increasingly be at the heart of any flying project.
From a personal perspective, and even as a devotee of Spitfires, each of these new flyers are, by increment, a little bit less 'significant' as numbers swell. Today, we gain another flying Spit, but seemingly lose an airworthy Meteor ( a hugely significant and rare type) , and whilst the Spit may be 10 times the ££value of a Meteor, sadly on this day, I think we are rather worse off.