Wizard of Oz: follow the yellow paper trial.............
Grandfather's axe. Changed the handle 3 times and the head twice. It is still the original axe.
For goodness sake. Its a Spitfire. Looks like a Spitfire , sounds like a Spitfire, flies like a Spitfire.
If any flying Spitfire now has any non-original part are the pedants on this forum going to deny it is a Spitfire.
Wizard of Oz: follow the yellow paper trial.............
Do these " facsimile" Spitfires have 300 etc, part numbers stamped on them like the originals ?, because if they haven't that's where the root of the problem stems from.
They should ALL be marked with the correct part numbers. NZCAA legislation follows. It is the easiest I find to navigate online. EASA legislation is (for me) impossible to navigate online!
21.303 Replacement and modification materials, parts, and
A replacement or modification material, part, or appliance to be installed
into a type certificated product must—
(1) be authorised by the holder of the type certificate for the product
as complying with the type design; or
(2) be manufactured by a person performing maintenance on the
product and the replacement or modification material, part, or
appliance must be —
(i) certified by the person to conform to an approved type
design including any embodied design change; and
(ii) identified in accordance with Subpart Q, or
And for reference, the relevant part of Subpart Q:
21.813 Identification of replacement and modification
materials, parts, and appliances
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), each person who manufactures a
replacement or modification part or appliance under an authorisation
required by Subpart K shall, in addition to the identification information
prescribed in 21.805, permanently and legibly mark the part or appliance
(1) the letters ‘NZTSO’ or ‘NZPMA’ as appropriate; and
(2) the name, trademark, or symbol of the holder of the
(3) the part number; and
(4) the name and model designation of each product issued with a
type certificate or type acceptance certificate, on which the part
is eligible for installation.
(b) Each person who manufactures a replacement or modification
material, part, or appliance under 21.303(2) shall permanently and legibly
mark the material, part, or appliance in such a manner as to ensure it can
(1) identified separately to those otherwise acceptable materials,
parts, and appliances; and
(2) clearly related to its manufacturing data.
(c) If a material, part, or appliance is too small or it is otherwise
impractical to mark the material, part, or appliance with the information
required by paragraphs (a) or (b), the information shall be recorded on a tag
attached to the material, part, appliance, or its container.
(d) Where the marking required by paragraph (a)(4) is so extensive that
to record it on a tag is impractical, the tag attached to the material, part,
appliance, or the container may refer to a specific readily available manual
or catalogue for the name and model designation of each product issued
with a type certificate or type acceptance certificate, on which the material,
part, or appliance is eligible for installation.
Sorry for the long post!
While this is for Type Certified aircraft, it should be relevant to "experimental" aircraft as well as they parts are being manufactured against a known set of technical data (drawings) and need to be marked as such so that they can be identified on the aircraft.
JP843 Propulsions/Systems Lead
A bit like the famous "Schrodinger's Burmese Cat".
Last edited by Beermat; 20th March 2017 at 16:20.
It's all good. Probably.
Lol. I think the crucial bit is that it can claim a unique identity, as long as none other is also claiming that identity. An example might be the well known D type, XKD505 (I think!), which had a dual identity for a while until one man bought both cars and had the original parts taken out of both, and turned back into one 'original' car.
I seem to remember a certain "genuine proven original identity" P51D that then had a "twin brother" in the States - until a court judgement decided otherwise...
But lets not shed a tear over that at this twilight hour of the evening', it was only a Mustang after all.
Might as well throw in my twopenn'orth for what it's worth.
Several decades ago, I found myself in Chicago with a few hours to kill, so went to the Museum to see the genuine BoB Spit there. I have no memory of this visit at all, apart from knowing that it happened. A couple of years ago, I was on the tank bank at Legends, when one of the recent Mk.I rebuilds came over on a curving landing approach. The sight and sound of that, light glinting of its flanks and low enough to see the individual rivets under the wings will stay with me until the day I die.
I respect the right of anyone to prefer an untouched original, if such a thing still exists, but I know where my heart lies.
A modern day sheety would have a heart attack stamping numbers and letters into new made parts..Stress raisers..Why they are all ink now.Do these " facsimile" Spitfires have 300 etc, part numbers stamped on them like the originals ?, because if they haven't that's where the root of the problem stems from.
"If the C.O. ask's you to be Tail End Charlie...just shoot him!!!....A Piece of Cake.
But this isn't really an arguement of flying Vs statics. The reality is that there are comparatively untouched aircraft in museums. If you wish to took at them you are looking at the wartime efforts of manufacturing industry - they are of their time and the patina they have acquired only adds to that.
The Spitfires that are being produced from increasingly small remains are no less a machine - but they are not a direct result of
wartime endeavour at Britain's darkest hours . They are investments - perfectly crafted and undoubtedly better built but of their time.
I appreciate both .
Re post 100 by Mustang 51. No way am I getting into the warfare over originality, but adding to 51's point, in wartime it really wasn't so unusual to cannibalise from the parts bin. The RAFM Hampden at Cosford has parts from three aircraft in it if I remember correctly and many BoB Hurricanes in particular and some Spitfires were mongrels rather than thoroughbreds after going back to central repair depots or even manufacturers after crash or battle damage, R4118 was rebuilt several times in WW2 before Tony Ditheridge weaved his magic of more recent times. Simply put, I defy anyone to show me a currently flying aircraft that is 100% original as built. We all have got to compromise somewhere.
Whatever your view point, lets have as many as possible flying and bless everyone who has the money to do it so we can keep these skills alive and show the products of those skills to the next generation.
Indeed. Many people conveniently forget that when it comes to major overhaul time, the aircraft often was (and may still be)stripped down to major components, which would then go off for overhaul, the identity of the aircraft remaining with a specific part - sometimes the fuselage, or perhaps in the case of a larger aircraft, the cockpit or centre section. At the end of the overhaul, that part with the identity would be united with whatever parts had come back from overhaul, which would almost certainly not be those it started with.
I'd like to know how much of the original airframe is still in the Hawk T.1/T.1A (as they were for a time) aircraft that survive? From memory of RAF days, new wings, engines uprated, new front end, new aft section etc etc Our Tornados all ended up with a lot of bits of other airframes, particularly in the early days when spares were not available and we had four aircraft on our Sqn robbed until they were starting to look like material for the pages of Wrecks and Relics! I have personally encountered several preserved and substantially original Spitfires both flying and in museums that have wings of other airframes and this has not happened during the days of preservation but is how they left service with both the RAF and other users abroad. I can think of two Mk1a Spitfires, (one static and one flying) that have wings that are both from differing airframes and different again to the fuselage. That's how they left the MU after overhaul, just as Bruce has said, it's nothing new and it still goes on in service today.
Surely an aircraft repaired in service with parts from a scrapped air frame is a world apart from a present day restoration? I fail to see the relevance of the comparison. I for one love to see and hear these planes in the sky where they belong. The problem for most of the scoffers is the use of new construction parts, ie parts not made by Supermarine or their subcontractors? As a vintage car restorer I often have the same problems in mind. Case in point being the new MKI mini shells being reproduced by Heritage, if used to produce a car from a logbook but no original car is it an original car? personally no I don't think it is but it's still a MKI mini. But if that same shell is used to repair a complete but rusty car then yes it's the same car. difficult isn't it? but either way car or plane I like to see and hear both as both fly by at a high rate of speed! I don't think Mmm I wonder if it's a "real" one..........................Paul
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!!!"
Jules Winnfield 1994
As above. As long as no other makes the claim to that identity. Caveat emptor always applies. If somebody is being deliberately misled over something they are buying, then that is illegal. Otherwise, it's up to the buyer.
Oh, and restoration can be seen to be just an extension of 'in service'. There isn't a magic line in the sand where the aircraft passes from being in service to preserved. Look at Hurricane LF363. That had a major accident in service. It was repaired, in service, using a lot of new parts, and returned to flight. It remains in service. Don't get tied up in knots over this. It doesn't actually matter.
Last edited by Bruce; 22nd March 2017 at 05:43.
RAFM's Lancaster S for Sugar is an example. During it's major overhaul in 1944 only the cockpitsection is actually from the original machine. So should we scrap it?
My car is due for maintenance soon, I think I shall ask not to replace any parts fearing it would not be the original car anymore.
If you decided to truly scratch build a Spitfire from all new material, the engineering cost on a 'one off' independent basis would probably exceed £10m. I am talking prop hub, undercarriage legs, every casting, every forging etc etc.
The reality is that there is a whole industry and a food chain, ranging from the flying restorations down to the instrument panel brigade all scouring the world for original Spitfire parts and fittings for their respective projects and most keen to trade up and down the chain. A discarded skin here, a crumpled cowling there, perfect for a static rebuild. Precious little actually gets thrown away.
A number of sub-contractors have built successful businesses focusing on certain speciality aspects of the Spitfire, radiators, header tanks, windscreens, cowlings etc to facilitate the economy of scale.
I have an image, that I currently cannot trace, of Spitfire fuselages at an MU or a CRU that have been neatly cut between frames 6 and 7 in the fuel bay area prior to what looks like to be the grafting on of the firewall and first couple of feet of fuselage from another Spitfire. The Battle Damage Repair manual AP certainly shows that it is permissible to splice the upper and lower longerons.
A difficult one for the 'original' fraternity.
It is all just engineering...wonderful engineering.
Last edited by Mark12; 22nd March 2017 at 11:08.
"...the story had been forensically examined and was deeply impressive. I knew that the whole story was a load of myth and baloney…"
Like button certainly needed in this thread!
Agreed...'wonderful engineering'.........that would normally be the last words that need to be said!
The detailed responses in this thread remind me of a welcome trend in aviation magazine articles both print and on line. Although I served in the Royal Air Force I was not involved in airframe or engine work. So to gradually be educated into the skill, materials,innovations,blood, sweat and no doubt tears which go into the flying machines is a welcome change from squadron histories and airshow reviews. It helps the interested onlooker from taking for granted what they see flying or even ground running.
Mk.12......... very well said. Engineering is marvelous and you and I both know what it is like to be involved in a major project and see it coming together
I have a feeling this thread is very misleading if you want to know more about NH341
Correct but then things sometimes spiral............ so.......... back on topic
There was once a thread on NH341, which was cherished by some on here, but when you looked at it closely, it was not really in very good shape, and it eventually became static. Some time later, a lot of new material was added, and purists might argue that it had very little in common with the original thread, but it was nevertheless very impressive to behold.
Thankfully, the original parts of the thread were not put in a skip at Key Publishing, for fear that they might end up with the very same title on UK Aviation Review.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)