Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 160

Thread: Restoration of Spitfire NH341

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The wart on the ass-end of humanity (Penicuik)
    Posts
    18,000
    Cracking shot!
    Daren Cogdon

    Spitfire fanatic

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Angels one-five over North Bucks.
    Posts
    10,378
    "...the story had been forensically examined and was deeply impressive. I knew that the whole story was a load of myth and baloney…"

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    154
    If you are interested in Spitfire's of the two seat variety, this page may be worth a look:

    https://www.facebook.com/TheTwoSeatSpitfirePage

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Below waterlevel
    Posts
    1,913
    Afterlife crisis Mark?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    South Germany
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by Sideslip View Post
    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.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Just outside Stansted TMZ Great Leighs
    Posts
    2,870
    As far as im concerned I an very happy to see these aeroplanes returning to the air, the dedication of the owner operators is to be applauded.
    Thank you from the ones that saved them from the scrap heap to the ones who put their hard earned cash into the projects.
    I am from the time when it was rare to see a Spitfire even more rare to see a Hurricane,P51, 109 etc I am grateful to see on a very regualr basis the transiting of the warbird/vintage types over the house as the skim the southern TMZ of Stansted

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,192
    Just wonder what point losing/scrapping original parts to make something flyable as a "replica" makes it worthwhile.Maybe if it was a priceless work of art stripped down and lost forever as an original piece people would think differently.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by trumper View Post
    Just wonder what point losing/scrapping original parts to make something flyable as a "replica" makes it worthwhile.Maybe if it was a priceless work of art stripped down and lost forever as an original piece people would think differently.
    Contrary to what is claimed sometimes, one's life does not depend on art. It does on an airplane. Makes for a difference approach to the inclusion of original material...

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    809
    It makes me think why do we bother to restore things if this is the reception said types receive when complete. Take for example my Luton Minor - built 1937, crashed 1939, original engine replaced, extensive woodwork carried out post WW2, crashed again early 1950s, substantially rebuilt, crashed again 1970s. Passes through a number of restorers, by the time I acquire it in 2015, the only thing truely 1937 original is the rudder, tailplane, elevator, and some metal fittings. The engine frame, ailerons and most of the rear fuselage is of 1950s vintage, the wooden wing parts have been lost to time completely.

    So for the type to live again it needs a brand new build wing, spars, most of the internals of the fuselage, and a new propeller! Is it still the aeroplane though? I certainly think so, and I want to see it become the oldest airworthy home built, to be enjoyed at shows around the uk. All those unhappy that 90% isn't original 1937, and that only a total of about 30% existed in 1950 can let me know which shows they are attending and I just won't bother taking it there!

    FB

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Glorious Souffff
    Posts
    4,776
    As an aircrafts operational life is extended and extended, it is a fact of life that it becomes less 'original' in terms of the metal and original components it started with. This is necessary as safety is paramount. It is a nebulous argument as even the most original aircraft that have flown continuously since 'born' (I.e. PZ865, MH434, LF363 etc) have had to have parts replaced to keep airworthy. They do have a link to their original self and such replacement is natural wear and tear.

    What I like is that, in this case, we can please all the people all the time if they just adopt common sense. We can use non airworthy parts to enhance and originalise further the museum examples.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Fournier Boy View Post
    It makes me think why do we bother to restore things if this is the reception said types receive when complete. Take for example my Luton Minor - built 1937, crashed 1939, original engine replaced, extensive woodwork carried out post WW2, crashed again early 1950s, substantially rebuilt, crashed again 1970s. Passes through a number of restorers, by the time I acquire it in 2015, the only thing truely 1937 original is the rudder, tailplane, elevator, and some metal fittings. The engine frame, ailerons and most of the rear fuselage is of 1950s vintage, the wooden wing parts have been lost to time completely.

    So for the type to live again it needs a brand new build wing, spars, most of the internals of the fuselage, and a new propeller! Is it still the aeroplane though? I certainly think so, and I want to see it become the oldest airworthy home built, to be enjoyed at shows around the uk. All those unhappy that 90% isn't original 1937, and that only a total of about 30% existed in 1950 can let me know which shows they are attending and I just won't bother taking it there!

    FB
    Like button?!

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Fournier Boy View Post
    It makes me think why do we bother to restore things if this is the reception said types receive when complete. Take for example my Luton Minor - built 1937, crashed 1939, original engine replaced, extensive woodwork carried out post WW2, crashed again early 1950s, substantially rebuilt, crashed again 1970s. Passes through a number of restorers, by the time I acquire it in 2015, the only thing truely 1937 original is the rudder, tailplane, elevator, and some metal fittings. The engine frame, ailerons and most of the rear fuselage is of 1950s vintage, the wooden wing parts have been lost to time completely.

    So for the type to live again it needs a brand new build wing, spars, most of the internals of the fuselage, and a new propeller! Is it still the aeroplane though? I certainly think so, and I want to see it become the oldest airworthy home built, to be enjoyed at shows around the uk. All those unhappy that 90% isn't original 1937, and that only a total of about 30% existed in 1950 can let me know which shows they are attending and I just won't bother taking it there!

    FB
    So it is not a 1937 Luton Minor is it? .It's an airframe built up to represent a 1937 Luton Minor.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by ericmunk View Post
    Contrary to what is claimed sometimes, one's life does not depend on art. It does on an airplane. Makes for a difference approach to the inclusion of original material...
    Tell that to someone who has paid a fortune for an original work of art only to find out it has been refurbished to such a degree it actually has very little of originality in it.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,192
    My point is ,if you have destroyed/removed most of the original surviving components which did have a real history and story to allow the ID of something with very little history then you have removed something linking it to it's past and reason for existence.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    809
    Quote Originally Posted by trumper View Post
    My point is ,if you have destroyed/removed most of the original surviving components which did have a real history and story to allow the ID of something with very little history then you have removed something linking it to it's past and reason for existence.
    I for one have not removed anything as such, it's just that what has survived the last 80 years is sadly little. If you apply the sake analogy, then there would be very few aircraft, even in museums that you could call original. Let me know which shows you are attending Trumper, those are the first on my list I'll avoid!

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    191
    Why doesn't everyone just calm down and have a piece of fruit. Perhaps the cognoscenti here should turn their attention to those who are flying those scale replica Spitfire abominations and calling them "Spitfires". Even presenting them as such at airshows. At least a "data plate" rebuild is still a full size Spitfire with all the care, attention and dollars that are poured into them. So what about something that is complete and original but cannot use most of the structure if it is meant to fly? Are we all to get out our kitchen scales and measure the weight of the original parts going into that rebuild before it is pronounced by the armchair experts that it is original, replica, reproduction or otherwise. How about we just enjoy them? Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    On the beach
    Posts
    2,297
    which did have a real history and story to allow the ID of something with very little history then you have removed something linking it to it's past and reason for existence.
    Quite the opposite,it adds to its history.Only when it is burnt and buried in the ground then it is dead..Thats what the word "history" is...
    "If the C.O. ask's you to be Tail End Charlie...just shoot him!!!....A Piece of Cake.
    http://spitfirea58-27.blogspot.com.au/

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by trumper View Post
    Tell that to someone who has paid a fortune for an original work of art only to find out it has been refurbished to such a degree it actually has very little of originality in it.
    I think you'll find that with airworthy aircraft any work done on it is well documented, and owners know exactly what they are buying. My point is: if you're committed to fly a restoration, there's completely different limits as to what can be reused. And replacement or rebuild is not a bad word. It is what was done to aircraft in a previous service life too. Part of its history, and flying it is what gives owners the motivation to keep putting their money in it and ensure survival for future generations.

    At the moment i am rebuilding substantial sections of wing in my workshop for a wooden aircraft, to original specs. If this is not done, it will not fly again. It has no future in any museum as it is not sexy enough, and there's a fair few preserved. Shall I ask the owner to not have the work done and keep it as is, original ex factory in all its authenticity? I can assure you the aircraft is then going to end up as a spares ship due to low value and end up as a bonfire.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    20
    It strikes me that a large number of you on this forum have very little interest in the spectacle of flying warbirds. All you care about is whether its original, painted in the right shade, and still has the original pilots ****-cheeks intented in the seats

    Get a life. Lighten up. Enjoy these aircraft for what they are.

    If its not a thread moaning about data plate restorations, its another asking what rusty piece of junk he's discovered.

    Don't any of you actually enjoy watching flying warbirds?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Sharnbrook
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by QldSpitty View Post
    Only when it is burnt and buried in the ground then it is dead..Thats what the word "history" is...
    Like, for instance a Spitfire that was shot down by FW190's and buried itself in a field after the Pilot baled out. Some tangled bits were then dug up, put in a museum, sold to a private collector and then a Spitfire was built claiming to be that aircraft whilst the original bits were binned/stored/scrapped and the aircraft built doesn't have any parts of the original aircraft, not even a data plate?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    In holding pattern north of Duxford
    Posts
    3,348
    Agreeing with Rocketeer (#70)
    How many Spitfires in actual wartime service remained 100% original, as they were the moment they rolled off the assembly line? An engine replaced due to failure, panels replaced due to battle damage, larger parts due to landing accidents etc.

    So the only truly "authentic" aircraft cannot ever exist under the rules laid down by some commenters - as soon as an original part is removed the aircraft ceases to be 100% complete...
    Under my gruff exterior lies an even gruffer interior...

    行雲流水

    Warbirdskies Blog

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Nördlich
    Posts
    72
    As I said previously, why is it only Spitfires which seem to get people's heckles up.
    How much of BBMF's Lancaster PA474 is original as it rolled off the production line?
    There was no great fuss about Hurricane P2902. Any number of P51's on the circuit? Sally B? ARCO's Blenheim? The 109E at Biggin?

    I for one appreciate the effort and lengths people go so we can have another Spitfire. I certainly would not complain if I got to ride in the back seat.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by DangerM View Post
    Like, for instance a Spitfire that was shot down by FW190's and buried itself in a field after the Pilot baled out. Some tangled bits were then dug up, put in a museum, sold to a private collector and then a Spitfire was built claiming to be that aircraft whilst the original bits were binned/stored/scrapped and the aircraft built doesn't have any parts of the original aircraft, not even a data plate?
    Well said .

    Lets look at it this way ,you have a pretty genuine airframe that is as original as it could get when it finished it service life for whatever reason.If the pilot survived he could look at that aircraft and feel his hands on those same controls ,he could see the instruments he was looking at ,hear and remember the noise and the feel of his engine pulling that airframe around the sky--it still had a link with history.Now to make it flyable you have to do away with most of that history[remove it ,scrap it or do you end up with 2 x airframes ?] and reduce it to a pretty new piece of work with limited links to the past of THAT airframe.The old pilot will walk up and see next to nothing of his aircraft ,yes he will see an aircraft but it's not the one that had links with him and the past.
    Oh F/B Sorry if people disagree with you and you don't like it but we are all entitled to an opinion --how about i answer i will go to ALL the air displays -now are you going to throw your toys out of the pram and refuse to go?.
    This forum is called historic -- well i guess something that is pretty much a reconstructed new build must somehow qualify --

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    809
    Sadly Trumper, you are really the only one that is actually disagreeing with me, and I do wonder what you actually bring to the preservation world yourself. Perhaps you care to enlighten us to your level of involvement in the preservation and restoration scene of historic aviation?

    In which case no, I'll keep the aircraft for myself and enjoy it, and will be equally as happy. I don't have to please you to get satisfaction from the aircraft I put back in the air - although I'm sure if you do attend airshows, you will have regularly enjoyed a number of aircraft that I have had much involvement with in the last few decades.

    Do I take it if you had your way, you'd rather see scrap sitting in a museum than an actual flying example?

    FB

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,896
    Let's step back and look at this without recrimination - very few of us here are in a position to criticise anyway.

    What we have is a regulatory reason to use a dataplate. Nothing more. No one is trying to deceive or destroy.

    You want an original? Fine. Go dig up your own. You will have what to the uneducated is a pile of corroded metal. Often a very worthy excercise, and very far from scrap. I have some myself.

    It is not a flying machine. To remain flying the machine frequently needs new parts. It is no less that type of machine - the parts must work as a part of a mechanical and aerodynamic 'whole' and that 'whole' is called 'Spitfire', 'Cub' or B-17. That's just the way it is. The rest is bureaucracy.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Herefordshire
    Posts
    1,173
    I think that the Spitfire remains in East Kirkby ought to be a prime candidate for a rebuild. In fairness a lot of historic cars are new builds, and it's good to see the population of any historic aeroplane swell, so I can see the positives. I can also see it from the other side to a degree as well, but all in all rebuilding gets my vote and anything left of the original should be saved too then it's no loss to anyone whichever side of the fence you're on.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,896
    Yes. And as long as the unused parts are preserved where necessary, appropriate and possible. In truth if you have ever tried removing tangled and torn metal skinning from a useable structural component you will know you are a) making knackered scrap more so in the process while b) making the 'good' part useable again, even as a reference, at the very same time. In this case the 'scrap' alloy sheet says very little to posterity.

    As for identities, if that troubles one, there is no real harm or cause for confusion in both the flying dataplate and the rusty lumps co-existing. The lumps are just previously-used components of the flying thing.
    Last edited by Beermat; 19th March 2017 at 13:01.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    733
    Right! Let's move any further threads discussing current airworthy warbirds to the General Aviation discussion forum. Maybe that will keep the temperatures down in Historic?

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Fournier Boy View Post

    Do I take it if you had your way, you'd rather see scrap sitting in a museum than an actual flying example?

    FB
    Depends whether you actually destroy a piece of history to recreate a facsimile that has very little to do with the destroyed remains,also depends on what you mean by "example" .Unfortunately i am not in a financial position to afford an aeroplane but that doesn't mean to say i am not entitled to an opinion .

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    733
    ...However, the original "remains" do not always get destroyed. Take TD248. You can see the "original" TD248 on display at Flixton, and enjoy the sight of the "facsimile" TD248 flying at Duxford. Best of both worlds to enjoy perhaps?

    Best regards;
    Steve

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES