Jump to content

Spitfire "restoration" vs new-build


cmatthewbacon

Recommended Posts

I really rather enjoyed "Guy Martin's Spitfire" on C4, and I'm sure the title doesn't mean he's laying any sort of claim on the aircraft, just the TV programme...

Anyway, lovely as the end result was, that's basically a new-build Spitfire, not a restoration. From some subtleties in the commentary, I reckon that even if the original aircraft's engine has been restored to run (rebuilt on the old block, if anything), I don't think the engine in the final flying "Mk 1" is that engine. So, specialists across the UK can reproduce all of the parts to build a Spitfire. In a world where Jaguar has just restarted production of the "Lightweight E-type" for a limited run, what, if you have enough money, is to stop you building a new Spitfire from scratch? In the classic car racing business, "continuations", as long as they are built to original spec, can now get the papers for racing. Surely the CAA must have noticed that the fig-leaf of "restoration", when it consists mostly of taking a plate of the firewall of a wreck and riveting it to a new aircraft, is a bit of a sham?

As long as no one tries to pass them off as originals, why not let suitably certificated craftsmen build new Spitfires? That way, we might see some in the air that can be thrown around at displays the way they would have been back in the 1940s, because no one is worrying about preserving a historic original, or exactly how much fatigue life is left in that wing spar...

Any thoughts?

bestest,

M.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the programme too and thought it was fascinating (albeit I found Guy Martin to be rather irritating). While it's wonderful to see genuine warbirds fly with all the history and character that goes with them, I wouldn't be averse to somebody who has the money and ambition building say, a Spitfire, Me109, Hurricane etc from scratch and flying it.

If the Euromillions came up trumps then wouldn't it be terrific to have your own Spitfire built that flies and sounds as the original does? A private pilot's license would be a start mind you!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you "restore" a chassis plate to flying condition (or, in the case of a classic car to driving condition) then you don't need the manufacturer's permission and you can happily call it a Spitfire or a Ferrari or whatever. But if you don't have that chassis plate then it is a replica and you can't use the manufacturer's trade name with the same freedom, for example you can't put the Ferrari badge on the car.

Just one victim among many of the madness that is the current state of intellectual property law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where is the line drawn on what can be defined as a restoration? If I dig up a spitfire plate, could I build a new Spitfire and stick it on? Well, apart from the fact I wouldn't know where to start!!!

Does a certain % of the aircraft have to be original?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as no one tries to pass them off as originals, why not let suitably certificated craftsmen build new Spitfires? That way, we might see some in the air that can be thrown around at displays the way they would have been back in the 1940s, because no one is worrying about preserving a historic original, or exactly how much fatigue life is left in that wing spar...

If they weren't originals they wouldn't be Spitfires, so:

1) they'd need full certification, flight testing etc as they wouldn't necessarily actually be a Spitfire...

2) they'd still cost both arms and both legs to operate...

so 3) who in their right mind would want one when they can have the real thing for the price of a dataplate and have the option to sell it on when they're bored with it?

As an aside, before "dataplate" restorations became common (after they ran out of basically intact airframes dragged out of the Kibbutz, museums and off the gate of dozens of RAF stations and were left with crash wreckage), IIRC Dick Melton - noted Spitfire engineer and restorer - was building a 2-seater for the late Charles Church in the late 1980s (alongside the genuine restoration of PT462). From what I can gather, in a slight twist of irony, this aircraft (it was called DM001 or something similar) was completed and has now acquired a dataplate and flies as a very old Spitfire in the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it simply comes down to the name plate/registration plate only being purchased or used in order for it to be considered a restoration as once you hav that item you can put the markings on it "N3200". Although they did state that they were able to salvage and restore a few parts, so I imagine they used whatever was intact and still in good condition, but essentially it's 99% all new.

However the fact that it is made to orginal specs and is the same as any spitfire Mk.1 built back in the 30's is good enough for me, there aren't enough Mk.1s flying and they look and sound a little different to all those Mk.IX's you see.

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens to the original, recovered, airframe? Presumably it isn't 'thrown away' but it is no longer N3200. A bit sad if it has lost its identity in a rather odd way.

Stored? Given to a museum? The original skins from at least one of the "gate guardian" restorations are on display in a museum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting discussion, but it saddens me that the only aircraft that comes into focus during these discussions is the Spitfire (and I am originally from Southampton, so it must be an overload to be noticed by me..).

There are 40-odd flying Spitfires world wide and only 2 Mossies, neither of which is in the UK.

If someone went through all the rigmarole to new-build a Mossie with the help of that company out in NZ and getting it past the CAA so that it could fly in Englands skies, I wouldnt care less if it wasnt an original.

Edited by alpine_modeller
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spitfire is not the only one. The airworthy Yak3/9 new builds are 'continued' from the last airframes built with the c/n following on. And the ME 262s flying with modern engines admittedly, are new build airframes and not restorations as too are some of the airworthy Fw190s. There was to have been a company in Romania or somewhere in that part of the world with plans to 'new build ' the P-51! Not heard any more about this.

The Warbird world is quite fickle ( If thats the right word?) I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where is the line drawn on what can be defined as a restoration? If I dig up a spitfire plate, could I build a new Spitfire and stick it on? Well, apart from the fact I wouldn't know where to start!!!

Does a certain % of the aircraft have to be original?

It's all about the chassis plate. Yes, if you dig up a Spitfire plate you could indeed build a new Spitfire, stick the plate on and call it the original machine restored.

The idea is that in general any part of a machine is anonymous and can be replaced - except the plate that identifies the machine. If the plate gets damaged and illegible then I'm not sure but I think the original manufacturer can recall it and issue a replacement plate, or maybe that is no longer true, IANAL. But if they have gone out of business then you certainly have to rely on the provenance of the damaged plate.

Insurance companies get very strict about these things because say a genuine 1969 Dino Ferrari is infinitely more valuable than a copy. Forging of a fake chassis plate so you can pass off your replica as a restored original has certainly been done for Ferraris. A distant relative of mine got stung by just this scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you "restore" a chassis plate to flying condition (or, in the case of a classic car to driving condition) then you don't need the manufacturer's permission and you can happily call it a Spitfire or a Ferrari or whatever. But if you don't have that chassis plate then it is a replica and you can't use the manufacturer's trade name with the same freedom, for example you can't put the Ferrari badge on the car.

Just one victim among many of the madness that is the current state of intellectual property law.

Not so much IP but as Vickers McFunbus says Certification, and especially Type Certification. New build would require all the modern standards and tests an airframe has to go through (which an antique style of manufacture may not meet) a 'repair' or 'restoration' will not, but can rely on the original type certificate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's kinda my point in starting this thread. The chassis plate restoration is exactly the same from an engineering and safety point of view as one built from scratch -- unless a period plate has magical anti-gremlin properties known only to Vickers. It seems bizarre that it should somehow impart originality that means no need for certification, type approval or design authority from a CAA point of view. It seems to me to be deeply inconsistent and a "fudge"...

Bestest,

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Spitfire, is a Replica Spitfire and should always be known as just that.

It's a replica of n3200 yes, but as far as i'm concerned its a real Spitfire. It was built from original plans, using the same materials and methods, therefore its a real Spitfire surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's kinda my point in starting this thread. The chassis plate restoration is exactly the same from an engineering and safety point of view as one built from scratch -- unless a period plate has magical anti-gremlin properties known only to Vickers. It seems bizarre that it should somehow impart originality that means no need for certification, type approval or design authority from a CAA point of view. It seems to me to be deeply inconsistent and a "fudge"...

Bestest,

M.

Few restorations or replicas are absolutely exact engineering copies of the original. A restoration usually gets as close as it can within the constraints of safety and practicality, while replicas often vary considerably in their engineering detail. However some restorations are further from the original design than associated replicas. DH.88 Comet "Grosvenor House" makes an interesting case study, as both the restored original and flying replicas exist.

Any changes from the original specification made to any machine - be it only a different material for the engine gaskets or a more modern design of flight instrument - must be cleared with the CAA. In this respect the CAA does not care whether it is a restoration or a replica. It is the collectors' marketplace and associated insurance industry which need to pigeonhole the machine.

In the motor trade at least, a close-enough engineering copy does not need independent certification. For example the Morgan motor company once made three-wheelers. A chap in East Anglia restarted production under his own brand name, and he once told me that he cannot modify the design significantly because that would entaill all the expensive crash-testing and stuff to certify the new design, that he had avoided by slavishly copying an existing engineering design.

In other words, intellectual property laws and type certification bodies take very different views on what is "original". I don't know where the CAA itself stands, but I'll bet it's closer to the motoring cerification bodies than it is to the aviation intellectual property eagles.

Edited by steelpillow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's kinda my point in starting this thread. The chassis plate restoration is exactly the same from an engineering and safety point of view as one built from scratch -- unless a period plate has magical anti-gremlin properties known only to Vickers. It seems bizarre that it should somehow impart originality that means no need for certification, type approval or design authority from a CAA point of view. It seems to me to be deeply inconsistent and a "fudge"...

Bestest,

M.

they dont fly under a part 21 or 145 which would require a certificate of airworthiness or CRS, the have a permit to fly, they are however closely monitored by all NAA's including our own, the new parts are still built from original drawings so grandfather rights may well be used by airframe assembles and such places
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 40-odd flying Spitfires world wide and only 2 Mossies, neither of which is in the UK.

If someone went through all the rigmarole to new-build a Mossie with the help of that company out in NZ and getting it past the CAA so that it could fly in Englands skies, I wouldnt care less if it wasnt an original.

I had the privilege of seeing one of those Mossies fly last summer - I have no clue how much was restoration or how much was replica. But it was still a Mossie! In the air! Just a few miles from my house! Oh, the sound...I can hear it now.

100_4742.jpg

100_4749.jpg

I would pay some good money to see replicas of famous aircraft like the Me-262 and Fw 190 fly. To be honest, I always cringe a bit when it's a 100% real warbird flying. Look what happened to Big Beautiful Doll.

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how true this is but supposedly recently a British Mosquito group that had undertaken to buy another of Glyn Powells Mosquito airframe recreations pulled out because Glyn's airframes have a solid spruce leading edge rather than the original ply version, the better to resisit bird strike, but according to the UK CAA (???) this would need re certification at considerable expense & effectively precludes one of these ever being put on the UK register. 'course, this may well be unsustantiated rumour, its been a bit hard to seperate the wood from the trees, spruce or otherwise, as to who is doing what with these new build Mosquitos.

Bill, I have to agree re the sound they make, imho, its not like two Spitfires, its like one Mosquito & it sounds great.:)

I heard this machine in Auckland before it departed our shores.

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how true this is but supposedly recently a British Mosquito group that had undertaken to buy another of Glyn Powells Mosquito airframe recreations pulled out because Glyn's airframes have a solid spruce leading edge rather than the original ply version, the better to resisit bird strike, but according to the UK CAA (???) this would need re certification at considerable expense & effectively precludes one of these ever being put on the UK register. 'course, this may well be unsustantiated rumour, its been a bit hard to seperate the wood from the trees, spruce or otherwise, as to who is doing what with these new build Mosquitos.

Bill, I have to agree re the sound they make, imho, its not like two Spitfires, its like one Mosquito & it sounds great. :)

I heard this machine in Auckland before it departed our shores.

Steve.

That is the second time I've heard this story; guessing there is an element of truth to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...