-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Crates of Buried, Unassembled Spitfires
- Thread starter mike_cyul
- Start date
brad kaste
Charter Member
If found,....those crates gotta' be right up there with Howard Carter discovering King Tutankhamun's tomb. Well,...maybe somewhat close to finding Tut's tomb.
That ranks up there with the hoary old reports of 'Hidden Spitfires' all around the Australian 'Outback'.
I'll believe it when they are dug up .......
The Spitfires have actually been located, and excavation is to start imminently. Read this article fully;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...in-Burma-during-war-to-be-returned-to-UK.html
cheezyflier
Charter Member
the idea of an entire squadron for shows is pretty exciting.
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
The scans, which are designed to pick up metal objects, have been described by those that have seen them, as showing objects that have a rough fuselage shape to them (as clear as the scans will allow), and the objects are all lined up side by side, and have been measured to be about 25-30 ft long. If the boxes are still intact, the scans wouldn't pick them up. Because the location of the scans were also done in the very area of the airfield that the Spitfires were documented or said to have been buried in, all of this leads to more than enough evidence to warrent a dig. It's actually been more than a decade in the waiting, for an expedition to be launched to recover what's there, and it's only finally being able to be done because the shifts in the political climate.
A few in reputable positions within the warbird/Spitfire community, that you would expect to know about the details of this dig, and would expect to be confident in the expedition if what they're looking for will be found, actually are! As mentioned previously, there is a team on-site, preparing to initiate the recovery.
A few in reputable positions within the warbird/Spitfire community, that you would expect to know about the details of this dig, and would expect to be confident in the expedition if what they're looking for will be found, actually are! As mentioned previously, there is a team on-site, preparing to initiate the recovery.
After almost 70 years underground, I imagine that they're not in very good shape.
http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2007/06/well_now_its_of.html
http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2007/06/well_now_its_of.html
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
That's true Willy. I think the hope is that the boxes, being waxed and tarred, held up well enough to provide at least some bit of level of protection. There are a few warbirds flying today, that looked even worse when recovered than that car. Even if every part is unusable, they still provide the perfect means for making patterns from and remanufacturing the parts.
In the current era of warbird restorations, all it takes is a traceable identity to build a Spitfire or Mustang from, so as long as you have a title or the data plates to form a title from, for a specific aircraft, you can build a copy of that aircraft (calling it a "restoration"), and as long as it meets proper standards and rules (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.) you can assign that identity to the aircraft and as far as the governing bodies are concerned, the end product is the aircraft the paperwork/data plates claim it to be. There is a Spitfire I that finished restoration last year, that is claimed to be the same aircraft as one dug up from a beach, having crashed there in early 1940. The only actual parts from the wreck that went into it, however, could probably be counted within the span of one's fingers and toes, and that's it, but it is an absolute clone of the original, in every detail. And because the rebuild had an identity that could be tied directly to it, it can be registered just as if it was any other Spitfire, and flown. The result of this too, is you can make a decent amount of money just by selling the paperwork/ownership for an aircraft like this, even if almost nothing is actually useable or in existence in a restoration, as simply having a tracable title is one of the biggest hurdles - as actually manufacturing a completely new Mustang or Spitfire, all to original spec, although a lengthy task, is not a problem these days (with enough money). What has already been expressed on another forum, is if that many Mk.XIV's ever do become airworthy (the examples buried are said to be mostly former RAF Mk.XIV's and possibly a few Mk.VIII's), that there won't be enough engines to support the operation of all of them. One of the other hopes, is that if this all turns out as expected, that the engines might still be restorable.
In the current era of warbird restorations, all it takes is a traceable identity to build a Spitfire or Mustang from, so as long as you have a title or the data plates to form a title from, for a specific aircraft, you can build a copy of that aircraft (calling it a "restoration"), and as long as it meets proper standards and rules (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.) you can assign that identity to the aircraft and as far as the governing bodies are concerned, the end product is the aircraft the paperwork/data plates claim it to be. There is a Spitfire I that finished restoration last year, that is claimed to be the same aircraft as one dug up from a beach, having crashed there in early 1940. The only actual parts from the wreck that went into it, however, could probably be counted within the span of one's fingers and toes, and that's it, but it is an absolute clone of the original, in every detail. And because the rebuild had an identity that could be tied directly to it, it can be registered just as if it was any other Spitfire, and flown. The result of this too, is you can make a decent amount of money just by selling the paperwork/ownership for an aircraft like this, even if almost nothing is actually useable or in existence in a restoration, as simply having a tracable title is one of the biggest hurdles - as actually manufacturing a completely new Mustang or Spitfire, all to original spec, although a lengthy task, is not a problem these days (with enough money). What has already been expressed on another forum, is if that many Mk.XIV's ever do become airworthy (the examples buried are said to be mostly former RAF Mk.XIV's and possibly a few Mk.VIII's), that there won't be enough engines to support the operation of all of them. One of the other hopes, is that if this all turns out as expected, that the engines might still be restorable.
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
Going off of my last post, Spitfire P9374 went from looking like this, as recovered:
To looking like this as of last summer, just as it was in the spring of 1940. As can be imagined, with the aircraft likely worth, due to rarity and the fact that it is asbolutely perfect, probably in the ball-park of $6,000,000 or more, what an investment!:
To looking like this as of last summer, just as it was in the spring of 1940. As can be imagined, with the aircraft likely worth, due to rarity and the fact that it is asbolutely perfect, probably in the ball-park of $6,000,000 or more, what an investment!:
wombat666
Administrator
And therein lies the rub.
As one who has done a decent amount of 'restoration' work on Classic and Historic cars, and I could care less what the so-called 'Governing Body' mentioned above has to say, most of the 'restored' aircraft [including P9374] are not, they are re-creations or more to the point, complete new builds.
Where I come from, based on my '30 year Porsche 911RS project', a restoration is just that, a restoration of an original car, at least 70% complete, equipped with original factory parts and rebuilt to the exact specification that it rolled off the factory floor first time round.
A replica, as in my own Ford GT40, is just that, a modern day new build from the ground up, but retaining the spirit of the original car as far as practical given present day environmental and safety regulations.
One is not welcome in the GT40 'Replicas' community if one has built a car with Chevrolet power for example, and one individual who planned on using a Lexus engine was refused the purchase of the GT40 'kit'.
Some 20 years ago, probably more IIRC, the Bugatti Owners Club clamped down on a very shifty [one might even say criminal] practice that entailed [for example] four people clubbing together to purchase a single original car, then breaking it up into parts and creating four cars, all claiming to be 'restorations' as these 'fakes' contained 25% original parts, purely in pursuit of big profits.
This is not restoration, it's fraud and criminal fraud at that.
One can't take a construction plate and a control column, build an entire brand new airframe around those items and claim to have restored an 'original' aircraft, it is a 'replica' or more to the point, a 'clone'.
But of course, PT Barnum was right on the mark, there is 'one born every minute' and certain people do like to delude themselves to the extent that authenticity is completely disregarded.
Whatever the outcome, these aircraft will not be restorations, they will be re-creations, and that is non-negotiable.
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
I can't agree with you more, Wombat.
Whatever the outcome, these aircraft will not be restorations, they will be re-creations, and that is non-negotiable.
Until the condition of each of these aircraft is fully known, it very much is negotiable. I agree with the points you make about rebuilding around a control column, and you are right, but that's not always the case, nor anywhere close. Now that the doubts about their very existence have been dispelled, lets see what is actually unearthed.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but on the subject of 'clones and re-creations', isn't a clone (built as close as possible to factory specs) better than no Spitfire at all? I mean if I built a clone and freely admitted that's what it was would that be a bad thing?
I don't know much about the history of those Spitfires still flying, but on the subject of Mustangs I know most still flying have not seen any combat service, in fact many were surplused right out of the factory after the war. So the only thing 'historic' about most of them is the fact that they were produced by NAA and they were owned (however briefly) by the government.
So if I built a clone P-51D and took it to an airshow wouldn't it have just as much right to wear 'warbird' markings as the rest of the Mustangs in attendance?
Just asking.
I don't know much about the history of those Spitfires still flying, but on the subject of Mustangs I know most still flying have not seen any combat service, in fact many were surplused right out of the factory after the war. So the only thing 'historic' about most of them is the fact that they were produced by NAA and they were owned (however briefly) by the government.
So if I built a clone P-51D and took it to an airshow wouldn't it have just as much right to wear 'warbird' markings as the rest of the Mustangs in attendance?
Just asking.
If somebody has the skills and the funding to clone a new P-51 or Spitfire from a rotted fuselage hulk or even just the armored glass windscreen, it's all good. I'm still happy to see it flying past an air show audience on a Sunday afternoon. I do think there's a point where it's a bit of a stretch to label a plane as "restored" when there's so little original plane left, but I'll leave it to the aircraft owners to agonize over that. Speaking of restorations/rebuilds/whatever, I wish the Navy would take just a little time off from issuing new breathalyzer testing regulations and other social experimentation with the sailors and recover at least one of the two TBD Devastators in Jaluit Lagoon in the Pacific.
View attachment 63406
View attachment 63406
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
The interesting aspect of some of this, is that you can actually learn more by looking at Spitfire I P9374, today, in order to actually see what Spitfires looked like during the Battle of France and the early days of the Battle of Britain, more so than even the best preserved/un-restored Spitfire on the planet. The reason for this, is that even the earliest preserved un-restored and restored examples have numerous upgrades to them that were done post-BOB, so they are not actually configured as they were during that time period of 1940. P9374 is absolutely perfect, and it wouldn't have been possible without those remains to start with.
I'm in the boat, that if "it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". To pick between an almost unrecognizable hulk of an aircraft, displayed in a crashed-state in some museum, over seeing it "re-birthed" into a pristine flying machine, there's absolutely no argument on my part. Of course it can be quite confusing, and even quite disappointing, to those that have only ever thought of the warbirds they see at airshows, as being direct survivors of WWII - even more so when you see the term "restoration" used to define a project, and the "before and after" photos are actually showing the entire assembly from the original aircraft, and the entirely new-build assembly that is going into the project, both in the same photo sitting next to each other (for which you have to wonder what is to become of those original parts that cannot be used?). At least I can't think of a particular warbird being exactly in the same category of "George Washington's axe" - i.e., "It's the very axe that Washington used...but the handle has been replaced three times, and the head has been replaced twice".
Regarding most of the surviving Mustangs having never actually served in WWII, then most guys tend to focus on what their histories actually were, most of which center around service with the USAF Nation Guard, the Canadian AF, or Latin American Air Forces. There are combat vet Mustangs flying today, because they fired their guns "in anger", but did not do so during WWII.
I'm in the boat, that if "it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". To pick between an almost unrecognizable hulk of an aircraft, displayed in a crashed-state in some museum, over seeing it "re-birthed" into a pristine flying machine, there's absolutely no argument on my part. Of course it can be quite confusing, and even quite disappointing, to those that have only ever thought of the warbirds they see at airshows, as being direct survivors of WWII - even more so when you see the term "restoration" used to define a project, and the "before and after" photos are actually showing the entire assembly from the original aircraft, and the entirely new-build assembly that is going into the project, both in the same photo sitting next to each other (for which you have to wonder what is to become of those original parts that cannot be used?). At least I can't think of a particular warbird being exactly in the same category of "George Washington's axe" - i.e., "It's the very axe that Washington used...but the handle has been replaced three times, and the head has been replaced twice".
Regarding most of the surviving Mustangs having never actually served in WWII, then most guys tend to focus on what their histories actually were, most of which center around service with the USAF Nation Guard, the Canadian AF, or Latin American Air Forces. There are combat vet Mustangs flying today, because they fired their guns "in anger", but did not do so during WWII.