Afternoon at Duxford 10/04/14

With reasonable weather and school holidays now on, I popped across in the hope that something may be flying. A Dragon Rapide giving pleasure flights, a German Bf 108, a Spanish Hispano HA 1112-M1L Buchon painted in Luftwaffe colours, and Mk 1a Spitfire N3200 were all up in the air at some point in the afternoon. The Spitfire only flew for the first time after restoration (well, total rebuild!) three weeks previous, and very nice it was too.

 

Indeed.......

 

Same can be said for P9374, the other Mk.1 at Duxford. Lots of new material involved in the rebuild but significant lumps of metal from the original aircraft too.
Quite appropriate that N3200 has been given "Cod Squad" - aka 19 Sqd - markings as 19 operated from Duxford during the BoB.

 

I think with N3200, it's a bit like 4472. The nameplates (data plate in this case) is about all that survives from the same machine that rolled out of the factory all those years ago!

 

Very nice indeed. I was privileged to tag along on a private visit to the ARC/HF workshops a couple of years back and got to see P9374 up close - the attention to detail was staggering.

John Romain wouldn't tell us how much it had cost, but given they did things like commissioning Dunlop to produce a new set of original spec tyres for a Mk I - and the minimum run they would do was 50 tyres - gives an idea of how much money went in to it!

I shall have to nip across and see N3200 now...

 

its very nice seeing these old warbirds where they belong, but isnt it time someone got hold of a DB605 and re engined the Buchan so that does look like a Me109 G, rather than the Spanish version.

 

There's at least one in Germany - it appeared at RIAT Fairford in 2010 - and there's at least one DB engined 109E airworthy in North America too.

 

Always get a lump in my throat when i see a Spitfire or Hurricane.

 

yes ,i,ve seen the one from Germany, i would assume that restorable powerplants are few and far between, unlike the other engines coppied by the russians, then sold on to the chineese, very few are known to be around, you certainly would not want to fit one with the junkers unit, they were prone to killing the pilots more than any other person.

 

Given the likely disastrous and potentially terminal effects (for pilot and aircraft) of something going wrong when in flight, I do wonder if it would be better to build proper, full sized and correctly engined replicas to fly and maintain original aircraft in museums/on display?

If a steam loco fails, it can cause massive disruption and other problems but the number of potential failures likely to effectively destroy the machine are very limited and we must pray would never actually happen. Aircraft are somewhat different, as, arguably, are ships at seas.

Steven

 

Just read on the MeierMotors page on FB that they are about to do just that.

 

Sorry to say this but you clearly know not a lot about aircraft restoration.

 

I won't disagree with you, because I don't - but I fear you may have mis-understood me. in no way am I calling into question the standards of restoration or operation. It is a point that doesn't just apply to "total rebuilds" but also to those aircraft which have passed into preservation intact - perhaps even more so. Things can, and sadly occasionally do, go wrong and even the best of pilots cannot always put the plane down in one piece. Are such aircraft too precious to risk by flying?

I know the same argument can be made about railway items but the risk of destruction is surely much less?

Or is you point that the "total restorations" like the 2 Spitfires mentioned are almost replicas?

Steven

 

Whilst how much of the original aircraft was used is often a matter of conjecture, the fact that there was some means the aircraft retains some grandfather rights with the identity. Building a 'new' Spitfire brings with it a whole host of interesting regulations to be be met. For example, there is no fatigue life on a Spitfire (or other such warbirds) - and as such you can keep on rebuilding them and flying them indefinitely. Move forward to something slightly newer such as a Chipmunk and life becomes much more tedious, regulations wise.

Add to that, even aircraft involved in serious or fatal accidents often end up being rebuilt to flying condition again, given the finite number of aircraft available to be rebuilt (examples of this include the BBMF hurricane which crashed in the early nineties, the first Rolls Royce corporate Spitfire which is still slowly being rebuilt, or the Karel Bos T.9 Spitfire at Duxford - there are loads more).

It can't be denied that over the years we have lost some rare, sometimes unique aircraft, and, unfortunately, some extremely talented pilots - but the aircraft have often been put back together, which is sadly not true for many of the pilots involved.

All that having been said, I'm with Spamcan on this - in the same way steam locomotives were built to work, so these aircraft were built to fly and it is the best way to appreciate them. The majority of the companies involved have meticulous standards, and accidents are relatively rare.

Stu

 

Thanks Stu - that makes sense - it is very similar to a major reason why people "rebuild" boilers instead of starting from scratch!

Steven

 

I'm curious about the economics of flying warbirds.

In the railway world, ultimately it is passenger fare income that pays both the running costs (coal, oil, water) and the restoration costs - at least in theory! Is it the same with warbirds? Presumably the main income sources are fees from air shows and filming jobs etc (And I guess museum entry fees at places like the Shuttleworth collection - but that is rare) - there is relatively limited opportunity to charge "fare" income, at least in a single seater! So are any owners actually making money, or at least keeping pace with the running costs, or is it exclusively a pastime for the wealthy?

Tom

 

OK, first the disclaimer: I am no more involved in aircraft preservation than I am in steam/railway preservation - I class myself as a well informed observer with a background in engineering - all these areas interest me as an engineer.

Companies like ARC/HFL are clearly the aircraft world's equivalent of outfits like Riley & Sons or Tyseley - they are the go to people if you need warbird maintenance/restoration (they even have major overhaul contracts for the BBMF aircraft - up to and including the Lancaster). They also operate aircraft, both their own, and others on behalf of their owners. My suspicion is that the engineering side of such businesses may well subsidise their own aircraft.

I suspect the adage about how to make a small fortune in railway preservation applies just as much in the aviation world. The Barry wreck equivalent of a Spitfire will set you back at least £2.25m to return to flight - and that is a bare minimum restoration. Aircraft like the Mk1a Spitfires mentioned above clearly cost a great deal more - but they were cost no object restorations funded by very wealthy owners.

Then there are the smaller outfits often owning one or two aircraft - a classic example of this is something like the B.17 Sally B at Duxford. I think these are much closer to a preserved railway, where they do receive income from air shows and the like (many of these outfits offer private displays etc.), but also rely on volunteers to help as support crew for the aircraft as well as undertaking fund raising activities, plus a supporters club of subscription paying members (currently around 8000 members in the case of Sally B).

Air show revenue alone is not sufficient to sustain operation of an aircraft - there is a Buccaneer known to be in airworthy condition in the UK, but it's owners will only fly it for commercial contracts, and are not prepared to put it on the display circuit because it's uneconomic to do so.

Rolls Royce have a Spitfire (well, two, actually) because it is a suitably iconic piece of their heritage (where else could you meet a man with the job title "Manager, Company Spitfire" - surely one of the best job titles in the world). But this is a rather special case I think.

In the end, as with steam/railways, they do it because it is their passion.

Stu