Guy Martin helps restore a Spitfire -ch4 12Oct

[dr_gn]

eccles said:

It's a shame that to get a show like that made these days you have have a celebrity attached to it. I hated the way they kept calling it 'Guys Spitfire' when in reality he probably put in a weeks work in over 2 years. Don't get me wrong, I like the bloke and his enthusiasm for all thing engineering, but at least be truthful about his input.
I've never seen riveting up a fuel tank described in such a dramatic manner before! All that talk of robots these days when in reality most aircraft are still pretty much hand built the same as that Spitfire was.

Plus the usual reality TV "If Guy snaps this drill....the whole world ends" jeopardy, and Top Gear-esque lets shoot a BMW with a Spitfire machine gun. Shame they couldn't quite explicitly admit that it was a completely new aircraft at the expense of a bit of emotional drama, but there you go. At least it keeps up interst in old aircraft and a bit of history.

[Dr Jekyll]

dr_gn said:

davepoth said:

HoHoHo said:

Does that make it 'that' aircraft then?

ETA - legally?

That's the idea. It would be impossible to make a new Spitfire and have it meet the current regulations. So instead you build an "old" one.

Is the CAA really that stupid?

But the point is that if you build an 'old' one you have to prove to the CAA that it's made the same way as the original. Change a material even to something objectively better, even to something the manufacturers would obviously have used if it were available at the time, and the CAA are liable to stop you flying it. As one of the restoration groups at Duxford found to their cost a couple of years back.

If you build it as a new aircraft that happens to look like a Spitfire, then you have to prove it will fly OK because it's regarded as an unproven design. The fact that it looks just like a Spitfire is irrelevant.

The other point is that a 'rebuilt' aircraft will hold it's value. In a few years time you can give it an overhaul and a repaint and it will be worth as much as when first rebuilt. A 'replica' won't because people will say 'why buy second hand when I can get a new replica made'?

It's bizarre really. You can build 2 identical replacement Spitfire parts to the original drawings, put one on your Spitfire and store the other. Keep doing this until every part of your original Spitfire has been replaced, it's still a genuine Spitfire. Then build another out of the stored parts and that one is only a replica.

[dr_gn]

Dr Jekyll said:

dr_gn said:

davepoth said:

HoHoHo said:

Does that make it 'that' aircraft then?

ETA - legally?

That's the idea. It would be impossible to make a new Spitfire and have it meet the current regulations. So instead you build an "old" one.

Is the CAA really that stupid?

But the point is that if you build an 'old' one you have to prove to the CAA that it's made the same way as the original. Change a material even to something objectively better, even to something the manufacturers would obviously have used if it were available at the time, and the CAA are liable to stop you flying it. As one of the restoration groups at Duxford found to their cost a couple of years back.

If you build it as a new aircraft that happens to look like a Spitfire, then you have to prove it will fly OK because it's regarded as an unproven design. The fact that it looks just like a Spitfire is irrelevant.

The other point is that a 'rebuilt' aircraft will hold it's value. In a few years time you can give it an overhaul and a repaint and it will be worth as much as when first rebuilt. A 'replica' won't because people will say 'why buy second hand when I can get a new replica made'?

It's bizarre really. You can build 2 identical replacement Spitfire parts to the original drawings, put one on your Spitfire and store the other. Keep doing this until every part of your original Spitfire has been replaced, it's still a genuine Spitfire. Then build another out of the stored parts and that one is only a replica.

I know the reasons you've stated, but the question remains: Is the CAA really that stupid? I don't believe they are, but I can't think why you'd need only a data plate to class a brand new aircraft a 'rebuild' of a 1940's aircraft rather than a 2014 'new build' (if that is the case).

[MarkwG]

dr_gn said:

I know the reasons you've stated, but the question remains: Is the CAA really that stupid? I don't believe they are, but I can't think why you'd need only a data plate to class a brand new aircraft a 'rebuild' of a 1940's aircraft rather than a 2014 'new build' (if that is the case).

No, they're not stupid: they're applying the rules as they're mandated to. The rules are decided at governmental level, either here, European or international.

The "rebuilt" aircraft won't require the same level of type approval & flight testing etc as a new aircraft - just that which applied back in the day. The build would be subject to the same rigour as any aircraft would. It'll also be subject to a maintenance schedule & programme that would put the original one to shame (times were different as we know). In aircraft terms, a Spitfire is "relatively" simple, if you know what you're doing. It's the research & the build, & usng techniques no longer needed elsewhere, that cost.

[aeropilot]

dr_gn said:

Dr Jekyll said:

dr_gn said:

davepoth said:

HoHoHo said:

Does that make it 'that' aircraft then?

ETA - legally?

That's the idea. It would be impossible to make a new Spitfire and have it meet the current regulations. So instead you build an "old" one.

Is the CAA really that stupid?

But the point is that if you build an 'old' one you have to prove to the CAA that it's made the same way as the original. Change a material even to something objectively better, even to something the manufacturers would obviously have used if it were available at the time, and the CAA are liable to stop you flying it. As one of the restoration groups at Duxford found to their cost a couple of years back.

If you build it as a new aircraft that happens to look like a Spitfire, then you have to prove it will fly OK because it's regarded as an unproven design. The fact that it looks just like a Spitfire is irrelevant.

The other point is that a 'rebuilt' aircraft will hold it's value. In a few years time you can give it an overhaul and a repaint and it will be worth as much as when first rebuilt. A 'replica' won't because people will say 'why buy second hand when I can get a new replica made'?

It's bizarre really. You can build 2 identical replacement Spitfire parts to the original drawings, put one on your Spitfire and store the other. Keep doing this until every part of your original Spitfire has been replaced, it's still a genuine Spitfire. Then build another out of the stored parts and that one is only a replica.

I know the reasons you've stated, but the question remains: Is the CAA really that stupid? I don't believe they are, but I can't think why you'd need only a data plate to class a brand new aircraft a 'rebuild' of a 1940's aircraft rather than a 2014 'new build' (if that is the case).

Paperwork, nothing else.

If you have the data plates and some odds and ends from an identifiable pile of junk, you've still got tracable history and an identity to create you new build around, and the papartrail needed to operate an aircraft can continue.
Without that identity you have nothing and the aircraft will be classed as a new build, and you won't get a permit.
This is why the CAA won't let the new build Flugwerke 190 new builds fly on the G-register etc., as they don't have the identity of an original.

[ecsrobin]

Here's an article for anyone thinking of purchasing a spitfire. http://grrc.goodwood.com/cool-stuff/youre-thinking...

[FunkyNige]

Dr Jekyll said:

If you build it as a new aircraft that happens to look like a Spitfire, then you have to prove it will fly OK because it's regarded as an unproven design. The fact that it looks just like a Spitfire is irrelevant.

Purely out of curiosity, what kind of regulations would it fail on? If I had billions in the bank for flight approval tests and didn't want a rebuilt one, is there something that a modern plane has to have that the Spitfire doesn't?

[dr_gn]

aeropilot said:

dr_gn said:

Dr Jekyll said:

dr_gn said:

davepoth said:

HoHoHo said:

Does that make it 'that' aircraft then?

ETA - legally?

That's the idea. It would be impossible to make a new Spitfire and have it meet the current regulations. So instead you build an "old" one.

Is the CAA really that stupid?

But the point is that if you build an 'old' one you have to prove to the CAA that it's made the same way as the original. Change a material even to something objectively better, even to something the manufacturers would obviously have used if it were available at the time, and the CAA are liable to stop you flying it. As one of the restoration groups at Duxford found to their cost a couple of years back.

If you build it as a new aircraft that happens to look like a Spitfire, then you have to prove it will fly OK because it's regarded as an unproven design. The fact that it looks just like a Spitfire is irrelevant.

The other point is that a 'rebuilt' aircraft will hold it's value. In a few years time you can give it an overhaul and a repaint and it will be worth as much as when first rebuilt. A 'replica' won't because people will say 'why buy second hand when I can get a new replica made'?

It's bizarre really. You can build 2 identical replacement Spitfire parts to the original drawings, put one on your Spitfire and store the other. Keep doing this until every part of your original Spitfire has been replaced, it's still a genuine Spitfire. Then build another out of the stored parts and that one is only a replica.

I know the reasons you've stated, but the question remains: Is the CAA really that stupid? I don't believe they are, but I can't think why you'd need only a data plate to class a brand new aircraft a 'rebuild' of a 1940's aircraft rather than a 2014 'new build' (if that is the case).

Paperwork, nothing else.

If you have the data plates and some odds and ends from an identifiable pile of junk, you've still got tracable history and an identity to create you new build around, and the papartrail needed to operate an aircraft can continue.
Without that identity you have nothing and the aircraft will be classed as a new build, and you won't get a permit.
This is why the CAA won't let the new build Flugwerke 190 new builds fly on the G-register etc., as they don't have the identity of an original.

Clearly a sizable amount (maybe 30%-50%?) of the original aircraft apparently still exists and will be known to the authorities, so what identity does that have? You can't have two aircraft with the same identity. There's obviously far more of the original aircraft in the wreckage than in the new build, so how can the authorities ignore that?

The 'tracable history' of the new build aircraft is entirely in the plate(s), and in pure engineering or safety related terms, a plate is totally irrelevant, hence the question.

Edited by dr_gn on Tuesday 14th October 12:45

[Eric Mc]

In the world of Classic Cars, there have been numerous cases of the same original car appearing as two or three separate rebuilds.

I think we are seeing something similar happening with restored warbirds - especially if the warbird has a provenance.

[ecs]

dr_gn said:

aeropilot said:

dr_gn said:

Dr Jekyll said:

dr_gn said:

davepoth said:

HoHoHo said:

Does that make it 'that' aircraft then?

ETA - legally?

That's the idea. It would be impossible to make a new Spitfire and have it meet the current regulations. So instead you build an "old" one.

Is the CAA really that stupid?

But the point is that if you build an 'old' one you have to prove to the CAA that it's made the same way as the original. Change a material even to something objectively better, even to something the manufacturers would obviously have used if it were available at the time, and the CAA are liable to stop you flying it. As one of the restoration groups at Duxford found to their cost a couple of years back.

If you build it as a new aircraft that happens to look like a Spitfire, then you have to prove it will fly OK because it's regarded as an unproven design. The fact that it looks just like a Spitfire is irrelevant.

The other point is that a 'rebuilt' aircraft will hold it's value. In a few years time you can give it an overhaul and a repaint and it will be worth as much as when first rebuilt. A 'replica' won't because people will say 'why buy second hand when I can get a new replica made'?

It's bizarre really. You can build 2 identical replacement Spitfire parts to the original drawings, put one on your Spitfire and store the other. Keep doing this until every part of your original Spitfire has been replaced, it's still a genuine Spitfire. Then build another out of the stored parts and that one is only a replica.

I know the reasons you've stated, but the question remains: Is the CAA really that stupid? I don't believe they are, but I can't think why you'd need only a data plate to class a brand new aircraft a 'rebuild' of a 1940's aircraft rather than a 2014 'new build' (if that is the case).

Paperwork, nothing else.

If you have the data plates and some odds and ends from an identifiable pile of junk, you've still got tracable history and an identity to create you new build around, and the papartrail needed to operate an aircraft can continue.
Without that identity you have nothing and the aircraft will be classed as a new build, and you won't get a permit.
This is why the CAA won't let the new build Flugwerke 190 new builds fly on the G-register etc., as they don't have the identity of an original.

Clearly a sizable amount (maybe 30%-50%?) of the original aircraft apparently still exists and will be known to the authorities, so what identity does that have? You can't have two aircraft with the same identity. There's obviously far more of the original aircraft in the wreckage than in the new build, so how can the authorities ignore that?

The 'tracable history' of the new build aircraft is entirely in the plate(s), and in pure engineering or safety related terms, a plate is totally irrelevant, hence the question.

Edited by dr_gn on Tuesday 14th October 12:45

These historic aircraft are on permits to fly rather than certificates of airworthiness. The CAA has less involvement with them and just requires someone 'competent' can testify the safety of the aircraft (i.e. the gents at Duxford). The aircraft in this show would have never been on a G plate when it was first made either, so the plates and originality of it are surely just of interest to the owners and perspective buyers?

[aeropilot]

dr_gn said:

Clearly a sizable amount (maybe 30%-50%?) of the original aircraft apparently still exists and will be known to the authorities, so what identity does that have?

It doesn't, it's a pile of scrap, or discarded old parts no different to any other old parts replaced in rebuilds of an aircraft etc.

Effectively the many of the non-new build a/c around probably don't have much of the original parts that they consisted of when they original first left the factory, as refurbished chunks of them were replaced during service overhauls etc.

I believe the Lanc in Hendon, the famous high ops S-Sugar isn't all original at all such was the way the aircraft were overhauled in service. I read that with Lancs only the forward part of the fuselage retained the original identity, so when Sugar underwent a major overhaul during WW2 the centre and rear fuselages were replaced with recently overhauled ones that had been part of other aircraft etc.

[Simpo Two]

'Cut and shut' in other words!

[jamieduff1981]

FunkyNige said:

Dr Jekyll said:

If you build it as a new aircraft that happens to look like a Spitfire, then you have to prove it will fly OK because it's regarded as an unproven design. The fact that it looks just like a Spitfire is irrelevant.

Purely out of curiosity, what kind of regulations would it fail on? If I had billions in the bank for flight approval tests and didn't want a rebuilt one, is there something that a modern plane has to have that the Spitfire doesn't?

I'm not actually sure what category a new built Spitfire would be considered to sit within, but it's likely it would need to satisfy the sort of specifications in CS-23, an EASA document and one which EASA and therefore the CAA apply to similar weights of aeroplanes:

http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/decision_ED...

I have a total of zero hours on Spitfires and couldn't name anything a new build Spitfire would definately fail on. If you have a flick through the CS-23 contents page you'll see that it is very broad in scope. In some ways it is similar to road vehicle Construction & Use regulations, but it also covers performance and handling requirements. Modern aeroplanes are required to, for example, have certain stability standards whereby straight and level flight can be disturbed and the aeroplane has to sort itself out within a specified number of oscillations and so on. Similarly, aeroplanes which are to be flown aerobatically need to provide the pilot with a predictable feedback of a minimum stick-force per G.

Essentially you'd need to prove that your new aeroplane was safe to fly and had no handling flaws or undesireable characteristics.

[eccles]

Simpo Two said:

'Cut and shut' in other words!

Not at all. They have proper transport joints, so it's 'just' unbolt it, and bolt a different piece on.

I used to fix C-130's and it wasn't that unusual to swap or change major components like wings/tail plane/fin etc. The aircraft still carried the same tail number.

[ReaderScars]

Fancy your own Spit? From about £105k you can have an LS2 V8 powered replica kit from an outfit based in New Zealand - admittedly 80-90% scale rather than a full 100% replica but still...

http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id56.html

[HoHoHo]

ReaderScars said:

Fancy your own Spit? From about £105k you can have an LS2 V8 powered replica kit from an outfit based in New Zealand - admittedly 80-90% scale rather than a full 100% replica but still...

http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id56.html

So not a Spitfire but a Spitfir?

Not quite the same is it

[ReaderScars]

Yeah, shame about the proportions of the canopy too...but its as close as anyone can get without owning the Real Thing (TM).

[dr_gn]

Same as this one?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[ReaderScars]

That's the one!

[Mr_B]

ReaderScars said:

Fancy your own Spit? From about £105k you can have an LS2 V8 powered replica kit from an outfit based in New Zealand - admittedly 80-90% scale rather than a full 100% replica but still...

http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id56.html

I don't get these replicas. Why not make it a full size and accurate replica, why 90% scale of a not very big aircraft when it turns it into a bloody ugly thing. It's like a nasty kit car copy of a 250 GTO.