WIX Archives

Re: Spitfire Mk IX ML119 No1 Sqn

Posted by david J burke on Sat Nov 03, 2001 08:34:54 AM

In reply top Re: Spitfire Mk IX ML119 No1 Sqn posted by MGM on Fri Nov 02, 2001 08:38:59 PM

Mick - The is no 'if' involved in the ownership of LA255.
The RAF made an assumption that she was on charge which was incorrect. Hence the replica Spit scheduled to replace it was diverted but not to the RAFM. The Spitfire and Hurricane fsm's at Hendon were bought by the RAFM not the RAF. The RAF gate guards are on charge.
The point I am making is that the Spitfire (LA255) is pretty much as she was in 1945. What you are advocating is replacing the spars-reskinning the wings and most probably
the fuselage. Carrying out any frame replacement's that are required-replacing probably the entire hydraulic system installing new engine bearers and engine along with a replacement propellor. Well after all that has been done to her how much exactly of No.1 Squadron's prized Spitfire is actually going to date from 1945 and is she really a historical airframe at all????
The owners of TA805 are more than likely aware that they have two Spitfire Mk.9's and I would hazard a guess that when they are both complete they might even sell or trade one rather than have a choice of which MK.9 to fly this weekend ( who knows they might even trade one for VP441 !). I am sure they are aware of the options and are very clever people otherwise you would be talking about my Spitfire rebuild rather than theirs (and yes that is a hint of jealousy).
Regards warbirds being better than 'spam can's' thats very much matter of debate. I ma a great believer that the are a great number of 'spam - can's 'that have merit - remember the USAF operated the Cessna 172 as the T-41 Mescalero for pilot training. How welcome would I be turning up at 'Legends' in that!!!!. The Cessna 180 was operated in the skies over Vietnam and by a host of other
countries for military purposes. This might sadden many a warbird enthusiast but the are very few aircraft (both military and civil ) that can touch it in terms of performance. How about the Cessna 0-2 and the Reims Milirole ? . The reason FlyPast was successful in establishing a market for itself was because the wasn't any credible oposition. Aircraft Illustrated ran the successful
'preservation news' column under Peter March - Aeroplane Monthly relied too much on it's photography from the 1950's and 60's so FlyPast was able to succeed.
The 'warbird' movement as such was still very much in it's early days. The majority of private owners operated ex military aircraft because of their performance not because of the history of the machines as such - after all if it wasn't for air racing in the U.S I doubt we would have very many high performance warbirds at all.
So basically the reason that FlyPast is the market leader id because it very effectively created the
market. Todays Pilot is competing against 'Flyer' and 'Pilot' so it's market share isn't likely to be anywhere near as high. Anyway the are far more people in the U.K flying 'spam-can's) than the ever will be flying warbirds so maybe they are not that boring after all.

Follow Ups: