Crash spitfire in France

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thankfully the non-replaceable component - the pilot - is unharmed apart from some bruising. The aircraft can, and hopefully will, be repaired. As one of the last operational PR Spits, I'd like to see it in markings it actually wore on operations...but that's just me being pedantic.
 
It flew with two RAF reconnaissance units, No. 542 and No. 81 (the re-numbered No. 684) Squadrons. The latter posting is why it found itself in the far East, from where it was transferred to the Royal Thai Air Force in 1951. Plenty of marking options there!
I think it carried 'distinctive markings' for Overlord during most of its time at Planes of Fame, so presumably No. 542 Squadron markings.
Cheers
Steve
 
And I agree, I was speaking to those that are being flown that are not one of many but one of less than a handful. There are lots of P-51's and Spitfires around so I don't have an objection to that at all.
 
A prime example would be the 17 (and not all of those are complete) surviving Lancaster bombers. 2 are still airworthy and being flown. Then there is the Hawker Typhoon of which only one complete example remains. This one is not currently airworthy but there has been interest in making it so and flying it. Thankfully it was donated to the RAF museum at Hendon and is now on display in Ottowa Canada and for the moment not likely to be flown.

*Edit one of the incomplete examples is currently being restored to airworthy condition. I am speaking of Typhoon Ib JP843 (Typhoon Legacy Co. Ltd., Canada, undergoing long term airworthy restoration; Ex-Roger Marley Collection) This is one of 4 incomplete examples remaining.
 
The RAFM Typhoon is not complete - the engine cowlings are mock-ups, the radiator is from a truck, nd the rad trunking is linoleum, among other things !
 
Robert Porter said:
A prime example would be the 17 (and not all of those are complete) surviving Lancaster bombers. 2 are still airworthy and being flown.
Click to expand...

The BBMF Lancaster is effectively a military aircraft and will be flown for as long as possible as a living memorial to all the men and women of Bomber Command. The motto of the RAF BBMF is Rudyard Kipling's well known words, 'Lest we Forget'. The BBMF is part of the RAF and the aircraft are flown by serving RAF aircrew.

The Canadian Lancaster is a bit different, being operated by civilians (the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum) who need to raise the money to keep it flying. That they brought their machine across the Atlantic to allow two Lancasters to fly together is still a source of amazement to me. There is no way the RAF would allow our Lancaster to go the other way! Well done the Canadians, there were a lot of grateful people this side of the pond.

Cheers

Steve
 
stona said:
There is no way the RAF would allow our Lancaster to go the other way! Well done the Canadians, there were a lot of grateful people this side of the pond.
Click to expand...

Especially me, it flew over my mothers house as we stepped out on our way to her ex RAF brother's funeral. I hope that since the BBMF Lanc is taxpayer funded that any good condition parts that were "hanging around" were swapped/handed over.
 
At some point in the visit a RR Merlin was fitted as a replacement for a troublesome Packard version. I bet that was fun, there would be a lot of adaption required
 
Airframes said:
The RAFM Typhoon is not complete - the engine cowlings are mock-ups, the radiator is from a truck, nd the rad trunking is linoleum, among other things !
Click to expand...
Even more to my point. Hey I am all for seeing warbirds up close and if they are only static displays then you have to go to them. War birds that fly can often allow more people to see and enjoy them. I get it. But my point remains once the numbers are in the single digits I don't think the risk of loss is worth the reward. But it is only my opinion, it is neither right nor wrong, just my opinion. And honestly I don't think anyone else's opinion is wrong either, it is their own view.

However a few inescapable facts do present themselves without chance of argument. If it crashes and burns, like Kee Bird, its gone truly and forever yes I know it was a ground fire not a crash. Or the B-17 that burned a couple of years ago. And once the last example is gone, it is gone. So while in the short term flying them about allows more people to see and appreciate them eventually it will lead to fewer and fewer examples static or not. Museums burn, have sinkholes open up underneath etc so avoiding unnecessary risk to me just seems good common sense. Especially when we are dealing with our heritage and legacy objects that were paid for with lives and blood. Speaking as a vet, I see no honor in using these aircraft as flying museums instead what I perceive is ego pure and simple, and of course the love of flying. All understandable but in my own humble view not the best way to honor those that flew and serviced them. Build and fly a faithful replica.
 

A lot of these aircraft are only in existence because someone wanted to restore one to flying condition. The Avro Anson that we have flying here would never have been restored to static, the owner was only interested in flying it. Glynn Powell would never have produced the moulds for the mosquito fuselages if they were only ever going to be static aircraft. It is the flying community, that largely fund the restorations in the first place.

We currently have the Maude P-40 here at Omaka, which is for sale, but no-one wants to buy it, because restoration to flight status would destroy the patina and history of this aircraft, which hasn't had anything done to it since it was bought as surplus after WW2.
 
The Spitfire "recovered" and put in the air from the beaches of Dunkerque is actually mainly a new replica, as a static display it would be equally as valid as it was taken from the beach, like the Mary Rose Tudor battleship.
 
I'm not sure of the engine fit in PA474, the BBMF Lanc, at the moment, but in the early 1980's, the Flight personnel called it a Lancaster Mk 1.5, as it had a mix of Rolls Royce and Packard Merlins !
Note also that this particular Lanc should be airworthy for a long time into the future, as it was re-sparred a few years back, the only Lancaster ever to have a new main spar fitted.
 
Airframes said:
Note also that this particular Lanc should be airworthy for a long time into the future, as it was re-sparred a few years back, the only Lancaster ever to have a new main spar fitted.
Click to expand...

Something probably beyond the means of the operators of an aircraft in private ownership. It would require at the very least a huge fund raising effort.

As for restoring those Mk I Spitfires, all you need is the data plate and you can re-build the aircraft around it, retaining the original identity. The result is largely a replica, but you can rebuild/replicate the airframe and return it to the air.
This is the pile of wreckage from which P9374 was reconstructed:


I'll leave you to guess how much of the beautiful aircraft flying today came from that.
In the UK at least you need original drawings to do this (return to flight). You don't need the blue prints to restore an aircraft to static display as they are basically just mock ups or 1:1 models, see Airframe's Typhoon post, which might explain the current state of certain Ju 87s and the search for said blueprints currently underway

For me, one of my great pleasures is seeing these things doing what they were meant to do, and that is flying. There's always a risk attached to displaying any aircraft, particularly old ones, but if the owners and pilots want to fly them they should be allowed to, even if they have the last airworthy example in the world. I will gladly pay to see it!

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Robert Porter said:
I guess for what amounts to a replica that fits my criteria. I don't mind replica's being flown at all. Just not the very few remaining actual aircraft of a type.
Click to expand...

The BBMF aircraft are all as original as possible. The Lancaster is in as close a condition as possible to a wartime set up. Unlike the Canadian Lancaster it is not set up to carry passengers for example. I've seen it taxi with Bomber Command veterans on board, but I don't think they can fly in it, which, considering what they were doing in these aircraft 70 odd years ago, seems a bit unfair
Cheers
Steve
 
Many years ago a Spitfire owner who had painted his aircraft red was criticised for his choice of colour scheme. His reply sums up the issue.
"What colour is your Spitfire?"
 
stona said:
Many years ago a Spitfire owner who had painted his aircraft red was criticised for his choice of colour scheme. His reply sums up the issue.
"What colour is your Spitfire?"
Click to expand...
That is as crass as what colour is your Ferrari, Ferraris are red and Spitfires are not red, Aston Martins should be green and Lamborghinis are the only car that looks good in yellow. P 51s look great in their flamboyant WW2 colours like Big Beautiful Doll, any attempt to tart up a Spitfire with a colour scheme is like throwing gravel into the observers eyes. If the fool wanted to be cool he should painted it in Pr Blue or camotint pink.
 
The 'fool' was Spencer Flack who, at the time had a number of (then) relatively rare aircraft which, at the time, would not have been seen if he hadn't invested a considerable amount of time, and money, having them restored to flying condition.
The aircraft were painted in his Company's colours, and included the Spitfire Mk. FR.XIV 'G-FIRE', and a Sea Fury, 'G-FURY', both extremely rare 'warbirds' during that period, when only the BBMF's Spitfires (and one Hurricane), along with the Shuttleworth Collection Spitfire Mk.Vb, MIGHT have been seen at an airshow.
I used to know the 'main' pilot of the Spit (Pete Thorn ex-BBMF), who, although he didn't fully approve of the colour scheme, always maintained "It's a Spitfire, and it's flying, bringing the sight and sound to many - do I care what colour it is ?"
G-FIRE eventually went to the USA, and wore (perhaps still does), a 'camouflage' scheme it never saw in its service life, even if it was 'semi authentic', as this airframe was re-built from wings found in a scrap yard, a fuselage from somewhere else, and other parts, and engine, from half way across the world.
That's dedication - but, of course, 30+ years later, operators /owners of 'warbirds' now tend to at least try to represent their aircraft in an authentic colour scheme - even if the original airframe concerned never actually wore the scheme it may be seen in today.
The 'warbird' community has come a heck of a long way from its humble beginnings of the mid 1970's, which, believe it or not, found its foundation with those aircraft restored for the movie "The Battle of Britain", in 1968 !
Oh, and by the way, the 'House' colour for Ferrari is actually yellow, not red, the latter being the original 'National Colour' for any Italian (International) racing team, which is a darker, 'blood' red, compared to the popular image of a Ferrari product today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

ATR-72 Crash in Brazil
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
RichardSuhkoi
R
M
Maj Gen Bill Anders, Apollo 8 Astronaut, Killed in Crash
Replies
5
Views
1K
GrauGeist
Azerbaijan Airlines plane crashes in Kazakhstan
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Retattack
R
Spitfire Crashes near RAF Coningsby
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Thumpalumpacus
F
Crash of a civilian Fouga Magister today
Replies
8
Views
1K
Capt. Vick
Menu
Log in
Register