Ooofff - Boyne perpetuates fallacy

[JDK]

That desktop calendar* again! Lots of often thought-provoking comments by Walter J Boyne, but the one for Monday Oct 29 started well and ended with a remark that, really, this author shouldn't get wrong like this.

"Supermarine Spitfire
Owning a Supermarine Spitfire is not unlike owning a Stradivarius violin; using either is a great pleasure, but maintaining, protecting and insuring the safety of either is a tremendous responsibility."

Fair enough (and for once 'not unlike' is probably OK, rather than getting blue pencilled to 'like'). There's another point re- violins and Spitfires, but I'll come back to that. It goes on, however...

"Spitfires are few in number, and as years go by, that number diminishes because of tragic accidents."

Um, no. And WJB should be well aware that airworthy Spitfire numbers have gone down and up a bit over the last few decades, but remain, for a rare item, remarkably stable and steady. Including all surviving Spitfires, most museum examples are 'safe' and numbers haven't declined, AFAIK. Comments?

Secondly, there are several Spitfires that have crashed - sometimes a fatal accident - and have been or are (and no doubt will be) rebuilt again. Note we aren't arguing authenticity or originality here, unless one takes that as implicit, but just the numbers, I take it. Overall, from, say the 1960s, I think we are seeing a slow, small growth in Spitfire numbers. Again, comments?

On the Stradavarius / Spitfire thing, one presumption is that any machine that is used will be degrading through normal wear and tear, and that operating say, a Spitfire means parts will need to be replaced, and eventually, the aircraft rebuilt. It is a process of decline to be adjusted by remedial works.

Interestingly, I understand that is not the case for wooden string instruments such as violins and the like. Actually being played maintains the 'health' of the instrument, where putting it in a museum under controlled conditions but not being played means it will degrade.

However much some here might like to say that flying the aircraft keeps it in better shape than not doing so, that's a mix of a desired fact rather than a physical reality, and that a flying aircraft requires (and hopefully gets) appropriate maintenance at a greater rate than a static museum example needs - the 'dusty museum' scenario.

Now I know we have some musicians here, so feedback and comment welcome on all points...

(The Wiki list gives 233 Stradavarius stringed instruments, and notes it is 'incomplete' - how close to reality is that? Surviving (complete) Spitfires? Rough numbers I have is about 300 survivors, inc 50 airworthy, and about 20 under restoration. Anyone better that?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_St ... nstruments

Regards,

*'Golden Age of Flight' Desk calendar, text by Walter J Boyne.

[PinecastleAAF]

Well it's on a calendar so I would not expect too much. That page is designed to be thrown away.

[mike furline]

Speaking of violins....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1Cl1L8WFQ

[JDK]

Heh. And, as I tried to say, most pages are OK, some very interesting - and a very few dud.

Of course where are we right now? Oh, the permanency that is the interwebz.

[Jerry O'Neill]

That's a good post, James. BTW, does your count include the possibility of 30 + Spitfires being birthed from the ground soon?
Jerry

[muddyboots]

Like Uruk-Hai from the mud?

[mrp]

Of course the interesting irony, is that the Spitfire pictured with the comments, is TE392. It suffered a nice salt water bath due to a Hurricane.It is apparently still at Ezell's in Beckenridge Texas being de-salinated.
It is not only flying that can destroy Spitfires, at least 2 have been consumed in museum fires (Hamilton and Paris ) as well.

mrp

[JDK]

thanks gents.

That's a good post, James. BTW, does your count include the possibility of 30 + Spitfires being birthed from the ground soon?

No. And I'd rather steer clear of speculating on that, and stick to current are historic data.

Regards,

[RickH]

TE392 received a VERY thorough freshwater bath within days after the dunking as well as a VERY liberal application of Corrosion X.

[SaxMan]

A well maintained saxophone has a virtually indefinite lifespan. My "daily driver" is a 1945 Buescher Aristocrat tenor...one of the very first post-war horns produced. (Buescher was allowed to continue building limited numbers of musical instruments during the war, the only American instrument company to be able to do so), other than the pads that go under the keys, it's all original.

I have two restored saxophones from 1927, a tenor and a baritone, two original finish straight sopranos from 1925 and 1926, and a curved soprano, also original from 1913. Other than the ergonomics and the mechanisms, they are no different than a brand new horn. I do like the sound of vintage American metal...whether it's a saxophone or an aircraft of similar vintage.

The saxophones that were restored were originally silver plated from the factory. When that finish became passe (no doubt due to the difficulties in maintaining the finish) both horns had their plating stripped and were lacquered. I had both restored to their original factory finish. The tenor has some minor modifications to make it a bit more comfortable of a player, but the baritone was restored pretty much to the way it was in 1927. This particular vintage of baritone saxophones (Conn "Chu" or "Crossbar Conn") were considered the "stradivarius" of baritone saxophones, used by famed jazz saxophonist Gerry Mulligan. I bought it off a puppeteer more than 20 years ago...he had no idea what he was selling and I had no idea what I was buying. It wasn't until the advent of the internet that I discovered what I had.

The baritone can be anecdotally traced back as far as 1938 when we believe it was used in the Sammy Kaye big band by a baritone sax player nicknamed "Chubby", but I don't have full verification. It was used up until the mid-60s, sat until about 1980 when it was pawned, where the puppeteer bought it and I bought it from him in '89. I had it restored in 2002.

[JohnB]

He's half-right...there are tragic accidents...but the total number of surviving Spitfires is always increasing.
But I'm sure his point here is some are lost and not rebuilt.

Would we not have even more if we didn't have tragic accidents?

[T-28mike]

This is a recurring discussion.
Boyne's basic premis is correct.
It is a Washingtons hatchet principle, yeah it's the real thing, but the handle and head have been replaced.
True there are more Spitfire and Mustang airframes being restored to flight status daily.
Modern technology and escalating value make resurecting airframes that were economically un-feasable to rebuild now feasable. There is a growing percentage of these airframes that are less and less original as time goes by. As an example, the last Mustang I repaired has been wrecked and "re-built" several times, and by wrecked, I mean would have fit in the back of my pick-up truck. How much P-51 is still existant in it other than the design, which would constitute a replica in most other circles? Someday there will be no original airframes left. It is a mathmatical / attrition thing. Corrosion and time alone will see to that.

My .02p

[JDK]

Thanks Saxman, very interesting.

Just to be clear, I take it you're saying that a good sax won't significantly wear or age through use. What I understand (and better input welcome) is that for wooden string instruments, by their being used, their ability to sound well and work is maintained by use.

Put a sax and a violin into a museum display cabinet for a decade, under appropriate conservation standards, then take them out, give them an overhaul. The sax will be as good as it was, while the violin will have actually significantly lost sound quality and playability, if I understand the theory correctly. (Conversely, play a sax and a violin for a decade, and with only normal care, and replacement of consumables (strings, pads) and they should both be good as they were at the start.)

Back to you and any other musicians here!

Regards,

[JDK]

Thanks for the comments!

The loss of the CAF Spitfire at Hamilton and the French one is a good point to make; of course the CAF example was an airworthy example lost in a static accident. (Useful as you can pop it in either static or museum sets depending on which answer you want in the fly vs static preservation argument. But I digress.)

I spent a good while trying to take John's answer on WJB being either very naive or very subtle - but at the end, if it's not clearly communicated, it's not clear. I'm taking the statement at face value.

Had Boyne said "Original Spitfires are few in number, and as years go by, that number diminishes because of tragic accidents." I'd buy the 'half right' and 'right' views, but he didn't and I don't.

I don't think the readership of the calendar are going to discard rebuilt Spitfires as 'not original'; that's too subtle for the intended audience, IMHO.

You would also have to then discard the Spitfires 'significantly rebuilt' from chunks and parts that were never in preservation prior to that rebuild, like the 'new' Mk.Is in the UK. Then there's the Dick Melton / Charles Church new builds that are mostly now canonised with original ids. (Some do, and that's fine. Personally, as long as the rebuild's history is publicly documented, I don't agree that they are not 'real' Spitfires - defining 'original' is perhaps another question. Critically in this discussion, the calendar, by other content, does not exclude rebuilds from being 'real'.)

Bear in mind we have a very knowledgeable authoritative writer (one I have a great deal of respect for) and he can usually get a worthwhile point across without compromise in (in this case) very few words. I'd suggest the replica / original argument is a different one, by Boyne's choice not to flag it here.

As mrp's indirectly noted, it seems take a fire to really destroy a Spitfire, these days, and even then... Examples such as the historic Rolls Royce Mk.XIV G-ALGT effectively destroyed in a fatal accident is under rebuild, while other, pre-warbird era wrecks such as a PR example recovered basically as a flattened kitset from W.W.II in the Arctic circle is going to add to the numbers.

John said: 'Would we not have even more if we didn't have tragic accidents?'
And that loops back to my initial question. Actually, at most, very few more, and that kind of counting is pretty scientifically unsound. (If you are taking any population assessment, whether Spitfires, bacteria, fruit in a fruitbowl, humans or penguins, it's a base assumption that survival is finite, and a useful count must include both new additions / births and losses / deaths.)

Those absolutely lost (see above) are outnumbered (I'd guesstimate) at least 2-1 by new builds 'lost' since W.W.II and adding to the overall survivor population. Both the extreme rebuilds and high rebuild rate from accidents are functions of the Spitfire's value, as noted by T-28mike.

So, as before, further feedback, comment or disputation welcome!

Regards,

[T-28mike]

So you agree that there is a difference between an original spitfire, and a significantly rebuilt or even new manufacture spitfire (Dick was calling them "post production spitfires, and was giving them sequential serials that started after the last "real" spitfire).

The various Aviation Administrative Agencies are also starting to differentiate these from a original aircraft. Our FAA has a 51% rule that has been well stretched by some over the years. They are beginning to scrutenize the aircraft that have been re-issued airworthiness certificates after being written off (some multiple times). Eventually, there will be a clear difference between what is a Replica and an Original airframe, then, with this accountability time and attrition will reduce the number of original airframes to zero.