The price of "Provenance"

[Mike Halbrook]

I'm wondering just what it adds to cost of some these extensive rebuilds to have a data plate and "provenance".
Flug Werk sold FW-190 kits as there were not enough real 190s to work from, but what about some "Spitfire Kits" from
some of the major re-builders of the type? I discussed this briefly with Bill Greenwood in 1987, some of the Spitfire rebuilds since then seem
much like "jack up the data plate and build the plane around it."
There should be plenty of new Spitfire components by now "kit one up".

[51fixer]

I'm wondering just what it adds to cost of some these extensive rebuilds to have a data plate and "provenance".
Flug Werk sold FW-190 kits as there were not enough real 190s to work from, but what about some "Spitfire Kits" from
some of the major re-builders of the type? I discussed this briefly with Bill Greenwood in 1987, some of the Spitfire rebuilds since then seem
much like "jack up the data plate and build the plane around it."
There should be plenty of new Spitfire components by now "kit one up".

With the Spitfires there is a difference between what is acceptable to the CAA in the UK and what would be acceptable to the FAA in this country.
That is why none of the Flug Werk projects are able to be registered in the UK IIRC.
In the US you could build a "home built" Spitfire using a dataplate from a wreck and come up with some way of proving ownership and probably register it and get it flying.
That same aircraft would probably never be allowed to be registered in the UK if it was sold to someone over there.

[Mike Halbrook]

I'm thinking more as an "amateur built" aircraft, like the full size wood Jurca Spitfire, but use new built "to spec" Spitfire parts.
In the US, I believe there is a 51% rule about home-built aircraft. If you can register a Thunder Mustang, why not an all new Spitfire?
The query is would this save any money over an aircraft with an original serial number and history, even though the connection may be a bit tenuous?

[agent86]

I'm gonna start digging and find me some data plates.sounds like a good way to score some bucks

[tom d. friedman]

as a seller / broker of aviation antiques / collectables provenance is the etching of the item's history in stone. i've encountered countless items over the years that i knew were the real deal & worth big $$$, but without the documentation it isn't worth squat. i had a guy who wanted me to broker the sale of pieces of the hindenburg. his story added up, but nothing official to back up it's history. his dad as a salvor was responsible for the clean up of hindenburg's wreck to ship back to germany. he got a few pieces of girder work & made cocktail tables out of them. i checked the seller's dad's credentials, & yes he was an on site salvor but that's as far as it went. i knew they were the real deal but he couldn't back up the relic's history on paper, hence i declined the offer to broker. this is only 1 example of what i've encountered. all the stories behind an item's documented history is what counts. i've let alot of big money slide by because of that reason. "documented" is the key word & philosophy for investment grade items.

[avenger2504]

I'm wondering just what it adds to cost of some these extensive rebuilds to have a data plate and "provenance".
Flug Werk sold FW-190 kits as there were not enough real 190s to work from, but what about some "Spitfire Kits" from
some of the major re-builders of the type? I discussed this briefly with Bill Greenwood in 1987, some of the Spitfire rebuilds since then seem
much like "jack up the data plate and build the plane around it."
There should be plenty of new Spitfire components by now "kit one up".

With the Spitfires there is a difference between what is acceptable to the CAA in the UK and what would be acceptable to the FAA in this country.
That is why none of the Flug Werk projects are able to be registered in the UK IIRC.
In the US you could build a "home built" Spitfire using a dataplate from a wreck and come up with some way of proving ownership and probably register it and get it flying.
That same aircraft would probably never be allowed to be registered in the UK if it was sold to someone over there.

The rules may have changed but didn't the late Charles Church build a MK V Spitfire from all new built components with no data plate? Or was it not on the UK register?? (Sadly he lost his life in a crash in that very aircraft due to engine failure)

[Bill Greenwood]

It is my impression that the Charles Church MK V was a restoration of a genuine Spitfire, not a homebuilt trying to pass off as original. Not sure of this of course.

[Mike]

It is my impression that the Charles Church MK V was a restoration of a genuine Spitfire, not a homebuilt trying to pass off as original. Not sure of this of course.

Not so, Bill. It was a complete modern build, pretty much from the ground up, with a spurious identity attached to satisfy the CAA.

[JDK]

The rules may have changed but didn't the late Charles Church build a MK V Spitfire from all new built components with no data plate? Or was it not on the UK register?? (Sadly he lost his life in a crash in that very aircraft due to engine failure)

That was EE606, a 'Mk.V' somewhat 'hotrodded up' and was a Dick Melton Special, and given a Dick Melton number, beyond that I don't recall the specifics. At least one other Dick Melton (re-)build Spitfire has since had a firewall, and thus 'an identity' grafted in.

HTH

[Bill Greenwood]

There is a replica Spitfire, I think in Arizona or near there, which looks a lot like a genuine Spitfire. It is full scale and at a distance could be mistaken for a Spitfire from what I have heard and the few photos that I have seen.

It is easily told from genuine when up close as it is built of wood, and has a Allison engine never used in any Spit. It does not pretend to be a Spit restoration at all, it is an entirely new homebuilt from scratch, and a good one from what I hear.

Does anyone know how this plane is registered? A friend and I once built a Starlite kit plane; but since we did more than 50%, in theory, of the work, it was called a Giles-Greenwood rather than a Starlite.

[bdk]

Bob DeFord's 100% scale Jurca Spitfire:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... rtxt=1940K

[bipe215]

There is a replica Spitfire, I think in Arizona or near there, which looks a lot like a genuine Spitfire. It is full scale and at a distance could be mistaken for a Spitfire from what I have heard and the few photos that I have seen.

It is easily told from genuine when up close as it is built of wood, and has a Allison engine never used in any Spit. It does not pretend to be a Spit restoration at all, it is an entirely new homebuilt from scratch, and a good one from what I hear.

Does anyone know how this plane is registered? A friend and I once built a Starlite kit plane; but since we did more than 50%, in theory, of the work, it was called a Giles-Greenwood rather than a Starlite.

Bill,

Tha FAA registers homebuilts with the builder's name(s) as manufacturers.

Steve

[Flashonyrsix]

At Arlington a couple of years ago Bob parked his Spit with the replica fighters not with the warbirds where we all thought it should have been. Bob is a real class gentlmen.

Norm

[Bill Greenwood]

So that registration makes sense, at least the way the FAA does it. Bob Deford is the manufacturer, not Jurca or Supermarine, and the plane is called a MK9EX.
The Jurca must be pretty good plans or he is quite a craftsman. I wonder if there are just plans or if there are a lot of kit parts that you can buy finished.

[bdk]

All plans. I think that Claus Colling made some of the landing gear parts.