T-28mike wrote:
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).
Of course I do.
(In fact, IIRC, Dick gave them 'Dick Melton Aviation' or 'Dick Melton' DMA001 - DMA010 numbers.)
The calendar, and Boyne's writing in this area, do not.
Quote:
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.
As I'm trying to avoid the discussion winding itself into a perennial hole in this broader topic, that's not what I think the point is here. It's not called 'The Golden Age of Some Real and Some Replicas Flying' calendar.
We don't need to worry about 'the last' Spitfire in a warbird context, as the last one undisputed will be static in a national museum long after
all fliers are gone or are rebuilt rebuilds. With the IWM, Chicago and AWM Mk.Is as the core, original samples in full preservation. So moving on -
I'm well aware of the points you're making, and we broadly agree on them - but I'd appreciate it if you could set aside the originality issue to explore the rest of the question. Boyne did not use the word 'original'. Hence that's not what I'm keen to discuss.
Regards,