67 new Spitfires anyone?

**Zedder** · 1st May 2012, 16:10

Originally Posted by Pussy

One small problem in the construction of the Spitfire...
The rivets used have a high magnesium content. They don't last well. Unless the airframes were VERY well inhibited, they may not be in that greater condition.

They'd burn well then. Sacrilege! Heresy!

**huff3r** · 1st May 2012, 16:23

Are they being exhumed so as to be put back together for our Airforce's new fighter wing?

**5150** · 1st May 2012, 16:40

Originally Posted by huff3r

Are they being exhumed so as to be put back together for our Airforce's new fighter wing?

Yup, to replace our "aging" Skyhawks

**Kickaha** · 1st May 2012, 17:31

Originally Posted by 5150

Speaking of find, Does anyone know anything about the US Airforce B17 bomber that crashed west of Auckland in late 40's or early 50's on a flight from Auckland to Australia? Was it recovered and shipped of to US or Australia? was it repairable? Any info appreciated.

Thanks

Wasn't that all hush hush at the time as it had a Norden bomb sight onboard?

**Oblivion** · 1st May 2012, 17:38

If only I could find myself a spitfire

Apparently there are a lot of them buried under the sands in Egypt that are long gone.

**unstuck** · 1st May 2012, 17:45

The yanks dumped so much stuff in the pacific, interesting article on million dollar point. http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issue...lion_point.php

**pzkpfw** · 1st May 2012, 18:23

That's one of the interesting things about those Spitfires.

The American policy was that war material was pretty much written off when it left the factory. And they didn't want too much stuff back anyway as it would dent the markets (mentioned in that article).

The British, on the other hand, had to carefully account for the loss of every vehicle.

(In one book of N.Z. WWII recollections, a soldier describes with amazement watching Americans needing to cross a small ravine (I forget if this was in North Africa or Italy). He saw them drive three brand-new Jeeps into the ravine, on top of each other. Then a bulldozer pushed dirt all over them. Instant bridge.)

So they really were "over" piston engined planes to bury those planes.

(The article says to stop them falling into enemy hands, but also that it was 1945; so not sure how that adds up.)

**Pussy** · 1st May 2012, 22:00

Originally Posted by nudemetalz

Didn't he put the rudder the wrong way on take-off because he forgot the Griffon spins the prop to the left and the Merlin to the right.
I think that was a Mark XIV too that was put on it's back.

Rudder TRIM!.....

**Pussy** · 1st May 2012, 22:10

I'll hold back from getting too excited about it for now. A lot of corrosion can happen in 67 years....

**Paul in NZ** · 2nd May 2012, 08:31

Originally Posted by Pussy

I'll hold back from getting too excited about it for now. A lot of corrosion can happen in 67 years....

It really doesnt matter. All they really need is are the ID plates or the crumbling remains of the plates etc

Rebuilding these planes to flyable condition is a HUGE task involving virtually remaking the entire plane regardless of the condition. The big deal is that these will be genuine WW2 units despite not seeing active service and thus will be highly sought after.

**pzkpfw** · 2nd May 2012, 09:46

Planes have been re-built from being shot down and crashing into swamps; dug out of the muck 50 years later.

It may be a bit grandfathers' axe (three new heads and two new handles, but still his axe) but surely pulling these things out of packing crates will give 'em a good start.