Thanks for the compliments. I can indeed manage to comprehend much of what some Americans say, bdk, but I remain baffled as to any sensible content at times.

As for entering some overseas political post? No thanks. Multiple problems with
that.
More seriously, there's some misunderstanding of my point of a glut, as well as some excellent takes of the detail in that. In a simple case, a glut is where supply exceeds demand; which is debatable if it could occur in this case - however
many more Spitfires could well reduce the individual value of all of them.
However the other way of categorising a glut is that the cost of work required exceeds the end value - these Spitfires will most likely cost more to conserve as stabilised wrecks that they may well be worth on an open market - and is generally more common an assumption, they'll cost the same as a current equivalent to rebuild as an airworthy example, but be less exclusive and have less cash value on the open market.
Given Spitfires are going to remain popular and acquirable, the glut will eventually smooth out; the good bit would be if there was an increase in employment and work for restoration shops rebuilding them.
I think reasonably jmkendall queried the 'fly 'em away' version:
jmkendall wrote:
I agree with the whole mocking thing. Enough already. NOBODY said they would just dig them up and fly them away, NO ONE.
Interestingly, on the ABC news webpage here this morning, we have a direct quote from Mr Cundall (requoted from Britain's
Daily Telegraph, from 'earlier this year'). Now, even allowing for misquotation or misunderstanding, it's just overpitched, and simplistic:
Quote:
"Spitfires are beautiful aeroplanes and should not be rotting away in a foreign land. They saved our neck in the Battle of Britain and they should be preserved.
"They were just buried there in transport crates. They were waxed, wrapped in greased paper and their joints tarred. They will be in near-perfect condition."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-18/h ... .svl=news3There's obvious issues with confusing short-term protection for near future use above ground seventy years ago with long term preservation requirements.
What I also find interesting is the flat statement that 'they should be preserved'. Why? There are multiple Spitfires preserved in all the major national collections in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, even Scotland. There is a steady (to slowly increasing) number of airworthy Spitfires, mostly privately owned, but notably a set of six belonging to the RAF which I defy anyone to suggest aren't doing the best job of demonstration and commemoration with these aircraft, of anybody, and that can be done. Their set also includes Mk.II P7350 which actually fought in the Battle of Britain.
None of the Burma Spitfires are likely to be so obsolete when buried as to have had that kind of history.
(The BBMF's Spitfires:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/theaircraft/ ... istory.cfm )
Am I 'excited' by the potential? Certainly. It has the potential to be very interesting. But I've not checked my brain at the door, and there's a lot of other interesting aspects to the story - for instance that it is being oversold, for various reasons. Is it fulfilling a desperate need? No. Good luck to Mr Cundall, and bully for the UK and Burmese governments - I hope there is some real benefit to the people of Burma out of this. That would be worthwhile.
Regards,