Ooofff - Boyne perpetuates fallacy

[JDK]

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.

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,

[T-28mike]

His point is dead on. Just as the pyramids will some day cease to exist, so will spitfires. That is my broader point.

[Mudge]

I enjoyed that discussion. I even understood some of it. IMHO, the "originals" should be static, well protected, in museums. The rest can fly or not. I, personally, just like to see 'em fly. Rebuilds, replicas, whatever, I don't care.

Mudge the opinionated

[JDK]

His point is dead on. Just as the pyramids will some day cease to exist, so will spitfires. That is my broader point.

"Phaeroic Pyramids are few in number, and as years go by, that number diminishes."
Thanks. Meaningful? Not really:
"Solar systems are few in number, and as years go by, that number diminishes because of tragic accidents."

So somewhere between your micro and macro points, when I count Spitfires, over the last fifty years, there seems to rather be an increase of numbers, not a decrease because of those naughty warbird people crashing them. How's that, Mudge?

Regards,

[T-28mike]

"and as years go by, that number diminishes"

My (and W.B.'s point exactly)

So we can come back to when is a spitfire (mustang etc) no longer a spitfire (mustang etc).... The point is that eventually, through accident and attrition (and dissimilar metal corrosion) there will come a point in time when even the best preserved example falls in upon it self as it surrenders back into the earth, or, is no longer what it once was, and becomes a replica which by and of itself will at some point in time cease to exist.

I work on this stuff every day, and see the effects of time first-hand. Time has a funny habit of marching on regardless of what "preservation" we do. It has only been roughly 70 years since WWII, and we are already seeing the effects of attrition by many means, including accident, degredation through time and natural disasters take their toll. Argue all you will, but there will be a time where there are no more.. There were 22,000 +- spits built during WWII, the number has declined since then. Sure it has "ups and downs" , but the number is a fraction of what it once was. It will continue to diminish no matter how much care we give. That was Walters point, and mine as well.