Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:23 pm
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:17 pm
Noha307 wrote:I've thought about this and the one thing I can offer is that if you take the term "reproduction" literally, it would refer to any airframe built during a restarting of mass production (e.g. Flug Werk 190), rather than being a one-off. However, I doubt anyone uses the term this way.
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:38 pm
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:42 pm
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:42 pm
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:47 pm
GRNDP51 wrote:Great response Joe, and as Joe already said I like this topic Noha.
Joe, the "new-build" Yaks that took over where the old numbers ended (or however the story goes) where do those fall in?
I was also reading about the Hughes H-1 recently, never knew that Jim Wright's was granted serial #2. Is this really considered a replica at that point? I guess the distinction is the fact that Hughes Aircraft built the first one and not Jim Wright's..?
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:10 pm
Joe Scheil wrote:Great topic. Everyone likes this!
Joe Scheil wrote:If a manufacturer like Boeing happened to own the NAA P-51 “rights” and decided to make them from new as NAA Boeing P-51B-10 airframes for example, they are a continuation of production by the auspices of the original manufacturer.
Noha307 wrote:Aircraft Name Change Hypotheticals
- Company “A” designs, builds, and develops an improved version of an aircraft.
- Company “A” design and builds an aircraft. Company “B” buys company “A” and develops an improved version of the aircraft.
- e.g. Boeing E/A-18G Growler
- Company “A” designs and builds an aircraft. Company “A” changes its name and develops an improved version of the aircraft.
- e.g. Me 109
- Company “A” designs, builds, and gives company “B” a license to build an aircraft.
- e.g. TBM Avenger
- Company “A” designs and builds an aircraft. Company “A” changes its name and continues to build the aircraft, but does not develop an improved version.
- Company “A” designs and builds an aircraft. Company “B” buys some of the completed aircraft and remanufactures them.
- e.g. Twin Navion, Bay Super V
- Company “A” designs and builds an aircraft. Company “A” goes out of business. Company “B” buys the production rights to the aircraft and restarts production of the same version.
- Company “A” designs and builds an aircraft. Company “A” goes out of business. Company “B” buys the rights to the aircraft and restarts production of an improved version.
- e.g. Viking Air DHC-6 Series 400
- Company “A” designs an aircraft. Company “B” builds it.
- Company “A” is bought by company “B”. Company “B” continues to operate company “A” as a division of company “B”. Company “A” then designs and builds an aircraft.
- e.g. Boeing-Stearman Model 75
- Company “A” builds an aircraft. Company “B” buys company “A”. Company “B” buys back some of the aircraft built by company “A” and remanufactures them.
Owning a type certificate would seem to confer legitimacy in naming. However, the Federal Aviation Administration's rule that the manufacturer is whomever completes more than 50% of the work on the airframe seems to contradict this.
David H. Marion has written two absolutely excellent articles about when an aircraft should be judged to be one make and model or another.[1][2] They are a great look into an only rarely discussed aspect of aviation. Unfortunately, given his background as a mechanic, he only considers one potential arbiter of aircraft names – the FAA. However, looking at it from a historical – and not just a regulatory perspective – there are other sources of legitimacy.
Joe Scheil wrote:As an aside; The Flugwerk “run” is more of a kit plane/replica as it is not authentic to the original structure, engineering or powerplant of the original. It’s not a new build 190, but a plane sold as a kit that replicates the look of an Fw-190. It is not authentic in many respects to the original.
Joe Scheil wrote:The term reproduction generally applies to parts, for example, with a vintage Corvette a reproduction quarter panel or seat cover that accurately matches a 1967 part but was or is newly made is a reproduction.
shrike wrote:FWIW, in the old school automotive world, a replica was made by the factory, a reproduction was made by an owner.
GRNDP51 wrote:Joe, the "new-build" Yaks that took over where the old numbers ended (or however the story goes) where do those fall in?
Joe Scheil wrote:http://eaavintage.org/about-us/categories/judging-standards
Joe Scheil wrote:What is interesting is that a Flug Werk Fw-190 would not qualify as a replica in this definition as it does not conform exactly to the manufacturers plans.
Joe Scheil wrote:However a new build P-51, like “Lope’s Hope” did.
JohnTerrell wrote:To me, the terms "reproduction" and "re-manufacture" are much more fitting and accurate when used to describe a new-build warbird, since it speaks to the fact that the parts/airframe have been re-produced to original production spec - not just a likeness, but the exact same as any other originally-produced example. I know certain other individuals feel the same, as I've seen some people on forums purposefully use the term "replica" in a derogatory/defamatory manner, rather than use another term like "reproduction" or "re-manufacture". Another term I like is "clone", which I also feel properly respects the work done/effort gone into making an exact copy. When it comes to all of the new-build P-40's, Mustangs, Spitfires, what have you, with original ID's attached, I also like the phrase that Jim Harley has used, that being that the aircraft is a "ghost of" the previous aircraft for which it claims to be.
Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:36 am
shrike wrote:FWIW, in the old school automotive world, a replica was made by the factory, a reproduction was made by an owner.
For example if a Fallthorpe Snark competed at LeMans, the factory might make a dozen more cars to an identical specifcation (or nearly so) and and sell them as "Snark LeMans Replicas".
Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:04 am
Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:38 am
Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:51 am
GRNDP51 wrote:I was also reading about the Hughes H-1 recently, never knew that Jim Wright's was granted serial #2. Is this really considered a replica at that point? I guess the distinction is the fact that Hughes Aircraft built the first one and not Jim Wright's..?
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:04 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:08 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:17 pm
Fleet16b wrote:Interesting , usually taboo, subject
I was recently involved in a discussion about this.
An example, of the aprrox 58 flying Spitfires in the world, on abot 25-28 are actual Spitfires. The rest are brandnew except for the engine and some original instruments etc. . They are in reality replicas, not actual WW2 airframes.
The term "dataplate restoration" comes to mind and there are a lot of aircraft out there that are just that.
Take an airframe from the jungle, from saltwater , that came out of a beach in France, we all know that besides the dataplate , nothing is really re-useable. So essentially you used the parts as patterns and build a new airplane.
IMHO that make it a replica of but NOT the original aircraft.
However , EAA feels different . At last years Osh a WW2 British Fighter ran away with a heck of a lot of awards and it is by all rights not an original example. I know for fact an identity was purchased in the UK and attached to the project. EAA in their own rules now say that "replica warbirds " qualify for a Grand Champion Award .
Bottom line, if I was going to shell out millions for a WW1or 2 AIRCARFT , I would sure want it to be REAL, and have some actual provenance .