Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:33 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:52 pm
Joe Scheil wrote: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 .
They are not legally replicas, that is a label you have applied. Generally the registration and restoration reflects the view that the original aircraft has been resurrected.
You need to define the word REAL. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean original paint tires and factory supplied air in the tires? What about magnesium rivets? Original hardware? Does an operational repair of battle damage lower the value of a REAL aircraft? How bout a ground loop in 1946? 1976? 2019? It’s an impossible standard. There are only a couple original paint Spitfires in the world, unchanged in many ways from when they left service. They are generally state owned, and are more artifact then aircraft. They should never be destroyed by restoration or a misguided idea they should return to the air in my opinion.
So that leaves guys like me without desire to recover, restore and return one to the air. Maybe that’s a guy like you too. If I spend 20 years trying to do it, and lovingly craft each piece as originally done, incorporate an identity and parts I have scoured the world for, and make it exactly true to every other one extant..... Then it’s a gosh danged F’n Spitfire. To see PL983 flying again is inspiration for many. With her original windscreen and other things I think she is best called a restoration. She was restored to flight. Long may this practice continue.
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:10 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:17 pm
shrike wrote:Ok, break out your thinking beverage of choice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:44 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:59 pm
bdk wrote:Replica, real or continuation Shelby Cobra!
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:59 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:14 pm
Joe Scheil wrote:The ultimate arbiter in many ways is the marketplace, as informed buyers and informed sellers set and negotiate prices that reflect the originality, accuracy and provenance of these collectible goods. When we look at the actual sale prices for some of these artifacts, the truth becomes a bit more self evident. Look at the value of a completed Flug Werk 190. Look at the cost of an original BMW 801 Kraft Ei. What would Paul Allen’s original engine restored Fw-190A be worth? Probably 15 to 20 times what a “reproduction” could be worth. Look at the supply, originality and condition of each example and put yourself in a collector mentality with a bit of discretionary funds. What one would you chase?
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:17 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:29 pm
JohnB wrote:If you read FlyPast magazine, every month they breathlessly report on the latest Spitfire news.
The other month they did something rare, they showed the actual Spitfire bits that will emerge from a workshop in a couple of years a a flying aircraft. They laid out the bits in the outline of a Spitfire. I'm no A&P, but there were few, if any, parts that looked decent enough to go into a flyer without total rebuilding.
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:47 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:39 pm
Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:41 pm
Thomas_Mac wrote:This one?
Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:26 pm
Noha307 wrote:...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.
Interesting, what you're saying seems to jive with the suggestion I've seen elsewhere that the distinction is that reproductions are more authentic than replicas. (I ran into it when talking about Avro 504s with John Gaertner of Blue Swallow Aircraft.)
The thing about "re-manufacture" is that it is a term that is used to refer to airframes that have undergone significant amounts of rework during their original service careers – usually to zero-time the airframes. (e.g. F-14D(R) or C-45G/H) For that reason I feel like it could be confusing.
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:39 pm
JohnB wrote:Since then, firms and fans have made Le Mans Replica replicas.
old iron wrote:As a case in point, the Smithsonian has a Curtiss Headless Pusher that was built by Glenn Curtiss as something of a nostalgic exercise after WWI. While this may include some original parts that were sitting around the shop, this is not an original pre-WWI pusher, as this was assembled after the war, but this is REAL Curtiss Pusher -- assembled by Glenn Curtiss at the Curtiss factory in NY. That I understand is a replica.
Joe Scheil wrote:This is a good discussion, and everyone brings up great points.
Joe Scheil wrote:They are not legally replicas, that is a label you have applied.
Joe Scheil wrote:It’s an impossible standard.
Joe Scheil wrote:There are only a couple original paint Spitfires in the world, unchanged in many ways from when they left service. They are generally state owned, and are more artifact then aircraft. They should never be destroyed by restoration or a misguided idea they should return to the air in my opinion.
Joe Scheil wrote:So that leaves guys like me without desire to recover, restore and return one to the air. Maybe that’s a guy like you too. If I spend 20 years trying to do it, and lovingly craft each piece as originally done, incorporate an identity and parts I have scoured the world for, and make it exactly true to every other one extant..... Then it’s a gosh danged F’n Spitfire. To see PL983 flying again is inspiration for many. With her original windscreen and other things I think she is best called a restoration. She was restored to flight. Long may this practice continue.
bdk wrote:Replica, real or continuation Shelby Cobra?
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-15-vw-23029-story.html
JohnTerrell wrote:My greatest issue, in this type of discussion, is with those that are selective on their use of the terms - if one is so quick to refer to the latest Mustang or Spitfire as a "replica" or "reproduction", then you should't be refraining from using the same terminology for any other warbird type, no matter how rare/significant, if it has just as little, if not even less, original parts.
ErrolC wrote:When the public use of 'replica' encompasses examples that are so far away from the original, then if you are using it in a narrower sense you need to define it. If you are defining a term every time you use it in order to distinguish our usage from the common one, it isn't a useful term.