DoraNineFan wrote:
That just seems lazy.
Hardly lazy. I could argue that "soft" restorations (i.e. conservation/preservation) take
more effort than a "hard" one. Flak Bait is a great example. The amount of effort that went in to just
conserving the rudder fabric is huge. Many comparable "hard" restorations would have completed a lot more in the same amount of time.
DoraNineFan wrote:
The most glaring example would be the Ho-229 V3. The artifact is in such poor condition from improper storage for decades, and moisture and fungal rot. The wood is literally just powder in places. What is goal to preserve what is arguably neglect rather than returning the aircraft to represent what it was? I have looked at the careful work being done to restore the rotted wood, but I think replication would be a better method for long-term preservation. It's almost like a bondo job for a vintage car.
By the way, NASM has an excellent
page all about their preservation of the Ho 229 if anyone is interested.
DoraNineFan wrote:
Like the Ho-229, the Ta-152 does not even have factory or service paint on the outermost layers of paint. The Allies painted these captured aircraft multiple times. The only real way to return it to wartime condition would be a careful strip to document the correct paint and then redo it.
I would like to point out that this has been done on a number of occasions. Specifically, the Fleet Air Arm Museum's Corsair KD431 is an excellent example. I believe they discovered something about fallout detecting paint that would have been lost otherwise. The abstract on the
Google Books page on the book about the preservation provides a good justification for this approach.
DoraNineFan wrote:
I fail to understand what is accomplished with "soft" restorations.
Well, as you likely know, the most famous aspect of the Ho 229 is it's supposed (and
likely false) stealth capabilities. A "hard" restoration would eliminate any evidence of that.
Besides, there are far, far more "hard" restorations in the world than "soft" ones. Why not be satisfied with those? That's what bothers me when people suggest that NMUSAF should fly, say, their P-51. Are the 100+ flying in the United States alone not enough for you? (I don't mean to direct this last point at you specifically D9, so I hope you don't take it personally.)
Furthermore, having an original, preserved example means that you always have a "holotype" to use as a basis for a future replica. If someone wants to go built one (as they did with the Ho 229) the primary source artifact is available.
DH82EH wrote:
I think you have to pick your subject carefully.
Agreed. The situation is different for different airplanes, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
EDIT: Fixed the broken link.
_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant
Warbird Philosophy Webmaster