Jim Beasley wrote:
Isn't it enough that we have beautiful aircraft like this to enjoy and people committed as much as some are to keep them going?
Truth
and beauty, or truth
or beauty? I didn't know we had to choose.
I have no public opinion on this particular Mustang saga. I spent too long working with Paul Coggan.
The following is very much musing on the general, rather than the particular.We are all aware (or should be) that aircraft combat history has a tendency to grow; much of that's genuine misunderstanding, some of it is (usually owner-driven) enhancement for status, money or flightline-bragging points. Very occasionally new data comes to light that shows an aircraft has a more significant history than was previously thought.
But I can't recall many news items where someone disappears head-first into an aircraft and emerges with
incontestable proof that the fighter ~
only served in storage and training units forever.
Conversely, the number of Hispanos from Spain that have had been discovered to be German made all along is enough to make you lose your Merlin.
Some of us are keen to work on and fly these things; there history isn't important compared to structural integrity and service standards - rightly so. Some of us (sometimes the same people) are interested in them for commemoration or their history or what they tell us about history. I have no opinion on their 'beauty' in this context, but the 'truth' of their history, yes, here, is important.
'Good' histories can be shown with solid evidence and clear provenance. However honest people may be, confusion and muddle, however genuinely caused, are the same thing you see as when someone's trying to pull a con. Naturally confusing data rings warning bells, just as much as a too good to be true history should.
There are today, many lists of aircraft histories, despite some of the first compilers being warned off or told no one was interested or it wasn't important, or it was only of interest to 'rivet counters' (some of those dismissing such efforts have been the same people offering that data when an aircraft is sold, adding dollars to the price, interestingly.)
What is often overlooked, just like pilots and owners have knowledge of good and bad stuff that never gets published about people places and things, there is the same informal, unwritten, but very accurate tracking of aircraft and identities where 'well-watered' histories are kept accounted for. The sad thing is that some people in a position of power and ownership forget that while no-one will argue with them about the suddenly enhanced status of their toy, that doesn't mean they aren't going to be a bit of a joke to those less easily impressed. That isn't just the anorak-bedeck enthusiast, but other, well informed owners - and buyers.
Then again, these are generally not 'an aircraft' but a restoration. If you have a fuselage from one machine of no-great history and a wing from one flown by Ace Jones, then there's a strong temptation to chose the wing's identity, after all where's the harm? Again, most of those famous aircraft's seats weren't the same ones warmed by the ace's rear, but a legitimate, later replacement.
51fixer wrote:
The BBMF operates at least one Spit that is known to have seen combat. When recently restored they replaced some skins with bullet holes.
I don't think that's
quite what you meant to say, Rich!
I just can't see those bullet holes having the structural strength to work, myself.*
There are a lot of aircraft with combat history, fewer with such neat evidence flying about for the reasons Rich has touched on. It's just another reason that both flying and properly preserved static and
original aircraft are important to have.
51fixer wrote:
What do you make of this? Wouldn't you pursue getting the proper ID returned to this airframe?
Of course. As we all know it's easy, too.
My understanding is that most aircraft regulatory bodies don't care an aircraft's got the 'right' identity as long as the paperwork's straight and it's not obviously a ringer or a wreck. Once they've got that paperwork, they really don't like to miss the doughnut break by having to change any of it, however legitimate that may be.
Regards,
(*Not poking Rich, we all do this at times - it just made me smile. And it was a lot more fun than correcting Human Resource training PowerPoint typos, I tell ya.)
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Who would have thought we'd ever have a flying PTO combat vet Mustang?