Definitions... restoration, reconstruction, replica...

[rreis]

Hi all

I'm pooling Wix'ers so can clear my mind about something. Maybe there is already an "official" answer to this questions...

To what extent should there be original parts in a AC so it can be considered a restoration? Or reconstruction? And what about replicas, not the ones we know they were 100% from new, scratch parts, but the ones that incorporate "original" bits?

And should the "original", be original of the AC or an original part, made for this AC from the original manufacture?

thanks for your thoughts,

[JDK]

As far as I'm aware there are no 'officially agreed' definitions within the vintage aircraft business / museums. Many museums use more widely agreed criteria intended for historic artifacts in general, and of course the vintage and veteran car scene has agreed definitions of eras and other aspects, which can serve as a model.

Some stuff here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=46247

And here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6706

As to percentages, you've got to decide your criteria even there. Say 70%, fine. But what 70%? By weight? Volume? Part count?

And so on...

[rreis]

I was think number of parts... but then you could ask "what parts?" because some are indeed more fundamental than others...

[Oscar Duck]

The hundred year old axe comes to mind. As James stated there are no guidelines on this. In point of fact serving military aircraft are often rebuilt with new wings, fins, tailplanes, engines, cowls etc. Take a look at the RAF Nimrod rebuilds and see how much of the "original" aircraft is used.

[JDK]

The hundred year old axe comes to mind. As James stated there are no guidelines on this. In point of fact serving military aircraft are often rebuilt with new wings, fins, tailplanes, engines, cowls etc. Take a look at the RAF Nimrod rebuilds and see how much of the "original" aircraft is used.

The perennial axe/broom argument comes up again and again, and has a simple validity, but misses the point within preservation...

Repairs and replacement of parts in service are part of that aircraft's service history. If a museum, after the aircraft enters their care, replaces parts, it's part of its preservation history - at the least a different phase in its life, and a good museum should make it clear that those parts weren't in that aircraft when in service. It does get tricky when you consider post primary use, and the importance of secondary roles (Preserving TBMs and Martin Mars in USN colours and configuration rather than the later civilian use).

In other words, Museums shouldn't be the people replacing axe parts and claiming them to be 'original'.

Regards,

[JDK]

I was think number of parts... but then you could ask "what parts?" because some are indeed more fundamental than others...

For instance, do you want to count replaced / original rivets or wings?

[rreis]

I was think number of parts... but then you could ask "what parts?" because some are indeed more fundamental than others...

For instance, do you want to count replaced / original rivets or wings?

I was thinking more on main spars... but I'm thinking this way of "counting" will probably go to a dead end. I'm going to read the links you send. And nice point about the division of BM and AM (Before Museum and After Museum) by the way.

[Dan K]

Fellow WIXers,

Never fear, as all efforts in such an endeavor would be a mere re-invention of the wheel.

TIGHAR, the premier organization of historic aircraft recovery, has already established the standards of which you seek.

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/guide.html


Now, back to being serious.

[jet1]

flying or just some dead static piece of metal.

[BHawthorne]

Hi all

I'm pooling Wix'ers so can clear my mind about something. Maybe there is already an "official" answer to this questions...

To what extent should there be original parts in a AC so it can be considered a restoration? Or reconstruction? And what about replicas, not the ones we know they were 100% from new, scratch parts, but the ones that incorporate "original" bits?

And should the "original", be original of the AC or an original part, made for this AC from the original manufacture?

thanks for your thoughts,

My problem with the splitting hairs over "original" parts is as a manufacturing engineer, I find it really silly when people become purists over a particular parts stamp on a part vs just having the missing part machined exactly to the manufacturer's spec using thier same technical drawings and specs. It's 100% the exact same part, just from a different source. The only real difference is the inspection of the part itself and certifying the part. Even then, the inspection methods are speced out in manufacturing spec documents, so that's no issue to do either. That is outside my needs though as I only personally work on static aircraft.

[JDK]

Some more good points.

The TIGHAR page does provide what are reasonable and generally agreed standards - led and set by several significant players in the industry. But they aren't, AFAIK, held as standards within the industry and museum business - which may be a reflection of the still semi-academic nature of much aviation preservation.

BHawthorn makes a good point about how it is possible to replicate parts. For historical purposes, rather than airworthy requirements, originality remains an important distinction to make clear - so that the quality and material of original parts, not modern replacements is what is used to inform us of how aircraft were made and used in (say) the 1940s.

Secondly, there are numerous items that can't or won't be replicated in airworthy aircraft (live-firing guns for instance, and thus sensibly avoiding cordite corrosions) and also in any restorations - items like radioactive-paint containing instruments (one hopes!) or asbestos firewalls and anti-heat wrapping. Don't forget that some specific grades of metal are no longer produced, and so while substitute metals to make parts are available, they are a diversion from original.

Regards,

[rreis]

So, in the end, is a question of targets (flying, non flying, study object, connection with the past (social role))...

It seems documentation is of the utmost importance in all these process (what is, what was, what was done, when, how, why...)

Enlightening conversation, thanks

[mustangdriver]

I don't think that whether or not the plane is a flyer matters as far as how authentic the restoration is. We need a balance between static and flyers, and to be honest I don't think that saying, "Well it is a flyer not static" excuses it from being authentic. Now that being said, if a guy wants to take his private owned T-6 and paint it in whatever colors he or she wishes, then that is just fine. As far as how much of the original is left, I guess that matters on the restoration. I would say that you should have something of the original to start with like 25% or so if it is a wreck recovery, and maybe those numbers change if you start with a whole airplane? Id be interested to here in what some of the members here think. I know that most static museums have changed their ways and try to preserve as well as restore so not to lose too much of it's history.

[Hal B]

I don't think that whether or not the plane is a flyer matters as far as how authentic the restoration is. We need a balance between static and flyers, and to be honest I don't think that saying, "Well it is a flyer not static" excuses it from being authentic..... Id be interested to hear what some of the members here think. I know that most static museums have changed their ways and try to preserve as well as restore so not to lose too much of it's history.

Three of the sayings that are most likely to irritate me:
1. It don't matter; it ain't going to fly again...
2. No one'll ever be able to see this part of the airframe again...
3. The average person won't know what they're looking at so don't worry
about it...

And believe me I've heard them quite often over the years
In my book, there's a very specific way an aircraft should be restored, whether or not its a flying example. Or maybe I should say there's a very specific way I would restore an aircraft I was the owner of

[BHawthorne]

Three of the sayings that are most likely to irritate me:
1. It don't matter; it ain't going to fly again...
2. No one'll ever be able to see this part of the airframe again...
3. The average person won't know what they're looking at so don't worry
about it...

And believe me I've heard them quite often over the years
In my book, there's a very specific way an aircraft should be restored, whether or not its a flying example. Or maybe I should say there's a very specific way I would restore an aircraft I was the owner of

Ok, playing devil's advicate, what way should I be restoring my F-84F that I only have the fuselage section for? Keep in mind it's in a garage at home and I paid only $3500 for it. I highly doubt anything I do to it will be to your satifaction, but then again it's not been made into to beer cans now has it? Sometimes you have have to play the game of lesser of two evils? If that bothers you, I find that ok too, because unless you have some financial incentives for me to listen, it's all just random opinion on a forum.

I bought it to enjoy a hobby of tinkering with it, not to be looked down upon by others that have deeper pocketbooks and lofty ideals about restoration methods. I will do the best I can within my own means. Enjoyment comes first for me while authenticity is somewhere a bit further down the priorities list. I have the microfilm set for the aircraft and am a manufacturing engineer, so It'll at least look authentic, but the materials used in it and the lack of inspection is going to keep it forever static.

I know it's hard to convey a sense of humor over the internet via typing but don't take offense to my post. It's meant to be humorous.