How does a project qualify as a "restoration?"

[RacingMustang]

Another question for you all.

What makes a project qualify as a restoration? I had heard somewhere that so long as you have an original dataplate, it is technically a restoration even if all the rest of the plane is new work. Is this correct?

For example it is said that Hinton's crashed Red Baron was "restored" and is now Wee Willy II over there at POF. But all that they have in common is the dataplate and N-number, right?

—Samuel

[Deuelly]

The biggest problem is that people seem to associate the term restoration with historical or valuable items. Almost anything can be restored. It doesn't matter if it's a P-51 or your brother Billies go-kart. And as far as the P-51 goes it doesn't matter if that restoration is 100 percent original or not. The term restoration is very broad.

It actually doesn't matter if there is even a data tag. There are just a few simple things you need to restore a warbird.
1. A warbird acquired, or recovered, or purchased legally with a paper trail a mile long showing that someone identified and you own that warbird.
2. A boatload of money. (Aluminum skins, forgings, extrusions, and castings for a plane made 65 years ago aren't cheap.)
3. Passion and drive. (Restoring a warbird will not be quick or make you an instant millionaire.)
4. One of those fancy little stamping machines so you can make a new data tag.

The point is your trying to preserve history. As a restoration shop you always try to keep as much of the original structure as is safe for the intended use of the aircraft. The guys that sit and whine about a plane not being a P-51 because it was a "data tag rebuild", well, if we did it there way their great grand kids would never get to see a warbird fly.

Brandon

[old iron]

What Sam is asking is a matter that has never been properly resolved in WIX, at least as far as I can recall: Where is the boundary between a "restoration" and a "reproduction"? In the museum world, the fuzzy boundary between these is often phrased as "Reproduction using original parts" but that is less used in the private world. How many original parts constitute an original versus a reproduced airplane? A set of standards is needed, as otherwise these words and phrases do not have any real meaning.

As a working definition, perhaps a reasonable boundary would 50%: More than 50% original parts means an historical aircraft, no original parts of the airframe (fuselage and wings, say) that can be traced to the historical aircraft would mean a reproduction. Somewhere in the 0 - 50% realm might be a boundary between a "reproduction" and a "reproduction using original parts."

Where it gets squirrely though, is how far you can go in the realm of replacement of original parts. Fabric and skin, of course. Some airframe elements would be replaced with damage during the early history of the aircraft, and so some can be replaced during restoration and still have an original, but how much? If the wood is rotted and you replace it all, but you have and retain all the other original elements (the metal pasts, engine, instruments, etc.) I think this may still be counted as the original, provided we mean ALL the other elements, which were together with the original. But if we only have the original engine, then I see no honest choice but to call it a reproduction with an original engine.

Some of the "data plate" restorations have perhaps all the structural parts replaced, but done to exacting standards that include careful measurements of the original components. But even if this is done, the resulting airframe can no longer be physically traced to the original manufacturer. It is no longer a factory built example but is rather a careful and exacting reproduction of the original. Of course, this would likely have an original engine and other parts (instruments, for example) and would look and sound as the original, but should instead be presented as a reproduction.

The problem is that people do want to sell/display/view such an exacting copy if it is a "reproduction" so that word is not used and it gets presented as an original. The better museums are pretty careful about documenting what is or is not original, but the private world is often less able to do this. Brandon says the point it to "preserve history" but is history really preserved when most of the parts can no longer be traced to the historical artifact?

[L-4Pilot]

This issue is not restricted to heavy iron, there are a lot of "L-4" and "L-19" aircraft flying that were built from parts.

I think this is the reason extensive photo history of any warbird restoration is essential in the documentation of how original the aircraft is.

It has become rare now days to find "Barn Find" aircraft anymore especially those special aircraft that have been in storage many years and that come with boxes of supporting documentation and original paperwork from the 1940s and complete logs.

The other dilemma we face is what to repair, leave or replace on a very rare and original aircraft. Most judges and casual observers at airshows want to see pristine,immaculate aircraft not repaired or left original parts with wear and tear on them. A perfect example of this is the very rare O-58A we are restoring, it still has the original cowling and eyebrows from the factory. The cowling has a military field repair made to the bottom of the cowling from a nose over at Carthage MO. August, 1943. The repair is documented in a flight report and maintenance log. The Army field repair is airworthy but ugly and is exactly the way it was when the aircraft was placed in storage in 1953. So what do you do in this case leave the ugly Army repair or fix it with new metal and beautiful new flush rivets and hide the Amy mechanics work from 1943.

These are the type of tough questions dedicated restorers face every day and unfortunately many times original condition airworthy parts are tossed because they are not pristine "Show Quality".

[51fixer]

Try a search on this subject here on WIX.
Many discussions on the subject here over the years.
Restoration is a popular term but the FAA doesn't recognize this as a form of maint.
Typically an A/C is new at the time it was originally made.
Everything else is a form of maintenance. Even if all the parts are replaced with new ones it isn't considered a "New " Aircraft unless the rebuilding was done by a select group of FAA recognized entities such as the Original Manufacturer or someone designated by the FAA and the Manufacturer.
If it isn't new its just fixed, often by very skilled and competent people and companies, but it can't legally be called new.
It has to be maintained in airworthy condition and maint, rebuilding and overhauling are processes toward this.
So in your question of WEE Willy, which I've worked on, it was repaired and returned to Airworthy.

[The Inspector]

I had an FAA Airworthiness Inspector tell me years ago that there are more BELL 47's/H-13's licensed than were ever built-there's a well known Jaguar Type 'C' racer that is claimed by four different owners as 'the true grail' of 50's racing Jags because the wreck was cut into pieces and several folks got parts with the factory s/n on them.

[Mike]

Inspector,

Are you referring to the 1957 Le Mans-winning D-Type 'XKD-606'?

[The Inspector]

Inspector,

Are you referring to the 1957 Le Mans-winning D-Type 'XKD-606'?

Yeh, I thought it was a 'C' type-

[sdennison]

I seem to recall Carroll Shelby "finding" some new data plates and "restarting" the production line from the 60's using NOS parts but doing so in the 80's with "continuation" cars.

[Mike]

Inspector,

Are you referring to the 1957 Le Mans-winning D-Type 'XKD-606'?

Yeh, I thought it was a 'C' type-

In which case there were two, not four, cars which claimed the identity. The situation was resolved when the owner of one of them went to considerable trouble and expense to purchase the other, and re-united all the original parts into a single vehicle of, now, undisputed provenance.

Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

[Deuelly]

Brandon says the point it to "preserve history" but is history really preserved when most of the parts can no longer be traced to the historical artifact?

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said preserve history I actually meant history. If someone wanted to make a P-51 with fiberglass and wood and slap a data tag on it that's their call. But, if 70 years from now some kid sees that plane and wants to read more about WWII because of it then guess what, that plane just preserved history.

We can't be shallow minded. A good number of these restored historic aircraft never saw combat. The reason they're historic is because of a war that was fought and sacrifices that were made. It's pointless to argue over how original they are if 100 years from now know one knows why they're a historical artifact.

We have great shops out there now that if needed can build every part with every exacting detail. People will always know how these planes were built. Will they always know why they were built?

Brandon

[The Inspector]

Inspector,

Are you referring to the 1957 Le Mans-winning D-Type 'XKD-606'?

Yeh, I thought it was a 'C' type-

In which case there were two, not four, cars which claimed the identity. The situation was resolved when the owner of one of them went to considerable trouble and expense to purchase the other, and re-united all the original parts into a single vehicle of, now, undisputed provenance.

Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

I was only trying to illustrate a point, keep us apraised on how your San Francisco to Honolulu walk is coming along-

[RacingMustang]

Man, this forum certainly has a larger nastiness quotient than the other aviation boards I've been on; makes me feel like I'm trolling by starting these topics. Still...the knowledge is hard to argue with. Thanks for the replies so far.

This is always an interesting discussion and one that is obviously present in more than just aviation. Personally I feel that since these are finite objects and will eventually wear out, so long as the project was started with an original plane (over 50% works I guess) then I don't care how much you eventually have to replace down the road...it's still a restoration. I've heard people say that the only original part left of the USS Constitution is the keel. So at what point did we lose the "real" ship? If someone restores a plane and keeps it running for 80 years, I'll bet that very little of the plane will be from the war years once year 2094 rolls around.

Interesting food for thought. Thanks again for the comments.

[sdennison]

Ya, don't ask about paint colors and schemes...

[CoastieJohn]

Sounds like there's 3 different R's akin to elementary school....

Restoration
Rebuild
Repair

....or something like that.