is it just me? original vs restored?

[Nathan]

Maybe it's my eyes, maybe I'm just too young to know such things about aircraft that where in service long before I was born. But why is it that SOME restorations or repaints or what have you always look a little off then the originals? Is it just because of the new paint, it's not dirty? Or is there some inaccuracies in the job being done? Not trying to be a smart a$$. But new restorations just always seem a bit off then what I see in pictures from the days they were in service.

Thx in advance,
Nate

[L-4Pilot]

Maybe it's my eyes, maybe I'm just too young to know such things about aircraft that where in service long before I was born. But why is it that SOME restorations or repaints or what have you always look a little off then the originals? Is it just because of the new paint, it's not dirty? Or is there some inaccuracies in the job being done? Not trying to be a smart a$$. But new restorations just always seem a bit off then what I see in pictures from the days they were in service.

Thx in advance,
Nate

Nate, are you talking about WW II ERA factory fresh aircraft or those that had been in the field for a while.

[k5083]

There is an art to making a restoration not only be, but look authentic and original. It is not about accurate or inaccurate, clean or dirty, shiny or matte. Some restorers just know how to make an airplane look like someone fetched it with a time machine. Others, while they may build fine airplanes, can't seem to do it or even understand it.

By way of example I would say most of FHC's recent restorations have that time-capsule quality. So do the several Spitfire Is recently restored in the UK. The big buyers like Collings, Lewis, the Friedkins, and Kermit seem to have a well-developed taste for these things, because they have been buying or commissioning some of the most-like-this restorations lately.

This is not limited to airworthy planes. The NASM for example, while its restorations are second to none in accuracy and workmanship, never quite succeeds in producing a restoration that, to me at least, is quite convincing in this time-capsule sense.

August

[Jerry O'Neill]

Paint can make all the difference in the world. If the color and proportion of the US Insignia is off, it's very obvious. Easy to fix from the start, but once it's on the aircraft there is usually little incentive to fix it. My pet peeve is recreated nose art for a specific aircraft that isn't accurate. Several well known restorations feature nose art that are "off" a bit. Look, proportion and placement all matter to me. It's easy on most aircraft to place the art in it's original position. Rivets, panel lines, windows and antennas are easy to use as references when recreating an original nose art. I've seen them from inches to FEET out of place and out of proportion. It might be minor to some, but if you are trying to recreate and actual aircraft, spend some time and do it right!

Jerry

[Stephan Wilkinson]

There are many parallels in the vintage-car world. Go to the famous Pebble Beach concours, which I've done a number of times, and you'll see many 1920s and '30s cars with bodywork, paint and metal finishing that would never have been possible back in those days.

[JohnB]

Be careful comparing vintage cars and aircraft.
An old car can still be safely driven if unrestored as long as the brakes work and the thing doesn't burn.
If it breaks, you pull over to the side of the road and use your cell phone.

Not quite the same with aircraft...in order to use it as intended, it will need to be rebuilt and or updated.
I don't think anyone could/would fly one of the Spitfires mentioned in the latest FlyPast, after being buried on a French beach for 40 years...whereas you could drive a car that had endured the same conditions.

[Iclo]

Be careful comparing vintage cars and aircraft.
An old car can still be safely driven if unrestored as long as the brakes work and the thing doesn't burn.

Definitely true, our car of 1928 (see the topics in the "off-topics" if you'are inrested) is a partially restored: not complete but major bodywork restoration, complete brakes overhaul (security), partial mechanic overhaul, complete electric rewiring (security of the car) and... very minor work on the engine who will require a overhaul in the futur.

Definitely this kind of restoration is not possible with a airplane, (expcept if you are insane or stupid)
Of course, if you could afford a complete restoration from A to Z will be the best solution, but the major factor is money and manpower.

and you'll see many 1920s and '30s cars with bodywork, paint and metal finishing that would never have been possible back in those days.

100% true, quality of paint were far different, and on small runs of models the paint was sometime brush painted or with "roller."

[shrike]

Maybe it's my eyes, maybe I'm just too young to know such things about aircraft that where in service long before I was born. But why is it that SOME restorations or repaints or what have you always look a little off then the originals? Is it just because of the new paint, it's not dirty? Or is there some inaccuracies in the job being done? Not trying to be a smart a$$. But new restorations just always seem a bit off then what I see in pictures from the days they were in service.

Thx in advance,
Nate

I think, in some cases it's too much attention to detail. More accurately, too much attention to the wrong details.

At peak production, B-24's were rolling off the assembly line at a rate of nearly one an hour. While there were, of course, inspectors, the work was done on a rapid production basis, so instead of a dedicated, talented crew lovingly spending years to restore an airplane, they were slammed out by semi-skilled workers on a tight schedule.
The paint is a little too carefully done, markings are a bit too nice, (Not even going to touch invasion stripes), and the airplanes are pampered rather than just maintained. It all adds up to a subtle 'wrongness' compared to the original.
The same thing happens in the classic car world, where a brand new, dealer prepped only, car scores badly on 'originality' and condition in concours<G>

[SaxMan]

With painting and maintenance being a major expense, many owners opt for paint jobs that may not necessarily be authentic, but will provide the plane with long lasting protection and a considerable amount of time before they need a repaint. Remember, the planes that were produced in World War II were considered essentially disposable items. No one expected them to last more than a couple of years, so things like paint were done with that in mind.

The paint on the second Kosko TBM, that went to the CAF's National Capital Squadron was painted with long term viability in mind as opposed to pure authenticity (although there was considerable debate over what was the right shade of blue to paint it). That particular paint had a compound in it (epoxy, maybe?) which would ensure that the paint would be far more long lasting that what would have been factory original. The first TBM that went to MAAM was painted with more standard paint.

[old iron]

For those who want extreme authenticity, let them fly with gasoline of the old octane ratings. Compromises do need to be made for flying aircraft.

However, there also need to be original aircraft, or restorations to original standards as best as possible, that serve as "control" much as an experiment needs to have a control group for comparison. There will soon come a time when no one alive will have original B-24 memories, and some aircraft will have to be the standard by which new restorations can be compared.

Original and Restored are not a "vs": Each has merits in its own time and place. Flying aircraft must have a standard different from that of the best museums.

[Mark Allen M]

Other people's property and other people's money and how they spend that money on their own property is what will always dictate things such as authenticity, or lack there of, preservation vs restoration, shiny paint vs flat or dull, publicly displayed vs private collections and on and on. We enthusiasts will have very little influence on the outcome of most privately owned warbirds. Some owners indeed are very aware and open to opinions from folks such as ourselves here on WIX and elsewhere, but for the most part private owners are going to do what they want the way they want and most seem to have a great understanding of what it takes to maintain their aircraft in the best and most economical way possible ... of which these days usually does not include completely authentic and correctly applied paint, wear and tear, and unfortunately many times a lack of at least authentic paint schemes. I guess we should at least be grateful for the opportunities we sometimes get to see these owners bring their warbirds to the shows we frequent and make efforts to curb our criticisms (for which we are certainly entitled) to at least attempt to keep them to ourselves. IMHO of course.

Museum curators are another story all together, but a proper understanding and respect for history, a healthy imagination and of course a strong financial budget is paramount to authenticity. Any effort to properly restore, display, preserve and maintain a warbird these days is a good one, no matter if completely authentic or not.

2 more cents

[Dave Lindauer]

All else being equal, my personal preferences are --

For factory fresh paint schemes: Clean, shiny and perfect. Close to this for types/schemes that were highly maintained while in service (VIP transports, peacetime schemes, etc.).

For active duy/combat paint schemes: dull, weathered, oil stained, exhaust stained, mis-matched, etc. Nose art that is or looks hand painted -- Not too slick, no airbrush work and no sensorship. Invasion stripes that look quickly sprayed or hand painted as they would in the field.

[John Dupre]

I read an article recently about an aircraft once considered one of the most original surviving and accurately restored of its type. Literally a garage find the aircraft had never had any of its original structure removed or altered when restoration began some 20 years ago. Someone intimately involved with the aircraft (either the owner or restorer, can't remember which) made the point that today this exquisite aircraft would not be in the top tier due to compromises made during the restoration. In particular the color used on the interior was completely wrong because no one involved at the time knew what it should be and when it was discovered it was too late to change. So there has been a learning curve in the last 40 plus years as owners have wanted more original looking restorations. It is true that some aircraft look like giant model kits but then I have seen model kits that without a scale reference look like I stepped back in time.

[shrike]

In particular the color used on the interior was completely wrong because no one involved at the time knew what it should be and when it was discovered it was too late to change.

One of the Lake Michigan finds finally confirmed the existence of 'Salmon" colored primer (ie zinc chromate and red oxide) after many years when it was considered an old wive's tale

[p51]

I loved Tallichet's G model 17 when it got back from England for the MB movie work in 1990, the paint was chipped and worn, it looked perfect for a combat aircraft. Never saw another warbird with exactly that look, except to a lesser degree for Texas Raiders before a repaint in the 90s...

Invasion stripes that look quickly sprayed or hand painted as they would in the field.

I wonder, are there any warbirds flying today with invasion stripes that don't look like a high-end car painter spent a week getting them perfect?
Those stripes were haphazardly put on in 1944 if you look at period photos, yet I can't think of one airplane flying today (or any in a museum that I know of) that has the stripes looking like that.
I've seen very few warbirds today with hand-painted nose art with a brush. I got ticked off by a warbird owner who approached me years ago wanting me to paint nose art of his choice onto his bird. I was stoked and looking forward to it until he asked to see samples of my airbrush work. I do don't airbrush painting and I told him I only paint my hand with brushes because nobody had airbrushed nose art in WW2. Lost the gig over that but I wouldn't have painted it like that even if I had the tools to do it.
Same issue with military vehicle owners today, everyone has to have markings that look like a sign shop made them with a computer, when in WW2 they were done with stencils and a paint brush, usually very quickly by some GI being pusnished with the job who took very little care in their work...