Scratch-built vs restored warbird questions

I have read here (with interest several times in various threads) the debate about new / scratch-built Warbirds vs restored Warbirds and the value one possibly has over the other. My question is if you were to build any warbird from basically scratch with the exception of a recovered dataplate or some other very small part from some warbird wreck, would you consider your warbird project a restoration or a new-built project? ... I hope I'm being clear. .... Does something like a recovered dataplate and nothing else constitute a restoration? Many aircraft come to mind as to just how much actual recovered material was ever restored for use. Two P-38's come to mind since I had an interest in following their restorations. Glacier Girl and the Red Bull P-38. By looking closely at Glacier Girl I couldn't imagine much is original recovered material. And Red Bull simply looks like all-new material to me. Does anyone here know if any material on the Red Bull aircraft is original White Lighting material? So here is a last question. Would it not be cheaper for someone who discovers a wrech in a lake or the ocean somewhere to simply dive for the dataplate and then scratch-build the warbird, slap on the recovered dataplate and call it a restoration? .... Of course this is only if it would be difficult to bring up anything else. I understand that some people, like Paul Allen, want original, historic aircraft, and I get that part as well, but how many recently restored P-51's actually have much original material on them? Bombers are an all together different story, I would assume 90% is original .... Thoughts?

What percentage of original material would you constitute as being a restored Warbird vs new-built? .... I say 50%

[Jack Cook]

exception of a recovered dataplate

You don't even need that. You just need the paperwork.

[maxum96]

If i'm wrong, someone correct me here. I believe Glacier Girl was rebuilt with around 80%-90% original parts. I think most of the skin is original. I believe the same goes for White Lightning/ Red Bull reference from when Lefty sold it and now.

[Jerry O'Neill]

If i'm wrong, someone correct me here. I believe Glacier Girl was rebuilt with around 80%-90% original parts. I think most of the skin is original. I believe the same goes for White Lightning/ Red Bull reference from when Lefty sold it and now.

I'm sure there is someone out there with more direct info than me, but I seem to remember that they had a lot of skin to replace on "Glacier Girl".
It was tin canned in many places, so I'm not so sure that could actually use it.
Anybody?
Jerry

[51fixer]

There are many different standards to describe original.
For the most part they will restore as the original looked like at some point in its history. ie From the factory or when it served at this particular base or date.
Most WWII aircraft that flew in post war service or civilian life will have modifications. To undo the modifications is a modification. Not to mention wear and tear along with corrosion. Just stripping the paint and repainting will somewhat leave it unoriginal forever.
New build is somewhat easier as you build it to meet your standard. Then it can be just like an original, but it will never be the original.
From current experience original is harder to work on. In the Mustangs coolant lines on the R/H side going to the header tank are routed different to make access to the spark plug harness easier. Same goes for removing the carb air filter box under the engine. That makes servicing the cuno oil filter easier as well.
It all depends on what the owner wants and is willing to spend time on.
Rich

[Saville]

For what it's worth:

If you have a boat, and each day you replace one part of that boat Lloyds of London assures us that the insurance policy you took out on the boat is still in force: it's the same boat.

Replace each and every part - one by one - and it's still the same boat.

I imagine it works the same for an airplane.

What I've wondered is:

Of all the flying Warbirds that were not scratch built from raw aluminum, i.e. for all the Warbirds built in the forties, how many of them have original major structural components such as wing spars?

Also, I've read, here in WIX I think, that when an a/c is dredged from the bottom of a river or the ocean or pulled from the depths of the jungle, and rebuilt, very little is left, but it was really helpful to have the old carcass. Why is that?

[gary1954]

How does the "center section" of a fighter come into play in a restoration?
Just a question...
.....cuz I duuno about use guys, but with regard to the restoration of a bomber, to me (just my opinion now) the "heart" of the bomber is the center section. the B-25 has what 5 sections
1.nose scetion
2.cockpit section
3.center scetion (too include outter wing panels and wing tips)
4.emp-ee-nnoage section
5.tail scetion (stabilizers and elevators)
***watches the flak gun barrels rising***

[Indian head]

I'm with gary on this; when in service, aircraft can have wings, tails, nose sections swapped with other aircraft during repair and overhaul. The one component that would generally be considered to be not "removable" would be the forward fuselage including cockpit section in the case of a single-engined aircraft, or the wing centre section on a multi.

That said, all of the substantially complete surviving airframes have long since been identified and located; so if a client commissions a new project aircraft from a rebuilder it is basically going to be a new build. All that is needed is an identity.

This itself is fraught with problems, as data plates can surface years after the supposed restoration has been finished. The data plate is the holy grail for many wreck hunters, who will put them away safely if they find one. Plus, as Jack so rightly points out, even the plate is not absolutely necessary; sometimes a crash record will do.

Some of the projects being offered recently are just a joke. Recently there was one which was a canopy and two wheels (which were not from the aircraft in question) plus three pieces of scrap that would have fitted in your hands. I'll not say what type it was for obvious reasons.

It's not just aircraft, here is a link to an interesting case involving an historic Bentley. It's been posted before, but well worth another read;

http://www.gomog.com/articles/no1judgement.html

[Mark_Pilkington]

The example of Bentley "Old Number One" is interesting but of little relevence to this argument, that case describes a car that was undergoing constant repair and modification as part of its history.

The same logic cannot truthfully or honestly be applied to a "scratch-built" warbird - ie a name plate recovered from a Spitfire firewall or hole in the ground, and later bolted to 95% new metal.

Many aircraft, particularly combat veterans, and service aircraft have replacement parts fitted in their life, they are still the original aircraft through that process.

Many historic museum aircraft have been left "as acquired" into the collection, other than cleaning and corrosion control - These aircraft have been "Preserved or Conserved"

Equally many warbirds have had "new old stock" (NOS) or recycled parts (originally constructed at the time by the same manufacturer) used to repair or replace damage or deterioration in their restoration, and they are a still the original aircraft through that process. These aircraft have been "Restored"

Many other Warbirds, have been "re-assembled" from seperate NOS parts sourced from reclamation and spares yards (ie a T6 assembled from the shelves at Lance) in this case perhaps 90% of the parts have never flown together before but all the parts are "original". Obviously it IS an "authentic" North American T6, with parts built by North American, but its originality as a particular s/n or BU number is probably questionable? But usually the central fuselage frame etc have been used to derive an identity to the reassembled airframe, and it is effectively an extreme form of "Restoration" and perhaps more correctly a or "Reconstruction"? (ie constructing a new aircraft from original parts)

However as NOS parts have dried up here are many recent "rebuilds" & "restorations" being "created" in the Warbirds market where little of the aircraft is from the identified airframe, or assembled from original or repaired parts from the original manufacturer, and instead most the airframe is from modern metal, constructed by a 2008 manufacturer such as recent build P40's and Spitfires? I would prefer to call many of them "Reproductions" or "Recreations" rather than "Restorations", but would be happy to have any of them in any case, and still admire the outcomes.

(and I do realise an issue of certification/design liability etc can arise if the aircraft is not considered a "restoration" of an existing airframe and instead is to be considered construction of a "new" example or even "new" design, so I sympathise with the "real world" issues)

However it is very clear these are manufacturing rather than restoring or repairing activities.

The effort, skills and accuracy of those producing these aircraft is not diminished by the label "Recreation" or "Reproduction" only the truth in its authenticity or provenance is affected.

I much prefer the approach taken by those who have built the acknowledged "Reproductions" , such F3F's, Yak 9's, Me262's, 190's and Oscars to admit and celebrate the creation of accurate "Reproductions" or "Recreations" rather than to claim they are rebuilds of original factory/wartime aircraft "repaired" from an original smouldering dataplate and left hand wheel nut.


While the Warbird operators, rebuilders and owners are entitled to do what they wish with their own aircraft, many "warbirds" are also important historical and heritage artifacts for future generations, and are worthy of honesty and integrity in the recording of their true provenance, and those without any, should not try to "fabricate" it.

In the Art and Antiques world the act of passing a "copy" off as an "original" is quite rightly described as fraud or forgery, and while I dont think that is the intent or motivation of warbird restorers, it risks the same attitudes.

While complex machinery like warbirds will always have parts being replaced through wear and maintenance I dont support the argument of "the old broom with a new head and handle" being applied to a packing crate of 2007 aluminium sheet, a jig and some templates as creating an "original 1940's wartime service, original factory built airframe, previously flown by a veteran", that cheapens the worth of the true "original" examples, and the historical and heritage respect they deserve.


Eventually the market will reflect "originality" and "authenticity" versus "reproduction" or "recreation" (despite the "accuracy"), most likely in the area of museum acquisitions or specialist collectors such as Paul Allen etc, but for most warbird operators, it will probably remain a judgement of price, looks, performance and maintainability.

I think eventually enthusiasts will also recognise original manufacturing and operational provenance over workshop "Recreations" or "Reproductions" without necessarily diminishing the enjoyment of the "Recreation or Reproduction" in anycase.

I dont think that will cause workshops to stop being able to profitably undertake these "Recreations or Reproductions" or for their resale values to collapse, just for the different attributes to be considered by various buyers and sellers.

And I hope workshops continue to add to the quantity, quality and variety of warbirds even through "Recreations and Reproductions" as it forms a valid preservation activity in its own right, its just deserving of a more honest description of the outcomes.

In the longer term the more original and historic aircraft have the risk of being grounded or "Recreated" through contant "Restoration" to keep them in the air in anycase, and with the available stock of "restorable wrecks" and "hangar queens" drying up, "recreated" airframes will represent more of more of the airworthy population, and I think they have a very important role to play in maintaining the warbird movement and providing airworthy examples of many rare types. - lets just acknowledge what they are.

In regards to the percentages of parts content to describe or determine the outcome, such definitions are difficult to set in concrete, however my own personal view would be:

To be the "original" specific aircraft I would have thought at least 30% of parts from the original airframe - (major fuselage etc structure) should have existed and been re-used.

To be an "authentic" example of the type, (regardless of the serial numbers of each component) I would have thought 70% of original manufacturers parts should have existed and been used.

IE an original and authentic aircraft might only retain 30% of the original airframe but contain 70% of original manufactured parts, ie 40% of it is from NOS or other original airframes, and the remaining 30% is new metal.

But an airframe with 10% original manufacturers parts and 90% new metal and 2008 construction from jigs, patterns and drawings does not equal the original wartime aircraft or an authentic restoration from assembled NOS parts, it is at most a composite of authentic and new parts, and is more correctly described as "Recreation or Reproduction" despite its high quality or accuracy of construction.


regards

Mark Pilkington

[51fixer]

How does the "center section" of a fighter come into play in a restoration?
Just a question...
.....cuz I duuno about use guys, but with regard to the restoration of a bomber, to me (just my opinion now) the "heart" of the bomber is the center section. the B-25 has what 5 sections
1.nose scetion
2.cockpit section
3.center scetion (too include outter wing panels and wing tips)
4.emp-ee-nnoage section
5.tail scetion (stabilizers and elevators)
***watches the flak gun barrels rising***

P-51 don't have a stinking center section.
A T-6 does, but it unbolts from the fuselage.
Each aircraft is different in it's design and construction.
It doesn't work to say that a particular part needs to be original in each aircraft (ie center section. Besides all major parts are important. Try flying without one of those important parts.
Rich

I tend to concure with the above post in many ways. I actually am becoming a fan of the "reproduction" warbird in many ways. I like the idea of several rare types that are appearing .. i.e. 262's, 190's, etc. ... I also like the idea of a few rare british examples coming close to fruation soon. Whether they are literally new reproductions or parts and pieces of the original makes no matter to me. As long as we can have something very close to what we didn't have for all these years possibly fly is worth it to me. I'm sure when we debate the idea of warbirds such as the Typhoon, me110, Stuka, etc. ever flying again, we only need to look at the 262's, 190's etc and say anything is possible and will probably be probable in years to come. I will put out the case that in the next several years we will be hearing about someone, somewhere building a full scale, new-built Stuka to fly and that there will be an interest from others to purchase additional examples to be built. As much as I enjoy the fact that a warbird could be the "real deal" with history etc., I also enjoy the idea of full scale, authentic replica's flying as well. In my own simple, un-educated opinion, I would tend to believe that the powerplant is usually the "hold-up in anyone's thoughts of replicating a particular warbird. The Typhoon is a great example of this theory. With that said, I'd still like someone to take a shot at replicating one with what ever powerplant would come close. Look at the zero's that are flying today, with the exception of POF's, but we all still love to see a close to authentic zero fly, even if it does have a B-25 engine in it. If a full scale Hawker Typhoon that looked as accurate as you could possibly imagine without the correct powerplant taxied up to an airshow, wouldn't you be a bit impressed and interested? ... I certainly would. And who here really has heard a Napier sabre engine in person? ... The other aircraft I have a very deep interest in are the Mosquito's, Beaufighter's and Beaufort being restored. I wonder just how much of these warbirds are original?

Mark

[Mark_Pilkington]

The other aircraft I have a very deep interest in are the Mosquito's, Beaufighter's and Beaufort being restored. I wonder just how much of these warbirds are original?

Mark,

The NZ built Mosquito's are new wood with authentic metal fittings, in two of the cases the metal parts are all from an original airframe that has rotted away rather than burnt or pulverised away, but I would consider they are largely new or 're" manufactured rather than simply "Restorations".

However in those two cases the level of the original aircraft's components surviving and available probably places them above the "Recreation" or Reproduction" level, perhaps more correctly 'Remanufactured".

With "Recreation/Reproduction" best left to describe creating 'something" from "nothing".

Perhaps it is possible to argue the original aircraft has been "restored" but I would really think at that level of replacement/manufacture it hasnt simply been "Restored"?

But the two flying examples are certainly entitled to claim the identities of the original aircraft through the known provenance of the original parts and retained/re-used metal fittings. Perhaps an alternative description is a composite original /remanufacture?

The first/pattern fuselage built in NZ now a resultant static airframe in Canada is perhaps more correctly a "Reproduction" using some original but disparate parts.

I think the "label" isnt such a worry with the NZ Mosquitos as the process is being so transparent as to the level of work and manufacture with photo /website documentation and reporting of the processes, so no one is being mis-lead as to the level of original wartime manufactured materials exist in the outcomes.

In the end the finished products will be Mosquitos and certainly the only ones flying, and well appreciated and enjoyed by us all.

My concerns relate to workshops that start with a photo and colourscheme, and a flat pack of new aluminium, and some drawings or templates/jigs, and then "PRESTO" a few years later, roll out and offer for sale "Douglas Bader's" own Spitfire that he was shot down in! With little authenticity (or truth) evidenced of any provenance left if the finished product (or original provenance commenced with?), and restoration intentionally behind closed doors and out of camera sight.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I could attend a smouldering wreck in a hole, grab any bit of twisted metal, build a new data plate for it, then replace the bit of twisted metal with new metal and the rest of the missing airframe, but clearly my finished product has no provenance other than me visiting its grave. I could achieve the same outcome with photos and accurate drawings/jigs, without even visiting the crash site and that would clearly be a "Reproduction/Recreation".

The old broom, new handle and head doesnt wash!

The British and Australian Beafighter restorations are based on at least identifiable centre fuselages with provenance, and many other original "used" or "new old stock" components sourced from totally different ID's etc. While lots of work has been undertaken, they are probably holding more original material in them than the Mosquitos.

I would consider they are composite restorations but "authentic" aircraft, even though some structure and skins have been replaced with new metal, it might be debatable if they really are the "original" identity? but I am personally happy enough to accept their identity as having some provenance.

The Beaufort project in Australia was commenced on a partial but significantly intact airframe with known provenance and identity, however even that airframe was already a composite of sections from disparate airframes, but all authentic manufacture prior to acquisition for restoration, and the airworthy restoration has replaced some structure and skins with new metal.

I would also consider it is a composite and authentic example and probably consider it is the "original" aircraft of that identity.

There are many other wooden vintage aircraft that have significant sections of their wooden fuselages/structure replaced with new manufacture due to airworthiness requirements on timber and glue, I consider they are restored originals. (quite often the left over parts can be recognisable enough to suggest the original fuselage still exists).

However I guess that is renewing a significant volume of material on an existing airframe, rather than "recreating"a non-existant airframe from new materials, and non-existant original airframe.

A recovered data plate from a smouldering hole in the ground is not the basis of a "restoration" project, despite how pretty and accurate the outcome might be? it also not "authentic"!


regards

Mark Pilkington

[Randy Haskin]

Fellow warbird enthusiasts -

This is a question that puzzles even philosophers (seriously!!). It's called the "Theseus Paradox". I generally dislike referencing anything wiki, but there's actually a good description here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

I doubt that we're going to solve this question/debate here on WIX, much less in the warbird movement at large.

Different communities have adopted different standards. The car community obviosly has very tight standards. The aviation community has completely different standards, mostly due to requirements for airworthiness. That's about as close as we'll ever get to any kind of agreement on the issue.

[O.P.]

I don't know if this is very relevant or not, but as an A&P trainee and a wannabee warbird builder, I think a couple three things are being missed here.

A dataplate, and paperwork is gold, but, not for the reasons previously mentioned. Just thinkifying in my beer clouded mind, leads me to believe that the best, or major part of a dataplate restoration has zip point sh1t to do with the "Historical accuracy" or "Historical relavance" of whatever twisted pile of aluminum thats waiting to fly. It is because your FAA paperwork, flight test, explanifying load is reduced about 90 percent. For everyone who didn't get that, it costs a lot less, and is less of a pain in the a$$.

A Limited category for a Mustang, or a standard category for a T6......jeeezzz, I be wanting to find that paperwork....pure gold baybay....

On a side note, What Gerry Beck did when he built that mustang was nothing short of a miracle. It was not only a beautiful plane, but he blazed a paperwork trail that I sincerely hope will be used soon. He made it possible to build and fly those planes as new. He did all of the hard FAA work.

On a side-side note, I don't care about "dataplate" accuracy. I just want to see more of them fly. Serial number and dataplate gurus always have the NASM and the USAFM and Pensacola. Thats where that sh1t truely belongs. For the rest of us, fly em baybay!

On a side-side-side note, No, I am not dissing anyone rebuilding dataplate X belonging to Ace X, if that is the core motivation, more power to you.

Edit: Glacier Girl was a total, complete wreck. I don't think you could convince me that anything on that airplane was even remotely airworthy, with the exception of the little emblem that goes in the middle of the steering wheel. Regardless what anyone says, that is a "CLASSIC" dataplate restoration.

[51fixer]

Most restorations I have seen usually have a new data plate made for the fus. I even see newly made data plates for the engines as well.
Rich