Oscar Duck wrote:
Gee JDK you'd better get the RAAFM to scrap their Mossie and the Demon. By your definition they're replicas...don't mention the 'fake' Boxkite...
Flying vs. museums can be two different kettles of fish.
Mmmmm.
1. Not 'my' definitions - where did you get that idea? My main point is there
aren't agreed standards of originality in aviation, but there are elsewhere. I'm no arbiter, and I'm not sure who is. Are you?
2. The Demon's variation from originality is documented. For a researcher like myself, or the interested layperson, that information is easily available. It's not pretending something it is not.
3. The Mosquito is being restored where necessary and as much original material is being retained and conserved. Replaced material is being documented.
Significantly less material is being replaced than would (wood!) be if it were an airworthy restoration.
Glynn Powell and the RAAF Museum Mosquito team are aware of each other's work, regard it as complimentary both in effort and result, and have shared info back and forth. Win win.
4. The Boxkite is a modern build replica, and is not claiming to be anything that it isn't.
Flying vs museums are indeed two different things with different criteria - as I mentioned, I thought.
BHawthorne - as it's yours, not owned by a museum in trust for the community, and not intended to be a representation of the original for the wider community, it's up to you. As we all would expect the owner to have the final say in how it's presented, when that's a private person, that's their say, when it's the community or nation, it's their say too.
As Hal's kind of pointed out, the road to restoration he11 is paved with good intentions and bland statements of compromise. Almost all restorations or conservations have some degree of compromise, the issue is whether those compromises are for 'good' or 'poor' reasons - each of us can add the values to 'good or 'poor' as we see fit.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
