Warbird Information Exchange

Sadly Mark, I think many would argue otherwise, and what you suggest as being preposterous (and which I fully agree with you about), is not far removed from what we already see today. Your "still under water" is much the same as "thrown in the dumpster once its data plate has been harvested".

In any case the data plate issue is a red herring; the discussion needs to be about documenting the whereabouts of an historic airframe, not its data plate. I can see that the problem is deep-seated and unlikely to be resolved any time soon, but it's laughable really. The warbird world's sleep-walk obsession with data plates is likely to be the main thing that will prevent a serious registry from being curated.

On the subject of data plates, I actually own two myself. Do I own the aircraft? No. I'm not sure even if the aircraft still exist, but if they did I would be seriously deluded in stating that I somehow own the aircraft or have any rights to claim its identity. I was once a witness to aircraft engine identity fraud (a very long story), which ultimately ended with a data plate being attached to an engine of unknown provenance, and uncertain life of constituent serial-numbered components. Being part of a professional organization, we ended up scrapping the whole assembly because its identity could not be reliably verified. When I contrast that with the cavalier and amateurish way that data plates are bandied around in the warbird world it makes me laugh. I'm sure it verges on fraudulent, even if it doesn't necessarily contravene airworthiness rules. But it certainly goes against so much that I was taught and the way I worked. Again, when compared to the historic car world, it makes the warbird community look amateurish and deeply disrespectful of its heritage.

But again, the subject (and the initial issue raised in another recent thread) is the difficulty in verifying the geographical location of a particular airframe while individuals are hiding behind the data plate smoke screen.

Money talks though. Therein lies the context.

No matter how often or with how much certainty you express that opinion, it is just an opinion, nothing more. Simple as that. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

The data plate rule is a simplistic, legalistic, arbitrary definition that may be fine for a particular (bureaucratic) purpose, but useless for the discussion we are having here.

It is too easily transferred from airframe to airframe with little or none of the accompanying material. Your position leads to too many absurdities, like if I bolt the data plate of Hellcat 40467 onto an RV-8, the RV-8 is now Hellcat 40467. Maybe for certain legalistic purposes, a government authority might even accept that. We need not.

August

The logic from Duncan and August is too strong to dispute. I can only concur.

But the idea that I could take my one and only data plate and bolt it onto my Cirrus and proclaim it’s now a Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat sure sounds cool.

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

The data plate for a Hellcat is clearly incorrect for an RV-8. Anyone who looks at it will go WTH? This doesn't belong here, and clearly is incorrect for the aircraft. That is a pretty simple concept. Infact, its a fact. An RV-8 is not a Hellcat, it never was, and never will be. It doesn't matter if the Hellcat's data plate is in it or not. Now, swapping one data plate between hellcats, is another matter. Mudding the waters as to which is which? Yes. Again taking me back to my point that any and all aircraft should not be painted or identified as anything other than that of their correct and original history. This does not mean they can't have a new an unique identity added to it, they just cannot be a copy of any other aircraft.

Now, getting into the grey area of swapping data plates from a sunken wreck onto a new build. Hmmm, well, the original will likely never see air again, and though it still exists, its impossible to have the original parked next to the new build with people wondering which is the real deal. To that end, to restore the original would require rebuilding the entire thing with new materials effectively doing the same thing as salvaging the data plate and attaching it to a 100% new build. Is it THE aircraft? No, but its a new recreation of THE aircraft, and so, application of the data plate to the new build is acceptable. Its not trading an identity for that of another, its assigning an identity from one that is effectively gone, to that which has none. In effect, the same as rebuilding the original piece by piece, with all new material. Its a new aircraft, that the original identity has been assigned to. Yes, now we are into a philosophical area where one asks is it the same aircraft. Much the same way a wooden ship can be rebuilt with new timbers. The timbers are replaceable, and throughout the life of the ship, they could have been replaced. The difference being, they were all replaced at once. I could still make the case that its the same ship, or the same aircraft. In the end, there has been no identity swapped between two aircraft, the new one has never had an identity, and the old one was bestowed upon it.

As for owning the data plate to an existing aircraft, the right thing to do is to give it to the owner of the real aircraft so it can be whole again. It never should have been separated from the aircraft in the first place. Why and when this happened, is irrelevant. If the correct identity of the aircraft is known, and its data plate is found and can be authenticated as being such, it does nobody any good to sit on it. Sure the owner of the data plate can sell it to the owner of the airframe, as that would be the finishing touch to a restoration that could not be correctly completed without it. Yes, sure, a reproduction of the data plate could be made, but it would never be the original. To have the original, is to make the aircraft complete.

When it comes to pieces of history, we do not own them. We are simply their stewards at that time. It is our duty to keep the history straight, and complete. Not muddy it with false identifications as we have with so many warbirds. Restore it correctly or don't bother. It doesn't cost any more to do it with the correct id vs the incorrect one.

This is the issue. It's not acceptable. Yes it's done, but this is the crux of the problem in trying to verify the location, configuration etc of an artefact.

Liberty Bell: original gets stolen and is lost forever. I've got a similar one, so let's stamp the right serial number on it, crack it a bit and voila! It's not lost anymore. Absolute madness.

And the word "restore" here assumes a great deal: restoration of the Snettisham Torc (Google it - it's exquisite) would have been limited to cleaning and very little else. At no point would a serious archaeologist ever consider "rebuilding the entire thing with new materials". In fact it's likely you'd be prosecuted if you tried it. However I'm sure that if Glenn Miller's Norseman is ever recovered, many would think it perfectly acceptable to harvest its data plate for a "restoration".

It wouldn't be done by archaeologists yet is somehow condoned for warbirds.

But again, the data plate discussion is missing the point: we need to record the whereabouts of historic airframes, not be concerned about some largely insignificant piece of metal attached to a replica elsewhere.

Or time to divorce the warbird industry from serious historic aircraft preservation?

See the "Ship of Theseus". A famous conundrum that the philosophers can't resolve.

^
This

Why on earth does this discussion have to turn into another debate about data plates! I just wanted to know which Hellcat you thought was which. Personally, I think the real 40467 is Yanks Air Museum's Hellcat, unless the airframe contains more parts from 08831, of course. As I have mentioned previously, the correct identity of Rod Lewis' Hellcat should be 80141, but if the fuselage centre section really is from 40467, then I suppose the identity change can be justified because most of us consider the centre section to be the heart of an aircraft.

_________________
Tom

It was actually a debate about keeping track of aircraft identities. The data plate thing tends to creep in eventually.

You all realise that data plates can be replaced, right?

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

Why on Earth not talk about the true identity of a warbird? You’ve got a couple of guys posting in this thread who are articulate and knowledgeable, and know how to defend (with examples) the fine details of a controversial subject successfully.

Has this topic been discussed before? Of course! For decades!, but IMO not as “successful” as it’s been discussed in this thread so far. If one wishes to discuss the true provenance of any warbird, then one must include the dreaded “data plate elephant in the room” as well as the, dare I say, “restoration” vs “replication” argument.

Why on Earth would an owner of a warbird, who has spent millions of dollars restoring/replicating that warbird, wish to advertise his property fraudulently. Especially in such a tight and transparent community. Who knows! Money? Ego? …. Sure! But it’s far too easy to call out the fraudulence in the Warbird community IMO.

To me the controversies regarding an airplane’s provenance is black and white. But that’s me.

That's exactly what I did! I had the military data plate for Funny Car legend Jim Head's Staggerwing.
I emailed him and asked him if he wanted it, he answered in the affirmitive so I send it to him!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Does anyone here have real world experience or history to say how the FAA would respond to some of the more fanciful "what ifs?" presented here?

-Would the FAA recognize slapping a DP from a Pacific wreck on a essentially new aircraft with no original parts from an aircraft aircraft NOT in your possession or ownership?

(As long as we're worrying about hypothetical situations, let's ruminate on if "new build" aircraft really new build? Aren't their engines, landing gear forgings, interior fittings, instruments, oxygen bottles, etc. old?)

I think putting a P-51 plate on a general aviation type won't get you anything...no one is going to give you $3 million for it.

Will your insurance company want more money if you call a Cirrus is a Hellcat?
Will your state have you pay increased property tax if a Cirrus is now a Hellcat?
(Conversely, a warbird owner could save big bucks if his Hellcat became an Ercoupe on the state's tax rolls ).

Until we know what the FAA would do, the is a bit of fanciful speculation.

But realistically, let the rebuilders and owners continue as is.
If the powers that be suddenly decreed that NB warbirds (and new build is a pretty imprecise definition) has to be
called an Ezell Mustang instead of a P-51, would people still buy them?
If not, we'd surely have fewer warbirds out there.
Is the "enthusiast" community (as opposed to warbird owners, operators and pilots) willing to trade the number of flying warbirds for fewer historically "pure" aircraft?
As I have said before, 99.9% of the public doesn't care about such invisible provenance.

They DO want to see historic types their ancestors flew in combat.

So, it comes down to..
How is history best served?
Discuss.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

John, you know as well as I do, history is best served …. Truthfully! And Yes, it really is that simple. Most all of the history we are discussing in this thread is history that can, with reasonable effort, be verified and accurately reported.

I too would be interested in some feedback on how the FAA views the date plate quagmire.

Adding to my previous post, basically a data plate is a part on an aeroplane, just like a bolt or an inspection hatch. If it gets damaged or misplaced, you can put a new one on it. I don't really agree with the theory that a data plate 'holds' an identity. From a historical and accuracy point of view, it would be great to have an airframe with the original data plate that was installed at the factory at time of build. We can all agree on that.

An identity is expressed or validated by having a data plate in a specific location, same as with vehicle identification numbers in a specified location on the car's body. If it is not possible to confirm that identity, because the data plate itself was lost, damaged beyond recognition or taken away by souvenir hunters from a crash site, you can still use existing documentation (operations logs, period news articles, recognised databases) to link an identity to a pile of metal recovered from a crash site. You will have to add a new data plate to the airframe at some point during the rebuild, that's all.

The way it works is that if you recover a certain amount of material (authorities do not publish a percentage or other limit as far as I know) from a crash site and the identity of those remains is known, you can then 'claim' that identity as belonging to that pile of metal. If that pile of metal enters a shop and at some point in time a complete-looking airframe emerges from that shop, you can claim to have restored that particular aeroplane with that identity. From an airworthiness point of view, you need to show that the result of your work conforms to the drawings, specifications and such as originally created by the design office. If you can do that, you will then have a P-51 for example. If the trail between original airframe, crash location, pile of metal and your resulting P-51 is clear enough, you can register that P-51 as being that original aeroplane, or a direct descendant of it if you will. There may well be distinct differences between the original and the end result of your work (for example, the P-51D wing on Thunderbird, I think it was mentioned before). But the authorities recognise that there are and will be variations within a type, all of which still within the specs of the type.

Where the water gets muddy is when you start looking at all the restorations over the years where parts from several airframes have been mixed up to create flying airframes. Go back 50 years and getting a P-51 in the air meant using a fuselage (with a specific identity most likely) that was known to be good, using a set of airworthy tail feathers and two good wings, bolting everything together and thereby having a flyable P-51. These days we can either build complete fuselages and everything else from scratch and because of that create a flyable P-51 even though the original bits resembled nothing more than metal cornflakes, or we painstakingly take bits of metal cornflake and beat, form, treat them back into a useful part. That second option is less likely to occur on potential flyers, but it's more likely to occur now than 50 years ago.

So the mis-matched airframes that were restored a long time ago are now having us scratch our heads in confusion. Which identity is the 'real' one? The leftovers from those old restoration projects can create their own headaches if they are then used to create another restoration project, claiming the same identity. I think that's what happened with that P-51 duo mentioned earlier.

On one end we have to realise that historic accuracy is going to be very difficult if you want to keep an airframe in the air. The practice of swapping out parts is not unique to the warbird world. Most BAe Hawks went through a 'fuselage replacement program' at some point. Hawk goes into the hangar with identity X, Hawk comes of of the hangar, still with identity X, but there's a fuselage laying about that used to be bolted to data plate X.... It's not going to be used in a rebuild, but the potential for one of our head-scratching situations is certainly there! On the other hand, we are getting better at keeping airframes as original as possible, or restoring them back to how they were. In the end everything that happened to an aeroplane during its life is part of its unique heritage. We have to accept that very original time capsules are only to be found in museums, in a glass case, and flying airframes have a history that may include lots of work throughout the years to keep it in the air or get it back there. As long as we're honest about this we can enjoy seeing, hearing and smelling a P-51 do what it does best.

Going back to one of the questions asked earlier:
Would the FAA recognize slapping a DP from a Pacific wreck on a essentially new aircraft with no original parts from an aircraft aircraft NOT in your possession or ownership?
Most likely not, but if you went through the trouble of recovering as much as possible from that Pacific wreck you can then do as suggested. You just have to make sure that the wrecked parts are either stored securely (you could sell them along with the restored airframe) are recycled into something else that prevents them from being used in a different restoration (you can buy keytags made from metal from currently flying restorations.... go figure), or are kept off the market in some other way.

The Mosquitos being restored by Avspecs use a new-built fuselage with new-built wings and tail feathers. Going by weight, a very significant percentage of a Mosquito is metal, in engines, gear, loads of fittings, brackets, frames and such, so you need a complete Mosquito before setting off on such a restoration. But where is the original Mosquito if what is flying around is all new wood? Has anyone looked into what happens to the original fuselage and wings?

That's enough typing for now. It's just my two cents worth of course.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net