Warbird Information Exchange

That's easy.
Non-flying construction, non-original structure: a full-scale model, albeit with some real parts fitted here and there.
Now, let's move one step up the quality ladder ...

Gregory

The Boulton Paul Society call it a full size model.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

More on that point... the Tora Tora Tora birds are not Zeros, Vals and Kates. They are modified Harvards, Texans and Valiants. I.e. the Tora birds are look-alikes (although I would prefer are more professional sounding term).

how does simulacra sound? looks like and appears to be but is not effectively sums up what that means

The definitions of aircraft today in the flying "warbird" movement are generally driven by the economic values they inspire, ie original, restored, replica etc, and leads to notional extension of production lines 40 years later etc to create some providence to an airframe, or the 100% new metal bolted under a makers plate (called re-birthing in the auto trade and illegal in many countries in that field!) and is either motivated by re-sale values or simply to ensure "technical" acknowledgement of the pedagree.

This situation arises from "new metal" mustangs, new production line 190's, 262's, Yaks etc as well composite rebuilds of a type from the parts of many examples.

Robert Mikesh's "Restoring museum Aircraft" (former curator of Smithonian) lists the following definitions:

Original - Speciman shown to be the original as built by manufacturer, or modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it left operational service

Restored Original - Artifact composed of at least 50% original components and the remainder returned to accurate original condition with same materials, components.

Reproduction - a reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction made with similiar materials

Replica - A reproduction built by the original contractor.

I personally feel the last two are swapped around, whereas something that is produced by the original manufacturer or the same production processes (design and parts) would be a "re"-"production" whereas something that tries very hard to look the same but uses totally diferent materials (a steel tube fuselage WW1 tri-plane instead of wooden frame) would seem better described as a replica.


There is another category used in Museum speak:

Full Scale Mockup - where a display which has no ability to fly as an aircraft by (design or construction) creates the visual appearance of an aircraft (fibreglass replicas etc)


He also has an excellent system listed in the book to resolve how an aircraft should be displayed.

Category 1 - an aircraft historically significant in its own right, Linburgh's Spirit of St Louis.

Category 2 - A aircraft significant for its technical features - X-15, P51-C Excalibur 111)

Category 3 An aricraft not significant for its own history but representative of its entire types history


He also describes levels of condition.

Level 1 - prinstine

Level 2 - in as used, by operational or recently retired condition.

Level 3 - deteriorated and unstable condition

Level 4 - derelict or virtually destroyed.


Then finally there is the constrast between preservation, conservation and restoration.

When you review the above some things like new '190's, 262's Oscars, and Halifaxs, and MB5's start to fit into logical categories.

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Hi Mark,

Thanks for taking my posted extract from Mikesh's book a bit further.

The fundimental point is that as much as we huff and puff and say something 'sould be' an 'x' or a 'y'; unless there is an industry agreement and a tight definition, legally constituted, it's just a matter of opinion. (As there is for museums, and isn't for warbirds.) And then caviat emptor, and viewer beware as well.

Mikesh was also at pains to point out that a good museum should be honest in labelling and documenting the artifacts they own; and the Smithsonian, RAF Museum, etc etc, are very careful about that - they have to be - it's part of the requirements for them to have their status.

But private owners? No such obligations, so credibility depends on how fast you can talk and how close your aeroplane is in look to the subject. If I had a WAR replica Fw190, I'd be able to tell my local paper that I 'owned a Focke-Wulf' and they'd believe it. - but few others would be taken in ("Gee, weren't those German planes small!"). If I owned one of the new-build Fw190s, I'd be able to fool most of the people most of the time - except those (like us here ) who know who's got what and about these replicas.

And people like simple. "It's a 3/4 scale replica Spitfire in Douglas Bader's colours" quickly becomes in the mind of the listener "It's Douglas Bader's aircraft." The word 'Replica' is also often covered by a cough in the conversation, as it's seen as less 'worthy' than an 'original'.

And while there are foolish rich folks in a hurry, there will be inflated claims for innacurate a/c.

Gregory's question? The answer still remains that you can call it what you like. It's persuading everyone else to agree with you that's the trick.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

JDK, Col etc,

I would agree with many of your comments, unfortunately there is a habit of trying to stretch providence beyond the limits of belief whereas the achievement is still worthy of recognition purely for what it is:

ie the "MB-5" that started this and a second thread is obviously an aircraft that successfully flies, and its designer and builder has specifically built it (with modified dimensions, construction methods engines etc) to "recreate" the look of the MB5.

Is it "THE" original MB-5 or a licence built or new manufacture original, no and I dont think he claims it to be, it is clearly a Replica in my mind, (although the Mekish method would call it a "reproduction").

(I personally think his use of the term "reproduction" might originate in the art world where "copies" of original art works are politely called "reproductions")

Is the Yorkshire "Halifax" a real/original Halifax or a Full Scale Mockup or a Replica/Reproduction, in my opinion it is not structurely capable of flight so it sits down towards a FSM, but it a composite of some original parts (Halifax rear fuselage etc) and a Hastings Wing which
"replicates / reproduces" the original Halifax wing design and construction so it sits perhaps somewhere between FSM and replica/reproduction?? is it a restored original ?? no I dont think so, is it a marvelous acheivement and important cultural asset - yes I think so, as it very closely recreates the Halifax for future educational etc benefit.

Are the new build ME262, Oscars and FW190's restored originals, No , not in my opinion, are they reproductions as in re-produced to original design construction (a replica to Mekish) yes, so they are very close to original, but not equal to a real one from the original factory. However they will maintain a great value $, particularly as a flying example of something that can not be obtained from the original stocks, and even if eventually grounded and in a Museum, other than the modern powerplant (which could be later replaced with a static original) they accurately record the original details in construction and materials and become an historical/educational artifact to record the technology nearly as well as an original does, but without the providence of wartime construction or combat service history.

Are 3/4 scale WAR replica 190's etc equal to the above, no clearly not, they "approximate" the visual look of the original and sit with the "MB-5" as a replica to me (or reproduction under the Mekish method)

Here in Australia a local production of a 3/4? spitfire replica is marketed as a supermarine spitfire mark 28?? as the designer/maker has secured the business name of supermarine and listed his aircraft as the latest "model" released in the series, which might lead someone to assume the design is an extension of Mitchell's work, however to my knowledge the construction and material is not an extension of that work, it is clearly not an original spitfire it is a flying approximate of the shape of a spitfire.

It is a replica to me, a reproduction to Mekish, and still something for a all to enjoy.

There however is a Warbird approach which says if it Looks like a duck, and quaks like a duck it is a duck, and I dont agree with that, - an all new metal flying aircraft even with an original makers plate is not really the combat veteran it claims to be, otherwise my great great great great great grandmothers old broom is still in my cupboard , its just had a few new handles and heads since she owned it!

Is the same new metal fuselage with the makers plate from a combat veteran fitted with New/Old Stock but "never flown original curtiss factory made" set of wings a real "original" Kittyhawk, or is it a reproduction?

Well if you use the Mekish method it starts to look like an composite of 50% original parts and reconstructed new parts to the original design so its probably definately a "real" kittyhawk!

Is it "THE" combat veteran as per the makers plate, I personally dont think so as the wings are not from that aircraft and neither is the new build fuselage, it is by Mekish a Restored Original , but probably a "Category III" example of a kittyhawk trying to impersonate a specific history "Category I" aircraft.

We do need some agreed standards, for both Museum and flying warbird, as the many in either population could easily end up in the other, I think the Mekish method works well other than the current reversal of reproduction and replica compared to "common" enthusiasts use of the same terminology!


Yes! it does look like a DUCK, and quaks like a DUCK, but if it wasn't made in the Grumman factory it probably ISN'T a DUCK!


regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Excellent essay Mark.

Only thing I would disagee with you about is the 'Mikesh' method is that it isn't based just on the art world but on the museum biz in its entirety, and the Assoc of Transport and Communications Museums use a similar set of criteria; so to swap 'Replica' and 'Reproduction' might be consistent in the contect we work, but in conflict with the whole rest of the museum biz - which would out weight us! (However I agee that I also think of the terms 'swapped' as you mention!)

We have an auctioneer come in to the museum I work in once a month, and they value (financially) items that people bring in. We also value things for people, but in terms of historical interest and importance.

The financial valuation is always aiming to get the best for the item; ours is only ever to see what story it tells us. The same different concept of 'value' are part of the issue we are discussing, and the point you make about 'stretching provenance'.

In my opinion, there isn't currently a body or agreed requirement that would get us a set of terms everyone subscribes too. A set of terms people choose to use, that is regognised, validated by (perhaps the EAA for instance) would be a big step in the right direction though.

Cheers!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

James,

I would be happy enough to see the "Mekish Method" adopted across the Aviation Heritage movement, both static museum and airworthy private markets.

I wasnt aware that method was already being applied to non aviation museums and so I would agree Replica/Reproduction would need to remain as defined, but standardisation will just mean propellor heads like me will need to do a mental swap from now on!

In regard to peak bodies to adopt it, the BAPC in the UK already basically uses the "Mekish method" (and I only call it that for shorthand reference and its possibly actually someone elses "brainchild"), if the ATCM and similar bodies of static Aviation Museums elsewhere adopt it, and then as you say the EAA Warbirds and Antique Division, Australian Warbirds Antique Aircraft Association of Australia and similar flying aircraft bodies in other countires etc then over time their members and enthusiasts will also use the definitions and terms.

This should then lead to journalists/articles in the various magazines etc describing such aircraft correctly and finally the owners (or sellers)themselves using the same correct and understood terms.

As I said unfortunately some times however, the focus is on the financial value first (because thats what is the end return of all the hard work and new metal) and to say its only going to be a replica 262 or Oscar rather than a restored original might cause the project investment not to proceed in the first place. This would probably be different if the understandings of the terms was well known, and we still appreciated the values such "replicas" will still carry in any case over an 3/4 "reproduction". (still looks like it should be the other way round!!)

Its an interesting thing to be debated and important thing to resolve as our "industry" or heritage field will need such things resolved and standardised as we hand it down to future generations.


regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

I think that calling an admittedly new build Oscar, listed by the FAA as built by the Texas Aircraft Factory, a "restored original" is beyond a legitimate stretch of imagination.

As I see it, there are two sides to the question of "value".
In a private transaction, the value will be whatever the purchaser is willing to pay. This may or not reflect the actual cost of construction.
In a donation to a museum, however, it would probably be easier to assess the fair value of a new-build machine than of (say) an unrestored original found in a barn. In the first case, the tax people would probably accept the builder's invoices as proof of cost, and hence of value of the donation; in the second, they might challenge an appraisal submitted by the owner and/or his consultants.

Over to the bean counters!

Gregory

Rob

I am not privy to construction details, but I seem to recall that the 262 are built to far better spec than the original. Basically, with the short life expectancy at the front, the Germans felt they could afford to use lower grade materials because the planes would be balsted apart long before they corroded. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to spend X million bucks on a new build airplane today to see it rot away this afternoon, so things were changed here and there.

Also, I think the Oscar wrecks were used mostly for patterns, except for the odd fitting which does not - in my opinion - contribute much to overall originality. No more than the original tach in the brand new Fokker Triplane my friend built over the past six years.

As to wings replaced while in service, obviously they do not detract from originality. But this is where I draw the line: original wings, from stock, not reverse engineered, used in combat etc, with a continuosly traceable story etc. Not quite the same as a tailcone grafted onto a new airframe, resurrecting a lost aircraft after a 60 year break.

Cheers

Gregory

An restoration with multiple personalities?

_________________
Dan Johnson

To my mind in many ways it is the perception of orinterpretation of the word in the public's eye that flavours how they see a replica or reproduction or restoration and it is this that creates the differences in values for many.
something along the lines of " it's a replica, so it looks like the real thing but isn't." or " it's a reproduction, so it's a remake of the real thing but isn't really one." or " it's a restoration, so it is the real thing but made to be new again." might be how the people who even should know better see these things.

to me though, I'd rather see a carbon fibre and composite spitfire at an airshow then nothing at all and as long as he makes no effort to say it is a real spitfire then I don't care what he calls it as there will always be some-one willing to argue pedantics about the wording of his claims. as long as it's history and what went into it is available and common knowledge then nothing to worry about. But if he starts going on about how it is " an enhanced but restored battle of britain veteran flown by Douglas Bader " because he found the tail wheel from that particular spitfire and fitted it then that is a whole new ball game incorporating fraud if he's trying to sell it as that.

so to me it all depends on buyer beware and proper records keeping. for instance the newbuild spitfire with just a dataplate ought to be recorded as just that. " completely newbuilt aircraft from 1999 fitted with 1942 dataplate." and the focke wolfes and Me262's " modern produced, exacting copies of original aircraft endowed with sequential production numbers from the original production run."

still won't stop people saying things are not what they are but that is human nature too.
well, there's my 0.014c US

[quote="Col. Rohr

Ok guys what do I have.

Cheers RR[/quote]

a schizophrenic assemblage of previously original spare parts presently organised relative to each in such a manner as to become a viable aircraft in their own right.

Assembling a historic aircraft from mostly original structures (say wings and fuselage), original engine, a few new-build assemblies (say tailplane) and modern systems (radio, instruments etc) to me would be a composite original aircraft.

I hasten to add that there is nothing wrong with this. Aircraft are industrial objects, built in series, and interchangeability of parts is part of their life.
It is not the same as if I "rebuilt" half of a Roman statue or (say) a Van Gogh which had been torn in half and passed it off as an original.

On the other hand, a new-build with an original engine and instruments is just that - new build. I don't know at which percentage I draw the line, but clearly at or above 50% (of airframe weight? parts count? Good question!). Accuracy is also a problem: if we stick with the Triplane example, there are NO factory drawings. All the modern reproductions are built to (a) Ron Sands drawings or variations thereof, or (b) reconstructions based on the study of the few original sources available. Just to skim the surface of the problem, there is still disagreement as to the basic shape of the aeroplane: was the upper fuselage longeron straight or sloped aft? A lot of work has gone into decyphering b/w photos to reach a conclusion.

So, no matter how good the workmanship, I would be very cautious about calling any Dr.I an exact copy of the original.

Going back to composites, the identity would be a different story. I agree that if the aircraft is to fly, identity takes second place to safety etc. In a museum, however, honesty in (re)presentation is a must and we must face the problem squarely. When I started playing with aeroplanes 25 years ago, people like PeterA and Paul Coggan taught me that in the RAF identities go by fuselage/crew carrying section and that everything else is considered a "spare part". I don't know whether this is the case elsewhere, but it seems as good a convention as any. (Come to think about it, a museum with a fuselage will say it has a P-51; one with wings will say it has parts.)

I have a great story on this. In WW2, the mechanics of an Italian squadron in Ethiopia presented the squadron CO with a brand new CR.32. He was very surprised, because he knew that no new aircraft had been delivered. So the crew tell him that they have rebuilt it from various wrecks etc and gave it the serial number of one of those. The aircraft flies well and is used on ops. Some time later, a reprimand comes from HQ for sloppy documentation: the daily efficiency returns regularly show an aircraft that was officially written off months before!

So you see, it's not just WIXers!

Gregory

can you just imagine the confusion that'd have come from their having a pilot flying missions in a plane that didn't exist, according to air force records at least?