Historical authenticity... is it important to you?

[planeoldsteve]

With just my limited experience in Trainers, (BT-13, Stearman, T-34's) 300m.p.h. Fighters may be different but, the things you can do with a hand held in this day and age, I don't see a need to cut up an instrument panel. Ok "I have it!" lets pull the old panels out and save them and put a G1000 in every thing. I think you are taking something away from the experience when you don't have the old two position prop, wobble fuel pump and the old inertial starter. A T-34 with vacuum Gyros and 300h.p is cool but it not the same plane.You can just get an F1 Rocket, paint it up like a mustang and go to town for that matter.

Steve

[Randy Haskin]

I think you are taking something away from the experience when you don't have the old two position prop, wobble fuel pump and the old inertial starter.

Yeah...that 'thing' is safety of flight!

[Ollie]

K5083, nice to see the late Joe Kynast's Fw 149.

If you want to play accuracy nazi, please note that his crosses are not Luftwaffe regulations, as are the codes.

Yellow? Harvards should be yellow. I know about it since our Harvard is green.

On my Fw, we found old yellow paint, so at one point it was yellow, but it also started its life in aluminium finish (JD+392 IIRC) before having a few other codes and lastly having 91+45.

As for the BT-13, you are comparing apples to oranges. We have a mostly stock airplane with a different paint scheme. Think of it as a blonde (from Germany) with her hair died in brown.

[planeoldsteve]

I think you are taking something away from the experience when you don't have the old two position prop, wobble fuel pump and the old inertial starter.

Yeah...that 'thing' is safety of flight!

Should I have added Two turbine engines and that G1000 panel or should we just stay home in bed.

Steve

[k5083]

As for the BT-13, you are comparing apples to oranges. We have a mostly stock airplane with a different paint scheme. Think of it as a blonde (from Germany) with her hair died in brown.

Perfect analogy Ollie, and I had no intent to offend. I think of her as an Italian who happened to be born in Germany, or maybe a German with strong Italian roots, but whatever -- she's certainly enough of a hottie to survive a dye job. No matter what I think of the dye job.

Out of curiosity, not trying to play "designation nazi", but was the designation "Fw 149" ever really officially assigned to the FW-built P.149s?

In some ways the comparison to the BT-13 is apt, in others not. Your dye job is definitely better executed and comes with less plastic surgery. But both seem to be cases of a trainer owner having, shall we say, "cannon envy"...

August

[bdk]

...I don't see a need to cut up an instrument panel..

Doubt that happens much. It is very challenging to put a slim rectangular radio in a hole where a round instrument used to be. BY the time you modify it you would be time and money ahead to just make a new one.

[Ollie]

The real designation is FwP.149D, but we call her a Fw or a Messerschmitt (don't ask why!)

[RyanShort1]

An original aircraft sure is fun to work with. At Cannon we have some aircraft such as the J-3 Cub that are mostly stock aircraft with very few modifications. It's nice to be able to talk with folks and mention how authentic things are and how they worked. On the other hand, I've personally taken the L-2 Grasshopper to Midland and back on a three-day trip. I can tell you right now that I WOULD NOT to do it again if the aircraft was returned to 100% stock configuration. The aircraft's modifications include a starter (Very helpful if you have to stop along the way at small airports for fuel - if no one's around, you can legally start the aircraft), and a GPS for supplemental navigation information. The instrument panel is very basic and would be somewhat unhelpful if one ran into unexpected weather, or a VFR haze situation. I've been flying in what was advertised as VFR weather, where you couldn't see very far at all due to sun and haze. Engines are becoming harder to obtain, and the L-2 has a Continental 85hp engine on the nose. We could put an old 65hp on the nose like the other L-2, but it just wouldn't be the aircraft that I would want to take cross-country then. Personally, I'd like to see the aircraft repainted without the invasion stripes and such, but it makes for a more visible paint scheme, and repainting a fabric covered aircraft isn't cheap either, and I can't just pony up the money for it.
At the last airshow I did have some folks make comments about the GPS and such, but frankly, most didn't know the difference, and no one at all asked about the engine. We were able to tell folks about the brave men who flew liaison aircraft during WW2 and how these little aircraft provided vital services to the men at the front. Ultimately I think that WHY you are doing what you are doing is what will determine what you can, will, and or won't do with the aircraft as far as authenticity is concerned and what compromises you are willing to make in order to acheive your goals.

Ryan

[fritzthefox]

Now on to relativity. Fritzthefox, sure your points are fair in that there was great variation out there. However if your argument is carried out to its logical conclusion it faces the same problem as so many post-modern challenges to traditional history (in their extreme form anyways - the direction it seems to me that you're going in). Basically you end up in no-mans land with nothing to hold onto.

Arrggh, no, no desire to go skiing down the old slippery slope. In fact, I bust my hump researching historical details in my artwork, and while I often find it to be a game of diminishing returns after a while, I think we do have an obligation to future generations to try to preserve as much of the truth as we can, at least if we are selling it as such. So I'm not going to argue for post-modernism. That's for people who think that using different coffee beans in your coffee make you an intellectual.

I just wanted to point out that

A) There is a fine line between pursuing history and waving a book around in the air claiming it is the word of [insert your maker here].

B) There is a certain irony in honoring old examples of bygone planes, when many of today's existing aircraft now rusting away in salvage yards will soon be viewed with the same reverence and ignorance as to their actual history. It is one of the interesting little quirks of human nature that we seem to love to uncover the past, but hate to preserve the present. I fear it will only get worse in the future, with digital technology making any historical record both fugitive and difficult to authenticate.

Not really making a argument for or against anything, just leaving pawprints in the snow to ponder...

[Warren_C]

I guess I fall into the category of employing technology is a good thing, for both the occupants and expanding the capability or usable service life of any historic aircraft. If this means replacing the tail skid, cotton covering, drum brakes or putting in a electrical system to drive radios and a mode C transponder so that you can fly safely, then so be it. We did not develop and employ this technology because these things were nice to haves.

When we go back to flying from smudge pot to smudge pot as a means of navigation, I’ll remove that unnecessary radio/satellite navigation equipment.

I would bet that 99% of the fabric found on aircraft flying today (whether wearing a historically accurate scheme or not) is some brand of polyfiber and not Grade A cotton or linen.

While, it seems everyone has an opinion on the paint scheme and preferred equipment. I can guarantee that if asked not one person in here would say – No thanks to an airplane ride in a Stearman, Texan or Mustang by stating: Sir/Madam “I only ride in historically significant aircraft and yours has an inaccurate paint scheme, redline brakes, and radios!

[Warren_C]

I guess Steve didn't get the memo on historical accuracy. In best Jon Lovitz voice: Its a Garmin gunsight, I tell yeah, thats the ticket.twisted:

running and ducking for cover

[planeoldsteve]

While, it seems everyone has an opinion on the paint scheme and preferred equipment. I can guarantee that if asked not one person in here would say – No thanks to an airplane ride in a Stearman, Texan or Mustang by stating: Sir/Madam “I only ride in historically significant aircraft and yours has an inaccurate paint scheme, redline brakes, and radios!

This is preferred opinions and I hope that I have not offended anyone.This is funny because I normally would debate on the side of safety and I have put a Jasco alternator and solid-state regulator on planes in the past. I think we just need to do the best we can to preserve history and the experience.

Steve

[Warren_C]

While, it seems everyone has an opinion on the paint scheme and preferred equipment. I can guarantee that if asked not one person in here would say – No thanks to an airplane ride in a Stearman, Texan or Mustang by stating: Sir/Madam “I only ride in historically significant aircraft and yours has an inaccurate paint scheme, redline brakes, and radios!

This is preferred opinions and I hope that I have not offended anyone.This is funny because I normally would debate on the side of safety and I have put a Jasco alternator and solid-state regulator on planes in the past. I think we just need to do the best we can to preserve history and the experience.

Steve

You haven't offended me, we all have different viewpoints, life would be boring otherwise.

This has been an interesting thread, I appreciate all the owner/operators who fly and maintain these aircraft (historic or otherwise).

As long as my father is willing to hand over the keys to his Stearman I'd rather go flying. Although, our flight planning technique is historically accurate, we plan our legs using a calendar.

Just trying to add a humor to the conversation, cause i'd much rather get accused of timing out the 220 over applying an incorrect paint scheme.

Warren

[Warren_C]

Since, this started with the Fw, how about this for a paint scheme

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/german-luftwaffe/ajn

[Randy Haskin]

I guess Steve didn't get the memo on historical accuracy. In best Jon Lovitz voice: Its a Garmin gunsight, I tell yeah, thats the ticket.twisted:

Yeah, and tell him he needs to ditch that Gentex HGU-55 helmet and the aramid flight suit...the one with Velcro on it.