Warbird Information Exchange

The lively thread about the so-called MB.5 begs the question of what consitutes a "replica".
- a faithful reproduction of a lost original, with minor concessions to unavailable materials, higher safety standards etc (e.g., the new-build FW190)
- something modified into something else (maybe not a Buchon turned BF 109, but certainly the various Texans turned into NA-64 and the oike)
- something with the same external lines and size, but with structural concessions for whatever reason (e.g., the various wooden Spitfires)
- a part-scale machine with faithful lines (e.g., the 7/8 biplanes)
- something inspired by but not necessarily resembling the original (dare I say it? the MB.5 ...).

And what is an aircraft 100% true to the original but built 60 to 90 years later?

Gregory

Is there such a thing to date ? I know the new Yak fighters out of Russia were considered to be ' a continuation of the series' after the production line had been ' interrupted'. Perhaps this would have been an example of '100% true'.... if they had fitted an original engine as opposed to the Allison.

Dave

Considered by whom? Were they declared "continuation" by the current Yak company or by Western investors? Which also introduces the question of who does the work.
If North American had resumed stock P-51 production in 1977, those would have certainly been "late production".
If I bought the type certificate for the Macchi C.205, and resumed production, maybe it would be late production.
But if you reverse engineered a museum aircraft, albeit very faithfully, would it be "late production"?
By the way - I seem to recall that the "late" Yak-3 are not entirely the same as their wartime predecessors. Apart from the engine, I think there are significant structural differences in the wings. But I am going from an increasingly fading memory and could very well be wrong.

Gregory

There's the Shuttleworth Sopwith Triplane, built to original specs and drawings with an original engine. No less a person than Sir T O M Sopwith himself gave permission for them to use the first unused c/n after the original run, as he said that it was effectively a continuation of production.

What does it matter? It is the same with old muscle cars, houses, anything that has to be restored or rebuilt to working condition. If it becomes tangible, and better yet airworthy, who cares.. It's better than just seeing them in a book. One could argue that to make a plane legal to fly (in the States anyways) they have to be modified to such a point that none are "Original." Enjoy what folks have worked on for what they are.

Sorry, usually keep my mouth shut around here but thought this was something I needed to comment on.

Mike

The originality of a rebuilt 1945 airplane is a completely different thing. What I am addressing is a different matter.

If you check out the MB5 thread, you will notice that the so-called replica is very different from the original. If it were a scale model contest, whether static or flying, it would get very few points. Yet, since one day it might fly, it is termed a "replica".
Well, if that is an MB5 replica, what do you call the new-build FW190, Me 262, even Oscars?

So, I restate the question. I am not asking what is original - we've been over that enough times. I want to know how faithful an aircraft must be in order to be a replica. If shape, material, dimensions, documentation are considered irrelevant, then I fail to see how the painstakingly built FW190 are different from the 1/2 scale WAR kits. But by just looking at them we all know that there is a big difference between the two.

Gregory

I would say by the Westerners who ordered them.....more of a 'PR' thing I suppose. Although by all accounts the Russians produced the first of the Yak 3Uas to wartime specs - i.e. very rough, but rugged. That is why there were quite a few problems with them in the beginning, in the West.... they required many modifications in order to meet our CAA/FAA regulations.

I have no experience in the building of aircraft (unless you class anything in 1/72 or 1/48 scale as experience ) and I appreciate that each point will have different levels but could the following, very simplistic view, be considered for this subject.

1 - If components of an existing airframe are used, which include the firewall,cockpit and confirmed identity, then I feel that it is fair to call such a project a Class One Restoration.
2 - If components of an existing airframe are used, which include the firewall, cockpit but unconfirmed identity, then I feel that it is fair to call such a project a Class Two Restoration.
3 - If a project is built from the ground up, using original drawings/tooling, I feel that this could be classified as a Continuation of the Production Line.
4 - If a project is built from the ground up, without original drawings/tooling or components, I feel that this could be classified as a New Build.
5 - If a project is built from the ground up, without original drawings/tooling or components and is not too scale, I feel that this could be classified as a Replica.

However, having check my Dictionary, it gives several meanings for the word Replica...

1- "a duplicate of a work made by an original artist"
2- "a facsimile, an exact copy"
3- "a copy or model esp. on a smaller scale"

... so it looks like we pays our money and takes our choice but ultimately what does it matter as long as the owner enjoys the experience and if we the public, get to see the airframe, so much the better.

_________________
...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in Space cos there's bugger all down here on Earth!

A couple of people have (quite sensibly) posted 'what does it matter' over the differences. There's two reasons why it matters. One is money, provenance originality and status such as 'replica' or 'late production' affects what things do or don't cost.

The other, from a museum perspective is that originality is very important in a historical document / artifact - so correct terminology is critical in that arena. Call it what you like, but if you plan to sell it, or include it in a national museum collection, you'll have good reason to be accurate.

Thanks for the input Mike S - don't hang back - everyone welcome!

Cheers

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

HI I THINK THAT IF AN A/C IS BASED ON THE REMAINS OF A FACTORY BUILT A/C RESTORED TO FACTORY SPECS USING THE SAME MATERIALS AND THE ASSIGNED SERIAL NUMBER IT IS A RESTORED/ORIGINAL AIR FRAME.IF ITS BUILT TO ORIGINAL FACTORY SPECS USING ALL NEW MATERIALS,WITH POSSIBLE FACTORY BUILT PARTS SUCH AS LANDING GEAR LEGS,ENGINE/PROP ECT IT CAN BE CALLED A CONTINUATION OF PRODUCTION.AN A/C BUILT TO PHYSICALLY LOOK LIKE OR REPRESENT A FACTORY BUILT A/C USING NON STANDARD MATERIALS SUCH AS WOOD FIBERGLASS EXC AND NOT CONFORMING TO ORIGINAL PRINTS MUST ONLY BE CLASSIFIED AS A REPLICA.BUT MY HATS OFF TO ANYONE WITH THE AMBITION TO CREATE A MISSING PIECE OF OUR AVIATION HISTORY!!UNDISCOVERED AIR FRAMES ARE BECOMMING HARDER AND HARDER TO FIND AND THE ONES WE DO FIND ARE USUALLY IN POOR CONDITION AND NEED LOTS OF LOVE/CASH TO RETURN THE TO FLYING OR EVEN DISPLAYABLE CONDITION.A/C THAT DONT EXIST CAN ONLY BE RECREATED FROM PLANS OR EVEN OLD PHOTOGRAPHS!THANKFULLY WE NOW HAVE MANY DISPLAY/FLYING A/C THAT HAVE BEEN RESURECTED IN THIS MANNER.BLUE SKYS, MIKE

The question still remains...what is "original".

I fly current USAF jets, and I can tell you that probably zero of the aircraft I fly are the same way they came from the factory. New wings, new skins, new control surfaces, new components. These things are changed as the normal mode of operation during the aircrafts' service life. So, does that make them "not original"?

Several years ago an F-15E over at RAF Lakenheath had a massive brake fire after a high-speed takeoff abort. The airplane was significantly damaged and shipped in a C-5 to the maintenance depot at Warner Robbins. It took 2 years to rebuild it. Is this aircraft worth less to a museum in your opinion?

I think this is a very fuzzy line no matter how you choose to classify it.

I couldn't agree more.

The general rule I use, is if it starts from an original it's a restoration. Built from drawings or reverse engineered, but to original specs and of the same construction(possibly incorporating original components like the Flug Werk Fw-190's) it's a reproduction. If the construction or size is substantially different from original, it's a replica.

_________________
Dan Johnson

It seems we can't separate the definition of replica from that of original. Well, I agree with JDK that accurate definitions are important - because of the monetary value but also because museums (well - real ones, not the tax-shelter variety) have an obligation to accuracy.

I disagree with the notion that anything with the same look and materials is an original, even in the somewhat lesser "late production" category.

I certainly think than anything less than full size, or with significant technological changes (all composite P-51), is not a replica but something else: a large model, a mock-up, a look-alike and so on.

And this still does not solve the issue of my building a Merlin-engined, steel tube framed, plastic-winged thing, shorter airplane and calling it a Macchi 200, Brewster Buffalo or Ta.152.

Gregory

Hi Randy,

Excellent response, thanks for the input. But you see, I don't think 'original' = 'as built' which is the assuption most people make.

The point is that an object depends on its document history. Let's take that F-15 you mention - much more interesting, much more history than an a/c that was a hangar queen. the 'Architype Museum' would be pleased to have that a/c, provided the documentation came with it and tied up to it; in service or in use changes are fine.

The tricky area comes in when the Museum gets the F-15 after the accident, BEFORE the USAF repairs are made. Do they leave it as it is? (Original, with risk of further deterioration...) Do they 'conserve' it (Make repairs to stop deterioration, but do not repair it to 'servicable' or 'good as new') Or do they rebuild it using their equipment and non USAF parts, to make it look new/servicable/complete?

Bear in mind the Architype Museum adhering to the Museums standard, has to use a set of rules (not 'like to', but 'have to'! ) that are the same whether it's a Leonardo etching, a Roman coin, a First Nation's cloak, or a Battle of Britain Spitfire. The same rules do work, but are less seen in industrial heritage than elsewhere.

I went into the Museum responsibility thing in more detail in an earlier thread...

Oh, and some tax break museums are world leaders. Gugenheim, Getty, Thyssen Bornemitza for instance.

The answer to the question? There isn't an agreed standard of terms in our field (While there is strict definitions for 'Veteran' and 'Vintage' in historic cars for instance) so you can call it what you like. Getting everyone else to agree can be a bit more difficult!

Cheers,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I have said before that a key concept in determining authenticity/originality is continuity. Repairs, replacements, upgrades and other changes from factory standard are original if performed during service or to return the machine to service immediately after an accident - just think of the Swoose.

But doing the same 60 years later, recreating a Swoose from scratchbuilt parts, would not be original, even if the configuration were exactly the same. Similarly, museums don't weather their aircraft as modellers do with dioramas.

And JDK, yes, some legitimate museums originated as tax shelters. But most of the so-called museums aren't devoted to education, research and the like. I think that in California the only requirement to class a private collection as a museum is that it be open to the public once a month, or something like that. Don't get me wrong - I think private collectors do wonders in saving, recovering and mainly flying their aircraft; some are even very nice human beings. But a hangar with a flag and a few posters on the wall, some models in display cases and a mannequin or two is still somewhat short of a museum, in my personal opinion.

Gregory