TFC P-40F Replica

[Lightning]

Howdy all

Just found this on the TFC website Murray Griffith P-40F Replica finally arrives at Duxford

http://friends-of-tfc.blogspot.com/

Lightning

[Matt Gunsch]

News all ready been broken here
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=41632

[Mike Halbrook]

Good looking plane, why is it considered a "replica"?

[51fixer]

Good looking plane, why is it considered a "replica"?

Nit Pickers and rivet counters

[6trn4brn]

Nit-pickers, rivet counters and naysayers...the scourge of the modern warbird world

[lmritger]

Nit-pickers, rivet counters and naysayers...the scourge of the modern warbird world

As a charter member of Rivet Counters Local 3.1416, I'd like to offer the following bit of wisdom as a retort:

Just because a cat has kittens in an oven doesn't make'em biscuits.

In other words- it's people like us rivet counters that help people understand what's right and what's not when it comes to authenticity and historical provenance. Frankly, it's my experience that most restorers fall into the Rivet Counter camp- I know Taigh does, just look at the lengths he's going to in order to get his 'Poon back into stock military configuration.

It's not a bad thing unless you're trying to pass something off as something it ain't.

Lynn

[Nathan]

Nit-pickers, rivet counters and naysayers...the scourge of the modern warbird world

As a charter member of Rivet Counters Local 3.1416, I'd like to offer the following bit of wisdom as a retort:

Just because a cat has kittens in an oven doesn't make'em biscuits.

In other words- it's people like us rivet counters that help people understand what's right and what's not when it comes to authenticity and historical provenance. Frankly, it's my experience that most restorers fall into the Rivet Counter camp- I know Taigh does, just look at the lengths he's going to in order to get his 'Poon back into stock military configuration.

It's not a bad thing unless you're trying to pass something off as something it ain't.

Lynn

I really hate to disagree with friends. But I agree with Lynn. It's not so much rivet counting. It's more of wanting and hoping to see something accurately.

[Trey Carroll]

If this isn't a P-40F, then what is it?

I don't get it.

[lmritger]

If this isn't a P-40F, then what is it?

I don't get it.

I don't know, but it looks incredibly good. What airframe served as the basis for this... whatever you call it? (It's clearly a P-40, seems a little odd to call it a "replica" when it's based on a genuine article... perhaps a "reproduction"?)

I really am looking forward to seeing shots of this with the P-40C and Hawk 75!

Lynn

[RobC]

My Webster's dictionary defines replica as: 1 : a close reproduction or facsimile esp. by the maker of the original 2 : COPY, DUPLICATE syn see REPRODUCTION

Note: all caps are their's, not mine. Seems like a very accurate description of said P-40 F

[Jesse C.]

Replica, reproduction or copy, if I can put my hands on it, it is pretty darn real!

I know that there are some who know the difference and care about that, but, to the general population, does it really matter? I know that some have laid claim to having the real one vs. a copy on the merit of only a part of data plate, and yes, they have been called out by those in the know, but again, does this really matter to the vast majority of folks who will see the item, either static or flying, and really care about that when they are seeing it in the flesh themselves?

For the geeks amongst us, pretty much all of us, it is good to know such details so there is a history of these birds, but to Joe Average, they are just glad to see such a piece. I fall amongst the two camps, I am glad to know the history of the plane but I am also really glad someone built one so I could enjoy it, wether it be the real deal or a clone.

Just glad to be alive in a time where some planes are coming back that some thought they would never see again.

So lets us hoist a brew to those who do by those of us who watch.

[Jerry O'Neill]

P-40F's had a Merlin engines.
Jerry

[RobC]

I actually agree with you, Jesse. I just decided to look up what a "Replica" really means. Since the P-40 F that was recovered along with Judy Pay's is being restored as a P-40 E, there is sweet justice in the appearance of this "F" for us Merlin lovers. Having been lucky enough to see the Hawk and P-40 C that appeared at Chino before they went to England, I can truthfully say that my warbird experience was greatly enhanced by the appearance of these incredible airplanes. Both were airplanes I never expected to see, especially the Hawk. I know that they contain probably less than 50% original parts, but they contain a lot of original parts, and they look, smell and feel like what they are. Some bitchin planes!

[Dan K]

...Just because a cat has kittens in an oven doesn't make'em biscuits...

I guess I like kittens then.

[Nathan]

P-40F's had a Merlin engines.
Jerry

Some were re-equiped with Allisons too.

BTW: reproductions are not replica's IMHO. So if someone builds a P-40C from original plans but use 95% new made parts and metal it is still REAL to me. The only difference is the year in which it was made and maybe a few "new" items to make it safer like avionics, GPS, etc.

I third in asking can we get the story if this is a P-40F or not? PLEASE! Site said its a "F" and sure looks like it to me. Kinda hard to tell yet if its a short tail version or long tail version. As the P-40F had both versions. I dont have my referances on me otherwise I could give myself that answer! I forget!

Last edited by Nathan on Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.