Warbird Information Exchange

This one has been puzzling me for a while......

And mind you I am NOT an expert on this subject.

I was looking the other day at a very nice static restoration of the Me109 in Ottawa Canada and it daunted me that except for static rebuilts any flying restoration is bound to be an almost new machine.

So here it is................

A data plate/new scratch built vs. classical ( If you want ) FLYING restoration. Not static

In both case how much original material is left from the airframe vs. NOS or replicated components?

I.E.

- Airframe. I guess that minus the main spar, most aluminum is brand new formed. Unless you are lucky and the original frames & longerons are still in decent shape.

- Plumbing & wiring. Again my guess is that in both cases most is brand new.

- Various parts: casts, brackets.......etc...Now this is where you would probably see a lot of reusable components from an original airframe. That being said however again a lot could come from other sources than the original airframe.

- Instrumentation; In both cases I guess refurbished 2nd source components.

So then except for static restoration, how can a flying restoration can claim they have 80% of the original machine back in the air ?????? It just puzzles me….

Again I know they are some exceptions, and I not putting down the incredible work and effort required to bring wrecks to flying condition.

. That’s all.

This has been an explosive topic on WIX in the past. I suspect that it has been done to death. I am of the belief that if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck then it is just as good as a duck when it comes to demonstrating flight characteristics. I still value the statics that consist of the original material. They all have their place in preserving history. I can see things from both sides of the fence. So I guess you can say I don't mind the data plate recreations at all, just as long as it is documented someplace (Warbird Registry, WD4 or the Warbird Index for example) as to what they are.



Actually this one is likely to be more original than you think. This one was restored with the original bullet holes (the ones from the bullets that brought it down) preserved. If you haven't seen them look for one in a propellar blade, and ask one of the people in security to escort you around to the port side fuselage aft of the wing to see the others.

Regards,

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

Agree with Mike on this one..it has had the absolute sugar kicked out of it on every forum I visit.
IMHO if it is stated that an aircraft is 95% new [ as is done when Wanaka displays its Hurricane ] , then that is fine. We can appreciate what it represents and enjoy it.
If on the other hand we get. 'this aircraft is particularly historic.... it was once flown by Adolf Galland, we found it abandoned under the French sands, when recovered it was totally complete....in fact we found his log book on the seat and his cigar still in the ash tray... ' .
We restored it to fly , using as much of the original as possible... we were lucky to be able to re-use the data plate and the tailwheel...but keep that to yourself, because how can we make claims like' historic' ,' original'....and 'worth more money than you will ever see sonny' if that gets out..we need to keep repeating the myth so it becomes fact further down the line.

Whew...should I tell you what I really think ?

Dave

Hummm more or less what I was thinking

From Dave



That is exactly my point, just do not claim that it is The Original McCoy to 80% flying up in the air. AND again I am in no way underlying the effort/dough required.

Yup Mike I have seen the bullet hoes and this is what started me thinking about this. I know it has been an abused subject in the past.

And yes, if it is a perfect recreation of the actual thing, might as well call it like that.

This being said however, I do enjoy like Mike said both side of the fence:

In the air with the fulll experience of sound and the chill down your neck

And
Close on the groung as original as possible


But in any case I guess we cannot be too picky, at least we get to see the those bird we like so much in any case.

Cheers[/img]

IMHO in the future we cannot be too pickey as the complete and original aircraft are (mostly) already preserved or on display indoors (with some exeptions of course), and the chances of complete aircraft being recovered from fresh water lakes are getting less.

But if we want to close some gaps in aviation history in general, especially the older aircraft types then we cannot be choosers. For instance if 25 years from now a Short Stirling would be standing on it's wheels pieced together from all bits and pieces with new made sections (where have I heard that before......?) then are we going to dismiss this as being a replica again?

Personally I don't mind as long as the historical limitations are understood and I am also a strong advocate of the Duck......catagory.

My two (still unwanted) eurocents
Cheers

Cees

Maybe there should be a standard like wine has, To label it a certain wine type it has to have a certain % of that grape type or more. Just an Idea.

Evening all,

I saw this thread start and thought "Oh, no, here we go again..."

However it is an interesting and valid topic. Much of what is written is emotive / emotional or non- analytical or unqualified - that doesn't make it invalid, but it's worth a bit of digging before going off on one!

Some points to think about. The terms 'Original' 'Replica' 'Recreation' all have definitians in the museum biz (sadly not to hand for me at the moment - anyone?) Rather like the strict period definitions for 'Vintage' and 'Veteran' in the old car biz.

Percentage originality - again, worth looking closely; 80% original by:
a) Volume?
b) Weight?
c) Part count?
d) Something else?
All are valid (if stated) methods of quantifying, but like the differences between 'mean' 'median' and 'mode' averages, you've got to watch who's stating what. Given rivets are usually replaced, a percentage originallity by part counts usually very low!

It depends what the organisation's brief is. First divide we have is static vs restoration to fly. Almost without exception 'to fly' means replacement of a large number of parts which are not certifiable but would be OK in a static a/c, and replacement of historically acceptable materials with modern equivalents - but not, therefore original. Asbestos firewalls, radium painted instruments and W.W.II hoses being three which come to mind.

It is not axiomatic that a flying restoration means throwing most of the plane away; Spitfire MH434 was almost completely 'original' until its rebuild by ARCo in the early 1990s (IIRC) and Messerschmitt Bf109G6 'Black 6' was remarkably original; however these are exceptions. Magnesium based rivets in many warbirds need to be replaced...

It gets more complex when you start to talk about static. You or I can open a museum and put aircraft on display, and we can do what we want with them, label them how we want to a remarkable degree; however, if we want to join the museum organisations, we have to play by the rules, and they have aspects like this:

1. You have to document the 'provenance' and 'history' of the artifact.
2. Any changes or preservation actions also need to be documented.
3. If you replace parts or add parts, or remove parts you must document that; and normally, where possible label that item as replacement / non-original and changed by whom and when.

If you are a national heritage type collection, you have an obligation to do the above, PLUS 'preserve, interpret and present' 'original' artifacts. (Those terms are important here.) This is where the "Looks like a Duck" theorum falls down: The aircraft at the NASM in Washington, the Science Museum in London (for instance) are very careful to document how original the aircraft are. Why? Because original is just that, and for research an original artifact or document will give original data when evaluated or analysed; a non-original will give misleading information.

Gah. What a load of verbage. To make it real. There is a Mk.I Spitfire hanging in the Imperial War Museum, London. It is the real thing; in that the metal it is made from is the metal used by Supermarine's when it was built; so an analysis of that metal, in 250 years time will reveal exactly how that metal was made, how ductile it was, etc. There is no such thing as 'better' metal for that purpose; it is either original or it isn't. Better metals are avaliable for restorations; also cheaper too; but if you need to find out what Supermarine's used in the 1930s from a Spitfire rebuilt with other metal - you cannot. The rivet pattern is original - neither a better or worse copy from a 1990s restorer. Those rivets were put in in Supermarine's factory. In an argument about rivet lines on Spitfires, you can use this machine as a genuine, original example of what really happened. (I know, it gets so exciting... But sometimes that kind of argument IS important - James' believe it or not )

Paint. This Spitfire is painted in its W.W.II paint - from late war - NOT its 1940 Battle of Britain colours. There are understandable calls for it to be repainted into its famous and important 1940 colours. The IWM will never do that. They are simply NOT alowed to do so, as the paint it wears is the aircraft's original paint, made and applied in 1944. A repaint would destroy that original evidence for a cosmetic improvement. In 250 years, people would not be able to analyse that real, original, documented (thanks to provenance and history) paint and say what was used during W.W.II.

A bit of a lecture! I out to add that I work in a v. humble role within the Museum biz, and study this aspect of history and preservation - hence the length of the post.

And don't get me wrong, I like the whole range of preservation, replicas etc, etc - I'm a great one for fly 'em don't ground 'em. But there's some subtle stuff about what world class Museum's jobs actually are that gets missed by us enthusiasts sometimes.

So - it might look like a duck, quack like a duck, but it could still be Termanator duck... Which does't float good. and isn't the kind of duck you can rely on to do duck-like things at the end of the day!

Cheers
James K

HI THIS IS AN INTERESTING SUBJECT!! IF YOUVE WORK AROUND METAL A/C OR SAY THE AIRLINES YOU WILL KNOW THAT WHEN SAID A/C BECOMES DAMAGED,FLAK HOLE,BAD LANDING,HIT BY CATERING TRUCK,ECT.THE DAMAGED AREA IS DRILLED OFF REMADE FROM FLAT STOCK(A/C NO LONGER UNDER PRODUCTION)AND IS HAND CREATEDTO REPLACE THE NON USABLE PARTS.IF YOUR LUCKY SOME CAN BE SALVAGED FROM OTHER A/C BUT MOST TIMES MUST BE HANDCRAFTED IN ORDER TO RETURN THIS A/C TO FLIGHT STATUS.THIS IS A STANDARD PRACTICE ,DOES THAT MEAN THAT ITS NOW A REPLICA?COMBAT A/C ARE DESIGNED TO HAVE LARGE SECTIONS REPLACED IN THE FIELD/WINGS ,FUSELAGE SECTIONS,TAIL SURFACES,ECT.IS IT NOW BASTERDIZED?ONE NEEDS ONLY TO LOOK AT THE TRAINERS BUILT AT THAT TIME.THE BT-13,T-6 ARE DESIGNED TO HAVE WINGS ECT CHANGE IN A FEW HOURS AND RETURNED TO SERVICE!!ITS STILL THE SAME A/C ONLY REPAIRED.EVEN A WRECKED DERALECT A/C WITH MAJOR SKIN DAMAGE,CORROSION,OR MISSING AIR FRAME SECTIONS,IF ITS REBUILT FROM THE PATTERNS,ORSECTIONS RECOVERED FROM WRECKAGE,OR BUILT FROM A PRINT THIS IS A REPAIRED A/C NOT A REPLICA.AS FOR WIRING,CONTROL CABLES, ECT THIS IS ALL REPLACEABLE DO TO WEAR N TEAR,UPGRADES,RESTORATION,SAFETY NEEDS,ECT ENGINES, PROPS,WHEELS, BRAKES,ITEMS TERMED AS ROTABLES,ARE REPLACED ON A REGULAR BASES.WITH LARGE FLEETS OF A/C THESE ITEMS ARE SWITCHED FROM ONE TO ANOTHER ALL THE TIME !!DAMAGED PARTS ARE REPAIRED OR REBUILT AND PUT BACK INTO STORES UNTIL NEEDED ON THE NEXT ONE.THE FACTORY ONLY BUILDS SO MANY REPLACEMENT PARTS WHEN THERE GONE YOU CANT JUST ORDER A NEW ONE FROM WAL-MART IT MUST BE HAND CRAFTED FROM FLAT STOCK OR MACHINED FROM BILLET.NOW IF AN A/C IS BUILT NEW FROM PRINTS FROM START TO STOP AND IS AN EXACT COPY DOWN TO THE LAST RIVET IT IS BY ALL MEANS A REPLICA (F3FS,ME 262S,OSCARS,FW 190S,P-51S,ECT)OR IF SOME WILL CALL THEM SIMPLY NEW BUILT OR INSTEAD OF A NORTH AMERICAN P-51-D IT SHOULD BE LISTED AS A BECK/ODEGUARD (?SPELLING),P-51-D !! BUT NO MATTER HOW ONE LOOKS AT IT IT IS STILL A P-51PD!!!WE CAN ONLY BE GEATFUL TO THE SMALL HANDFUL OF DEDICATED FOLKS WHO SACRAFICE THEIR TIME,MONEY,AND LIVES TO RETURN THESE LOST ARTIFACTS OF A TIME GONE BYE TO THE PUBLIC EYE!! WEATHER ITS A STATIC DISPLAY OR A FLYING EXAMPLE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON THE VISUAL IMAGE THAT WE ENJOY LOOKING AT AND LESS FOCUSED ON WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN REPLACED TO GET IT TO THAT POINT IN TIME.IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN A/C REPAIR OR RESTORATION YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS WHAT KEEPS 60+YEAR OLD A/C IN THE AIR, WITH OUT HAND CRAFTED PARTS THERE WOULD BE ALLOT OF GROUND HOGS OUT THERE!!THANKS MIKE

Hi Mike,
Thanks for the post. (Please don't use caps throught though - hard to read!)

As regards repairs and replacement. It can be simple! If it was a repair or replacement in service, that's part of the original a/c (which is why the provenance and history are important - they should contain that kind of info... (I know they often don't! ) and thus form part of the history of that machine.

Repairs / replacement in 'secondary service' are more tricky. The SS Great Britain was the first ironbuilt propeller driven steamship, but was reconfigured as a sailing ship with a drop screw arrangement. The restoration team have removed the historically important drop screw setup as it's not as important as the ship's original configuration - an example of the hard choices sometimes needed.

So in aircraft terms TBMs in firefighting setup show an important part of the heritage of the TBM; and are a historic part of that machine's history. But those bits often get taken out to reconfigure the a/c to W.W.II configuration - but those parts aren't (usually) original to that aircraft. That's why one going to (say) Pensacola or NASM will have a paperwork trail for those changes, and that's why museums like that go for as original and unmodified as they can get, so an to have as original an artifact as possible.

They are doing a different job to those guys who want to rebuild and fly a TMB as a tribute - and the originality takes second place to how good it looks, and (ironically) how authentic it looks. As well as how 'safe' it is to fly today. See the difference?

And I'll echo you thanks to all the guys who do this work.

Cheers
James K

Of course replacement parts , engines etc happened during the original aircrafts' service, but if a B-17 flap was damaged by flak, and it was replaced by one from another B-17 a week later..it is using an original B-17 part from the same era and part of history. Even if that happens now, if it is a B-17 part, its origins date back to that period of history, because that is when it was built.
As far as the Beck P-51s go , they are P-51s , but they are NOT historic, at least for many years to come. To use James numbers..a Beck 51 will be historic in 250 years, as an aircraft built as new in the 21st century.....that is of course if it is documented as such! From what I have seen so far that doesn't look too promising.....the myth of a certain new build P-51 being Major Gillers ' Millie G' already being propagated in some quarters... ;-0
I certainly apreciate what is being done by many to get a pile of scrap back in the air, and enjoy them for what they are.. a true representation of something from the past. I am pleased to see the new 262s, P-51, and eventually the 190s are taking to the sky...hopefully this will happen more and more, which will to some degree safeguard those original and historical machines that remain, which are still vulnerable to those with more money than they may have 'sense'.

Dave

JDK......

Agree that the national museums have a different perspective on the issue.

They actually see AC more as artifact to preserve.

Again in Ottawa, the RAF B.E. 2c restoration has a restoration log that made me realize the importance of tracking the what, when, & how you do things for older AC.

Just for the fact that in 200 years + from now, they will want to know the real venue and importance of the artifact and its internals.



All component not original or replicated are clearly marked and recorded.


I was lucky to get to chat with one of the chap that worked on the restoration and the way that the AC is displayed (1/2 not covered and exposed) really shows nicely the difference between the new and original parts.

It is much easier to see which one is which on those old birds.

In most current restorations, this might be true. Nowadays, most warbirds are restored from parts or just plain junk. Most of the warbirds out there though were restored years ago from sound airframes requiring relatively minor repair. Of late, many Mustangs have been re-restored (reskinned for appearance reasons or converted to TF-51 status).

My T-6 project has been in storage for a number of years, but is basically a sound airplane. I realize this isn't really a very historic aircraft, but the airworthiness and appearance issues still apply.

Some of the work is being done for airworthiness reasons- some bogus work done previous to my obtaining the aircraft is being fixed. This entails replacing a couple of smaller skins and putting some doublers on internal structure. Missing parts are being replaced with New Old Stock (NOS) parts when they are available. Things like hoses are life limited items, so they are being replaced as well. The wiring is shot (the old insulation does not hold up well over time). I had to replace 3 skins and 4 ribs in the right wing due to damage (from storage mostly). And of course the engine will require overhaul too.

As far as appearance is concerned, I am replacing the dented up vertical stabilizer skins, I will reskin the side panels, and will be replacing a horizontal stabilizer 1/2 with another used part.

All in all, everything came from North American Aviation with the exception of about 25 pounds of aluminum sheet. Maybe I'm replacing another 50 pounds of structure with vintage used or NOS replacement parts.

20 or 25 years ago when P-51 projects were plentiful, there wasn't much reason to re-spar or replace longerons. Those aircraft went to museums as static displays because they weren't worth the effort to make them airworthy (P-51 value was $250k-$300k).

Most of the easy stuff has already been restored, leaving only the real wrecks to do. The value of these aircraft have finally made it feasible to restore them. 20 years ago nobody wanted a Hellcat- everyone wanted a Mustang. Everyone still wants a Mustang, but now the rarer types are appreciated as well.

As time goes on, more and more warbirds will have more newly manufactured parts up until the time they are all essentially new-build. The older the restoration though, the more likely that most of the original components remain.

Great post bdk,
Both for the insight into what your approach and choices are, and giving a 'timeline' perspective on the choices rebuilding people have taken in the past and now, as well as the future.

A rider to that, is as you say, more difficult / less original a/c will be tackled. This goes (ironically) with a desire for greater 'originality' of setup, which is harder than ever before to achieve!

The tricky areas we haven't really touched on are data plate restorations, ie, 'have plate, will make airoplane around it', and honesty in representation.

Using a data plate gives an aircraft an identity, and thus adds a lot to the cash value of the a/c. For me, it doesn't make it 'Adolf Galland's original aircraft' - because the new metal was never seen by Adolf! However it is all too easy to enhance orignality over time, and this continually happens. - As long as you are honest about what is what, that's fine (and why National Collections stamp new parts with the details) but it gets fudged all too often. The Bristol Bulldog ('G-ABBB') rebuild at the RAF Museum has a cutaway with the origin of which parts marked in different colours - a great way of doing it.

And the real problem is swapped IDs. There's a few a/c out there (including but not limited to P-51Ds) that claim to be a/c 'a' but are actually aircraft 'b' or a bitser. And all hell breaks loose if someone prints the facts about them!

On that note, I'm off to my historians bunker!

Cheers / Salut

James K

So can it be stated that........

And yes it is a very simplified statement

On a general note we should just be happy and not too picky about was is being done out there nowadays ??? Like Cees mentioned, restoring 50 year old + bird these days, you will most likely start from a pile of metal and sometime not even. Unless there you have a rare gem find.
AKA the 109 in India, or the Buffalo where ever it is now.

And leave the historical preservation about artifact to national museums ?