Warbird Information Exchange

Another thread (that I don't want to get intangled with) somewhat discussed the reality of fully restoring a warbird to either flying condition or very accurate static condition.

Questions: Should a restorer .. i.e. Museums, collectors, private owners etc. restore their aircraft to as accurate and original as they can? Should this be a resposibility? Do they have an obligation to achieve the most accurate of paint schemes? Should a museum display an aircraft that isn't close to what it had been or should be? Should they sell, hand over or whatever, to someone or group that can restore the aircraft correctly?

Very interesting debate here for many reasons. I have seen warbirds at museums and airshows that, quite frankly, are somewhat embarassing to look at. Don't get me wrong here, I'm well aware of all the difficult obsticles that go into warbird restorations. But as an example, if you can afford to own a warbird, why can't you at least give the aircraft an accurate paint scheme? ... Let me guess ... "It's my airplane, I can paint it any color I want" .... very true, but come on, don't you think that you should, or at least should try, to honor the memory of the aircraft, history of the aircraft and most important, the memory of the pilots who flew the aircraft? .... I don't want to start a big fight here, since Christmas is around the corner, but I would love to hear some interesting debate about Warbird ownership and a sense of responsibility of the history of that particular warbird .... Is there such a thing or does the owner have nothing or no one to answer to as far as being an owner? Last question: If you can't do it right, should you try to do it at all?

.... my very little two cents ....

Mark the ... ouch!!!! .... these hornets sting ....

OK, so I swing both ways...watch! I am from automotive background as well as aircraft.

There has always been the debate between the "nut and bolt" counters in the auto restoration world and the guys who want to make it "good enough" to represent the breed but have a great, drivable vehicle.

I'd guess the the same argument can be made for aircraft. Does it matter if a Warbird has all the right bolts, numbers, paint schemes etc.? Is it enough to have a great flyable bird that represents the era? That is kind of in the hands of the owner. What does he want? For investment purposes, depending on the buyer (should it be sold) is the aircraft worth significantly more money if the AN washers are the correct number?

Don't know. In my humble opinion, no text lingo here, I'm for seeing an authentic vintage aircraft. I really don't care if "Petie 2nd" is really that aircraft or an authentic aircraft painted to honor the original. Just as I don't care if a Lola T-332 F5000 car is actually Mario Andretti's or just restored to look like it.

That's just me.

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

Your absolutely right, the aircraft doesn't have to have the original paint scheme, but at least an accurate paint scheme. Would you agree? ... Also very interesting would be to know how many Warbirds today have an original civilian paint scheme still. Some P-51's after the war had some pretty paint schemes. Anyone have a photo of a warbird today that is not in military colors. Most noteably P-51's?

This comes down to the personal property issue.
No one is going to dictate any standards other than airworthiness standards by the FAA for a flying warbird.
When I was involved in a shop which painted a certain Skyraider a horrible color blue, we were told that when we have our own warbird we can paint it however we want. That is the bottom line on anything that is owned.
Each owner is going to be different in terms of what he wants.
In todays environment of restricted airspace you need certain radios which weren't even dreamed of when most of these aircraft were built. The use of these radios and modern avionics makes operating safer. There have been several warbirds lost over the years because of the lack of decent instruments while flying IFR. Having operating instruments and IFR avionics could have prevented the scud running situations. Pilot decisions also are a factor here but were talking about the aircraft configurations.
Many of the engines of WWII had many generations of development take place in just a few years. The later engines are far more reliable and often more powerful than the earlier models. Also certain models of the engines have higher complexity or some quirks built into them that a different model avoids. Some early Corsairs replace the -18 with a -79 A-26 engine. The stock engine has a complex aux. Supercharger with an updraft carb. On starts the carb drips fuel which can cause a fire hazard. The exhaust outlets are inches from where the fuel drips out the lower cowl. (As you start if you hear a whomp sound you hope the engine starts very soon to blow out the fire or the observers will fire the extinguishers. If you have a fire watch that is. At that point the ones who haven't seen this happen before get really big eyeballs.) By replacing with a -79 you simplify operation greatly and make it safer and easier to operate.
My point is to make a restored aircraft that is as easy to operate and as reliable as possible is an important factor to consider. Paint really isn't as important as what is underneath the paint.
Rich

Yes Rich, all very valid points, I understand the ethics about todays mechanical and avionics being no where near what they were in the 1940's, but I guess my point is the unfortuanate reality that there are some flyable warbirds today with questionable paint schemes and some museums (albeit very few) with less than accurate restorations. I hope I'm not knocking any of them, I'm really not, just wondering where and why they chose certain paint schemes. Seems an authentic scheme would have cost the same amount. .... Only my observations ... and my observations only .... We've killed this dead horse a while ago, but the CAF's F4F comes to mind along with Polar Bear.

Ugh!!!!!! .... I'm feeling the heat already.

So what do you think about the Reno racing Warbirds who aren't wearing a correct scheme? If it is your warbird and you are flying it.. it doesnt matter how it's painted... period.
In regards to the CAF's FM-2... It was donated that way... It would be stupid of us to say, "No, we don't want that million-dollar warbird until it is accurately painted."
In polar bear's case, It is a rare model P-51 that is flying... what more do we want?

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

The way I see it a static air museum should restore their aircraft as close to original as possible. That includes equipment and paint schemes. I understand that an aircraft might be painted to represent another aircraft, and that is fine, just so it is an accurate representation of that aircraft. That being said, most museums have more than one aircraft, and have to work on a budget with both funds and time, just like anything else. I can fully understand why flying warbirds need to have updated equipment on board. I can also understand putting a glossy paint on them to help with the preservation and ease of cleaning.
I can not agree with the phrase it is mine, and I will paint it how I want when we are talking about warbirds. So would that standard apply to static aircraft as well? Or just flying ones? If a static museum painted an aircraft in a complete wrong paint scheme, and then had the reply, "It is ours and we can paint it how we like", you guys would be jacked. But if a flying one does the same, it is all good. One standard will be just fine. Static museums take alot of flak here. I defend them wehn they are right, and try to point out if they are wrong so that it can be corrected. Some on here just condem a static museum for the fact they are static. I happen to enjoy static museums and feel that they are very important. Flying warbirds are very important, but on a day to day basis, alot of people don't have access to warbirds that fly. Many of them are private collectors that don't watn to be bothered. To some of them, luckily just a few, it is nothing more than a toy.
Let's look at P-38's for example. I have seen the NMUSAF's example and the one at the NASM both in just this month alone. Anyone seen Glacier Girl ? I don't mean to sound rude to the owner of this P-38 used in my example, but the cold truth is that static msuems provide access to warbirds, history, and educating almost every day, while the flying ones do it from time to time in the summer months.
That is not a slam against flying warbirds. It is also imortant to see them in the air as well. There needs to be a balance.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

They HAVE a correct scheme ... an air racer scheme.

I have No problem with the air racers ... they are what they are ... The FM-2 scheme is questionable .. Period, but again, it is what it is but I get your point, It was given to the CAF, I see the logic. As for Polar Bear, it's NOT an original Mustang, It's a strange collection of stuff, at least from what I have been told, .... remember, I'm NOT knocking anything or anyone, even though it may seem to some, I'm just making an opinion. That's what were here for .... right? ... now does this mean I'm never invited to a CAF airsho again? ..... Say it aint so!!! ... lolol

I wasn't attacking you in particular... however, I completely disagree with your statement about Reno racers... If you want all warbirds to be painted in a historically accurate scheme, then that should apply to racers... they were warbirds first! Obviously I would like to have em look somewhat original, but I'm just happy I can smell the burning Avgas, hear the noise of the engines, and witness the flight of these birds...

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

UGH!!!! .... I'll go nutty on this thread,

I have NO PROBLEM with polished Mustangs, even a few Spitfires, P-47's, but I do have a problem with P-40's, P-38's, Wildcats, it just seems the latter just don't look right to me polished clean. I just love the flat schemes on the latter aircraft.

I think we covered this subject a while ago.

PS, 109, don't you worry about that FM-2, I'm very glad it's up and flying around, I've seen it up close several times. I'll take it anyday.

Right! If you want to race, paint it any way you want. If you want to represent a historical warbird, do it. It's all good.

If you are going to do a museum reproduction, that's cool too. Where do you want to be and what is your goal? Determine that and then achieve it.

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

I know you weren't, but I have to agree to disagree, most, not all, air racers don't really look much like they did stock, an original military paint scheme would look funny on them ... agree?

And I'd just like to say, I'm a total originality freak, but thats my choice. With my L-5G, I'm trying to go as accurate as possible to the point that I have removable, modern avionics. I will also have all 200+ lbs of original radios onbord, and I have purchased original gauges that will be O/H'd and used. I am even considering going back with cloth wiring. Once again though, that's my choice.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

OK, Boys...take a deep breath. You can't argue all sides of the topic. If you want to race, paint it any friggin' color you want. If you are historical, paint it any color you want. If you don't own own a warbird, shut the f**k up!

Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go? The owners who have the ability to share their fortune with us are the ones who control the ball. I thank every one of them for at least sharing, in whatever format, the birds I am interested in. I have the ability to say, "Wow, that's cool but I wish it looked like it did in the CBI theater." However, I have no right to tell them what they need to do.

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

Agreed.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson