Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:42 am
FYI-
Note that I never said it was a WACO, just that it was a WACO design there is a direct design lineage.................much as a Citabria is in fact an AERONCA design, while there are differences they are still built on original Aeronca jigs that have been modernized. A much weaker case can made for the various Cub models some of which are of similar structural/aerodynamic design to the original and some of which simply pay homeage to the orginal appearance. Great Lakes is a similar aircraft with a direct design lineage to the original, updated but still very much a Great Lakes.
Not sure why there is a need to waste so much space stating the obvious since WACO ceased building aircraft in June 1947, that is the orginal WACO I have discounted the 60's Allied Aircraft WACO's which had nothing common except the name.
It seems that we should be inclusive given the small numbers of orginals in many cases.
Tom-
Note that I never said it was a WACO, just that it was a WACO design there is a direct design lineage.................much as a Citabria is in fact an AERONCA design, while there are differences they are still built on original Aeronca jigs that have been modernized. A much weaker case can made for the various Cub models some of which are of similar structural/aerodynamic design to the original and some of which simply pay homeage to the orginal appearance. Great Lakes is a similar aircraft with a direct design lineage to the original, updated but still very much a Great Lakes.
Not sure why there is a need to waste so much space stating the obvious since WACO ceased building aircraft in June 1947, that is the orginal WACO I have discounted the 60's Allied Aircraft WACO's which had nothing common except the name.
It seems that we should be inclusive given the small numbers of orginals in many cases.
Tom-
Back to George Washington's Axe.........
Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:24 pm
Ok, I admit I was having a bit of fun with Wheels Up. I thought I had the cheese bait stuck pretty well to the hook but he spit it out. Next time I'll try a treble hook and a nightcrawler!
No doubt, the "legal" FAA regulations are what really determine this issue most of the time. However, slightly outside of the legal FAA aspect, I think there are many cases where we enter a gray area on this subject. It's not all that uncommon to find a WACO that has had all of it's wood replaced, wings, fuselage, and tail. The fabric has been re-done several times in it's life and most of the sheet metal is not original. The engine and prop are not the ones that were on it when it was delivered new. The tires and all rubber on the plane is new and since it was badly damaged in a landing accident, much of the metal tube structure in the fuselage is new. By empty weight it is probably about 75% non-original WACO. It's mostly a set of log books, some fittings, hardware, and a data plate. In my mind, it is only slightly more a true WACO than one of the ones being built in Michigan.
Well, Wheels Up may have spit out the hook but I managed to bring JDK up against the boat! Of course I'm a catch and release kind of guy. And who would want to clean this thing!
No doubt, the "legal" FAA regulations are what really determine this issue most of the time. However, slightly outside of the legal FAA aspect, I think there are many cases where we enter a gray area on this subject. It's not all that uncommon to find a WACO that has had all of it's wood replaced, wings, fuselage, and tail. The fabric has been re-done several times in it's life and most of the sheet metal is not original. The engine and prop are not the ones that were on it when it was delivered new. The tires and all rubber on the plane is new and since it was badly damaged in a landing accident, much of the metal tube structure in the fuselage is new. By empty weight it is probably about 75% non-original WACO. It's mostly a set of log books, some fittings, hardware, and a data plate. In my mind, it is only slightly more a true WACO than one of the ones being built in Michigan.
Well, Wheels Up may have spit out the hook but I managed to bring JDK up against the boat! Of course I'm a catch and release kind of guy. And who would want to clean this thing!
Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:00 pm
Al-
Agree 100%, many of the discussions here, and particularly in the warbird section, miss the importance of the delicate charade required for certification of many "restorations" and we end up picking fly crap out of the pepper.
As an FYI to those unfamilar with the YMF story, the new build YMF's are built/certified under the same Type Certificate as the originals, the amended TC denotes the changes from the original, clearly they are Waco's in design.
Tom-
Agree 100%, many of the discussions here, and particularly in the warbird section, miss the importance of the delicate charade required for certification of many "restorations" and we end up picking fly crap out of the pepper.
As an FYI to those unfamilar with the YMF story, the new build YMF's are built/certified under the same Type Certificate as the originals, the amended TC denotes the changes from the original, clearly they are Waco's in design.
Tom-
Re: Back to George Washington's Axe.........
Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:50 pm
astixjr wrote:Well, Wheels Up may have spit out the hook but I managed to bring JDK up against the boat! Of course I'm a catch and release kind of guy. And who would want to clean this thing!
Swine. You don't know when, you don't know where, but you do know I'll have my revenge...
FWIW, the FAA aspect is irrelevant from a historian's perspective, I'd suggest. Like most Civil Aviation bodies, they want to keep the paperwork straight, not prove originality.
It's the same if you think you've got a Rembrandt or Picasso. The auction house aren't going to really test the case to prove it isn't, it'll certainly lower the potential value. A good art gallery (not a dealer) will be a lot harder to convince.
Cheers,
Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:39 pm
JDK-
"FWIW, the FAA aspect is irrelevant from a historian's perspective, I'd suggest. Like most Civil Aviation bodies, they want to keep the paperwork straight, not prove originality."
True but without the paperwork that results from the dance a restorer must do with the FAA we would either have a museum piece or an EXPERIMENTAL, which the purists would correctly decry as a recreation.
Instead of hounding rebuilders to admit publicly that the "restoration" was built around a data plate, or even a COA/Registration in some cases we should be happy the FAA doesn't ask more questions than they do. How many presently flying rare antiques have been built from blueprints, photos, and a few rusted and rotten remains? The list is long............I can understand and concur with your viewpoint but the realist in me is happy to see long gone models grace the sky.
Tom-
"FWIW, the FAA aspect is irrelevant from a historian's perspective, I'd suggest. Like most Civil Aviation bodies, they want to keep the paperwork straight, not prove originality."
True but without the paperwork that results from the dance a restorer must do with the FAA we would either have a museum piece or an EXPERIMENTAL, which the purists would correctly decry as a recreation.
Instead of hounding rebuilders to admit publicly that the "restoration" was built around a data plate, or even a COA/Registration in some cases we should be happy the FAA doesn't ask more questions than they do. How many presently flying rare antiques have been built from blueprints, photos, and a few rusted and rotten remains? The list is long............I can understand and concur with your viewpoint but the realist in me is happy to see long gone models grace the sky.
Tom-
Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:27 pm
Oh sure, Tom, I quite agree. All I was saying is that the FAA's paperwork doesn't 'prove' any originality because of this arm's length approach. It's practical, it's not an authenticity certificate.
Aside from all the surrounding hoo-ha, that's one point that's been parallel shown in court between the USAF and CAF over the P-82. Whatever else happens at the appeal, I don't think the CAF will get a FAA document admitted as title.
Cheers,
Aside from all the surrounding hoo-ha, that's one point that's been parallel shown in court between the USAF and CAF over the P-82. Whatever else happens at the appeal, I don't think the CAF will get a FAA document admitted as title.
Cheers,
Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:46 pm
I'm gonna shut my mouth and swim away from Al's boat.
Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:33 pm
Canso42 wrote:I'm gonna shut my mouth and swim away from Al's boat.
Yeah. 'Cos I've pulled the plug outa it.
Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:20 am
JDK-
Absolutely, it is very clear that the Registration is not a title, as long as the FAA has a paperwork trail from owner to owner it is acceptable, (thankfully) they ask few questions. While the Airworthiness Certificate confers an authenticity we all know that many an airplane has been built around a serial number. While historians understandably decry the lack of provenence we should all be thankful that we are allowed to play the charade and see once lost iconic aircraft back in the air.
It's had four new handles and two new heads but it is still George Washington's hatchet.........................
Tom-
Absolutely, it is very clear that the Registration is not a title, as long as the FAA has a paperwork trail from owner to owner it is acceptable, (thankfully) they ask few questions. While the Airworthiness Certificate confers an authenticity we all know that many an airplane has been built around a serial number. While historians understandably decry the lack of provenence we should all be thankful that we are allowed to play the charade and see once lost iconic aircraft back in the air.
It's had four new handles and two new heads but it is still George Washington's hatchet.........................
Tom-
Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:50 am
GilT wrote:It's had four new handles and two new heads but it is still.........................
.....Robin Olds' P-51
