Definitions... restoration, reconstruction, replica...

[Oscar Duck]

Gee JDK you'd better get the RAAFM to scrap their Mossie and the Demon. By your definition they're replicas...don't mention the 'fake' Boxkite...

Flying vs. museums can be two different kettles of fish.

[JDK]

Gee JDK you'd better get the RAAFM to scrap their Mossie and the Demon. By your definition they're replicas...don't mention the 'fake' Boxkite...

Flying vs. museums can be two different kettles of fish.

Mmmmm.

1. Not 'my' definitions - where did you get that idea? My main point is there aren't agreed standards of originality in aviation, but there are elsewhere. I'm no arbiter, and I'm not sure who is. Are you?

2. The Demon's variation from originality is documented. For a researcher like myself, or the interested layperson, that information is easily available. It's not pretending something it is not.

3. The Mosquito is being restored where necessary and as much original material is being retained and conserved. Replaced material is being documented.

Significantly less material is being replaced than would (wood!) be if it were an airworthy restoration.

Glynn Powell and the RAAF Museum Mosquito team are aware of each other's work, regard it as complimentary both in effort and result, and have shared info back and forth. Win win.

4. The Boxkite is a modern build replica, and is not claiming to be anything that it isn't.

Flying vs museums are indeed two different things with different criteria - as I mentioned, I thought.

BHawthorne - as it's yours, not owned by a museum in trust for the community, and not intended to be a representation of the original for the wider community, it's up to you. As we all would expect the owner to have the final say in how it's presented, when that's a private person, that's their say, when it's the community or nation, it's their say too.

As Hal's kind of pointed out, the road to restoration he11 is paved with good intentions and bland statements of compromise. Almost all restorations or conservations have some degree of compromise, the issue is whether those compromises are for 'good' or 'poor' reasons - each of us can add the values to 'good or 'poor' as we see fit.

Regards,

[mustangdriver]

Three of the sayings that are most likely to irritate me:
1. It don't matter; it ain't going to fly again...
2. No one'll ever be able to see this part of the airframe again...
3. The average person won't know what they're looking at so don't worry
about it...

And believe me I've heard them quite often over the years
In my book, there's a very specific way an aircraft should be restored, whether or not its a flying example. Or maybe I should say there's a very specific way I would restore an aircraft I was the owner of

Ok, playing devil's advicate, what way should I be restoring my F-84F that I only have the fuselage section for? Keep in mind it's in a garage at home
and I paid only $3500 for it. I highly doubt anything I do to it will be to your satifaction, but then again it's not been made into to beer cans now has it? Sometimes you have have to play the game of lesser of two evils? If that bothers you, I find that ok too, because unless you have some financial incentives for me to listen, it's all just random opinion on a forum.

I bought it to enjoy a hobby of tinkering with it, not to be looked down upon by others that have deeper pocketbooks and lofty ideals about restoration methods. I will do the best I can within my own means. Enjoyment comes first for me while authenticity is somewhere a bit further down the priorities list. I have the microfilm set for the aircraft and am a manufacturing engineer, so It'll at least look authentic, but the materials used in it and the lack of inspection is going to keep it forever static.

I know it's hard to convey a sense of humor over the internet via typing but don't take offense to my post. It's meant to be humorous.

You may want to address this more with the person who in the fist few coments calls you F-84 scrap metal because it doesn't fly. All I mean is that alot of time people excuse originality because the plane flies. I just don't think that should matter. If you are going to restore it then do it right or the very best that you can. I agree with not liking the excuses for not going all the way in a restoration

[Hal B]

I will do the best I can within my own means.

My point exactly; it's when someone chooses to do less than their best for one or more of the reasons I stated in my first post that I get irritated. Having said that, I'll reiterate that this is just MHO and any a/c owner is free to do whatever they like...

And Brian, no offense taken at your post

[rreis]

Good grief... it surely can be obvious that although something can be a restoration, reproduction, replica or "just-pretend" has a value that is only dependent on it's purpose? If it should attest and be available as an historical object, to be studied, it must follow certain rules, if it is for connecting people with their past, in a social manner, others, if it is just for fun, even others and etc... etc...

... in the end what is important is what "you" value for "what" purpose...

like a great philosopher once said: "what? me worry?"

[jet1]

"...The TIGHAR page does provide what are reasonable ....."