Replica vs Real

[Bug_racer]

How much of a warbird can be rebuilt before it becomes a replica ? Like I see so many pics of smashed up warbirds and wonder if any of the parts are re-useable and once the restoration is complete they are "rebuilt" warbirds and not replicas . ????

[51fixer]

How much of a warbird can be rebuilt before it becomes a replica ? Like I see so many pics of smashed up warbirds and wonder if any of the parts are re-useable and once the restoration is complete they are "rebuilt" warbirds and not replicas . ????

The FAA doesn't have categories of original or replica.
What they need is Airworthy and Registration Paperwork or does it meet the criteria which is written into thousands of pages of rules and regulations of the Federal Government.
Original or replica is a debate that the purists pursue in places like WIX
Rich.

[Saville]

Suppose you start with a Mustang built in 1944 - factory fresh. This is a Warbird, I think we can all agree.

Suppose the canopy gets badly damaged and is replaced? Warbird or replica?

Warbird, I'd say.

What if the new canopy never flew over Europe or the Pacific? Still warbird.

Now, one piece at a time, over the next 66 years, you replace each "part" until every part has been replaced. Not all at once - but steadily. Each time asking the same question:

warbird or replica?

As I understand it, Lloyds of London would say: Warbird. Same airplane.

[k5083]

Rich has it right, except that the purists are really the people who care what the FAA thinks; we here on Wix are normal folks wanting to know whether we are looking at a real artifact or not.

That line is different for each of us, of course. The subject has been much written about in the museum and preservationist literature, amounting to much more than the FAA's cute little thousands of pages of regulations. The aviation historical community has been slow to warm to the subject and has made no real contribution to it except inasmuch as Mikesh, Tighar etc. have translated some of the basic principles into aviation terms.

For those of us interested in what we are really looking at, it can require quite a bit of digging, some of which the owners of the aircraft in question would prefer that you not do, to come to an informed opinion about a particular plane.

August

[Bill Greenwood]

A replica is easier to define. It never was built by the original factory or factories. This is like the new build FW 190. Now some people will make claims that it is built to the same specs or off the same plans, etc. But it is somewhat like fine art, if it was painted in 2010 it is not a Monet or Rembrandt, even if it looks the same to most of us, and Claude the forger did a great job. Just like counterfeit money. If it was not made by a U S mint, it is not genuine, no matter how good a copy. I own an original western painting by an artist of some fame, who is deceased. He painted it, it is original, I have a letter from his wife to that effect If I have it cleaned, or a crack or tear repaired,it would still be an original. If someone else got the same old canvas, the same paint and copied it exactly,it would never be an original.

Same with warbirds. my Spitfire was factory built by Supermarine, with a Rolls Royce engine. The current prop blades, the tires, and one canopy are modern replacements, but it does not change what the plane is.

Where is becomes a bit of a grey area, is when a major rebuild is done. But still, if you started with a genuine airplane,it is real, even if many parts are rebuilt or replaced. Glacier Girl is an example. Red Tail is still Red Tail. Strega is a P-51.

I am not sure what to call a plane where they got a few original parts and built a plane. Probably a replica though I don't think the FAA has a real defintion. I guess you might use the definition of a homebuilt, it has to be 51% to be the brand of the builder and legal.

I have also noticed that there is a relationship to the amount of claims made by someone as to "original" and the value to which they are trying to sell it for. You'll see the words zero time used. Now if it was built in the 40's and ever ran or flew, it ain't zero time. If it is zero time, either it never flew or has just been built.If I ever sell my plane and with a fresh overhaul, the engine may be 0SMOH, but it has been run and will never be zero time, period. I don't recall so many liberties with advertising claims when I came into warbirds as we see these days. Money talks, sometimes it exaggerates.

[hercules130]

I think this is a fantastic question and know for certain that I am not qualified to answer it. That being said I will say many of the aircraft rebuilt from wrecks where the only "real" piece is the data plate are really in truth on the same level as a replica when we remove emotion. My own braking point for some silly reason would be a main wing beam, or a large machined piece not replaceable without major expense.

That being said, 62 model C-130Es for example have had outer-wing panels, center wing boxes, longeron, major tail section components, most of the electrics, most of the avionics, motors, and in most cases a large majority of the skin panels and many other major components replaced at least once- I would imagine the same could be said for most military aircraft. They are without a doubt not replicas? Perhaps I should apply that logic to other warbirds?

Gary

[JDK]

If you think real history's important, then you want to know what's represented as an historical artefact is both genuine and original, when presented with it by an historical institution; which is why accredited national collections take this question seriously.

The FAA (and pretty much any civil aviation authority worldwide) don't care what it is as long as the paperwork's OK, and there's enough of a match to the thing - hence the number of aircraft floating around with swapped IDs, or new-build airframes with a part of dataplate or less from a 'genuine original' added.

The FAA (CAA, CASA, DOT etc, etc) offer no authority for originality.

As August and Bill have touched on, in other fields there's systems to ensure originality and authenticity of the object, and there is a trend in that direction in vintage aviation - accompanied by many less scrupulous people able to add apparent 'value' with verbals.

'Provenance' is often used in this area, which originally just refers to a paper trail for the object illustrating its history - who had what when. Gaps in provenance should raise alarm bells, rather like stuff appearing from nowhere as flown by ace 'x'.

One of the big misunderstandings in the originality game is the confusion between 'factory fresh' and 'original' - from service. This is a byproduct of the 'we like shiny new' in the warbird game.

The critical point here is post-service changes. Repairs and changes while in service are part of the aircraft or artefact's own history - often what's important about it, more important than its 'delivery' standard - winglets (off, not on) Rutan's Voyager for instance, a critical part of its record-setting story.

These are fundamentally different to changes once the artefact has entered preservation. These detract from the artefact's originality. They may be justified for other reasons, such as keeping it airworthy, and is one (of several) reason(s) why most national collections won't fly original aircraft with significant historical significance. To fly - or keep it flying will require the removal of part of that aircraft's historical completeness, which can be stabilised and preserved for future generations. (Meanwhile a less historic example can be preserved airworthy to have both options covered.)

The Spirit of St Louis should have as little changed from when operated by Lindbergh and should certainly not be rebuilt to fly. Miuch of those 'rough edges' and the original wood and parts - some fabric etc - will tell people in the 22nd century of his and Ryan's real achievements. A replica of it can serve to show what it looks like, or performed like, flying.

HTH.

[JDK]

Lifted from a post i made on Keys' forum in September 2003.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... stcount=23

Ask an expert.

The RAF Museum conservation centre, Cardington quoted by Ray Rimmel in ‘World War One Survivors’, in a photo:

“The museum defines reproduction as an exact or nearly exact example of an original.

A replica is merely a look alike of different construction to the original.”

Robert Mikesh, former Senior Curator of the National Air & Space Museum, in ‘Restoring Museum Aircraft’ gives six categories: original; restored original; replica; reproduction; look-alike and mock-up.

Briefly, he defines them as follows:

“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” He gives Spirit of St Louis as an example.

“Restored original (Restoration): An artefact composed of at least 50% original components (by surface area or volume) and the remainder returned to accurate early condition made with the same materials, components and accessories.” – He quotes it as a USAFM definition.

“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artefact in part or in total.” Another USAFM definition. Interestingly he gives the example of the Gee Bee Super Sportster build by the New England Air Museum with the technical supervision of the Grandville Bros Chief Engineer Pete Miller. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.

“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”

I’m bored of typing, so we’ll leave look alike and a mock up is often regarded as a full scale model (FSM)

You’ll note financial or sale value (here) is irrelevant.

Generally 'replica' is much more loosely used than in the -ex antiques industry (?) version Mikesh has used here.

[k5083]

Museum guys love to classify; they like clear distinctions so that they can file objects into particular shelves, even if only figuratively. That leads to distinctions like "50% by surface area or volume" that are useful to them, but a little quaint. The rest of us can afford to acknowledge that vintage planes are arranged on a spectrum, and without trying to figure percentages we can say, based on what we know of the airframes, "That P-51 has more real P-51 in it than this other one," or "There is hardly any P-51 in that P-51," or "That P-51 is almost all P-51." For the buff, it's one of the more important reasons to know about a plane's history of postwar use, restoration, and repair.

August

[Mark_Pilkington]

.
I think its a pretty simple issue, if the item was built historically by the original manufacturer, to its own original plans, its "real", if its built in current times by a restorer, to those original plans, its a "reproduction", if its built by anyone else, to their own design but in the "image" of the "real" aircraft, it is a "replica".

The Me 262's, the Fw-190's, Oscars etc built in recent times are obviously then "reproductions" not "real"/"originals".

Of course it gets complicated when a "real" airframe is a hybrid of "real" and "reproduction" parts, and this is where the argument of 51% starts to raise its head in debate, although there has been no real effort to create a true definition.

There are now many WW2 fighter rebuilts that consist of so much new metal and new construction that its clear they are "reproductions", they are not simply "restorations" of a surviving airframe with some skin and frame replacements, and the reality is that the growth in WW2 warbirds can only be met by these methods, let alone creation of airworthy examples of extinct or rare types and variants.

Equally a "real" airframe might be composite of its own original parts, and other NOS or salvaged parts from other "real" airframes, in this case it is obviously "real", but not fully "original", and then comes the debate of which section of airframe holds control of a particular identity, ie is it just the data plate, or the fuselage it was prized from?, is it the fuselage, or the wing centre section, is it the cockpit or the entire fuselage?

Reliance on FAA certification isnt really suitable, the FAA obviously turns a blind eye to the reproduction parts manufacturing occuring in the warbirds market, and like most airworthiness and flight regulators is focusing on Air Transport, examples of the falibility of the FAA certification is the ambiguity of ownership highlighted in the CAF v NMUSAFM case regarding the P-82, and the current dual FAA registration of the "Twilight Tear" identity by two P-51 restorations is a good example.

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33746&start=0

I suspect the FAA and other regulators will only buy into this issue if there is a substantial warbird fatality (airshow crowd etc) involving uncertified part reproduction, they certainly dont tolerate counterfeit parts in commercial aircraft, helicopters etc, however in those situations its usually someone creating counterfeit parts at lower cost (and lower quality) undercutting readily available original manufacturer's parts.

Hopefully most of those building warbird reproduction parts and airframes are doing so from a different motivation, and are building to the original designs and specs, or to more modern/better specs, as there isnt price war encouraging anyone to cut corners and most customers are well enough funded to demand quality.

Unfortunately some restorers building reproduction airframes are reluctant to admit the level of reconstruction / new material and instead not only adopt an identity from scant remains, but then extend the provenance and history to the new metal, when little if any of the airframe really participated in its namesakes operations, other than duplicating the paint scheme.

Then there is the issue of even a "real" airframe adopting the paint scheme of a more famous example and then being presented as the "original" usually by airshow commentators or journalists, but often not corrected by the owner or operator.

Despite the convenience and attractiveness of employing the "Grandfathers Axe" logic to the debate, from a heritage and museum point of view provenance does matter, otherwise we wouldnt differentiate between Tallichet's "Memphis Belle" and the "other" one being restored in the NMUSAFM, while both are "real" B-17's only one is the "real" Memphis Belle.

If we do value "warbirds" for their historical wartime roles and importance, rather than just as impressive noisy and fast "toys for the boys" then those "real" ones that survived intact from the battle, do hold a more important place, than those "reproduced" from new metal in more recent years.

If provenance and "reality" doesnt really matter?, then the CAF and NMUSAF could simply split the P-82 down the middle and each reconstruct their own original "real" aircraft from its two seperate "real" halves, and each with a newly constructed "reproduction" second fuselage and wing, apply the same identity to both airframes, and everyone would be happy - smiles.

Hopefully over time the aviation museum and warbird movements will create agreed definitions for these activities to differentiate and identify the various compositions and histories of airframes, I dont think the regulators such as the FAA will ever do so.

regards

Mark Pilkington

[Warbird Kid]

Mark, definitely well said.

The only thing that I can really say in this matter is that when I think of a replica, nothing comes to mind quicker than the Tora Zeros, Kates, and Vals.

They kinda look like real thing. The kinda fly like the real thing (relatively). But they sure aren't the real thing. Now the new build Me-262's, FW-190's, Oscars, Zeros, Yaks, etc. are very accurate reproductions and should be admired. While the data plate restorations seems to be a much touchier situation.

[JDK]

It's not difficult to establish what something is, and how original - or otherwise - an aircraft is. However, it takes a degree of intelligence, paying attention, being able to source and evaluate data and the aircraft's structure as well as evaluating the authority and integrity of custodians, rather than the firmness of their handshake and the gloss of the paint and paperwork...

... so Barnum's principle holds.

[bdk]

I don't believe an aircraft is authentic unless I can document the provenance and serial number of the aircraft's hydraulic pump...

[Bill Greenwood]

Warbird Kid, I admire the CAF Tora planes, even if they are not an attempt to recreate a close to exact copy of the originals. They give a good idea of what the Japanese planes looked like and serve teh purpose of being able to make a movie about Pearl Harbor or Midway, etc., or to do an airshow. I have landed and held on the taxiway after flying the Battle of Britain portion of the show and had the Tora act going on overhead and it makes a pretty strong impact. Of course it is a better when the American planes are P-40 s instead of P-51s but that can't always be helped.

And I admire the more accurate reproduction or replica like the Me 262. But admire or not, of all those 262s one is a rebuilt original and the others are modern copies, even if accurate or not.

[old iron]

In the discussion of "reproduction" vs. "replica" bdk says

I don't believe an aircraft is authentic unless I can document the provenance and serial number of the aircraft's hydraulic pump...

OK, so how about "authenic" vs. "genuine" ??? My understanding is that something built just like the original is "authenic" but that does not make it genuine!

Different words do mean different things, and popular usage is often quite different from the "proper" usage by the authorities. My favorite examples is the popular usage of "theory" which by my experience is very seldom the usage by a scientist (who would "hypothesis").

Popular usage of "replica" is as has been said above by several people - it looks the same but is not right in the details, while the authorities use "replica" to mean something very different -- made by the same manufacturer as the original.

If Mitsubishi were to build this year a Zero fighter, it would be an actual Mitsubishi Zero fighter. It would not be "original" (i.e., 1944, built while the war was in progress) but it would be "the real thing" in being a real Mitsubishi Zero. This is how "replica" is applied: The Zero may or may not be authenic in every detail, but if it is built by the original manufacturer, though not in the time period where it was originally intended, then it is a "replica".

A "reproduction" can be authenic in every detail or made from paper maiche; if is was not built by Mitsubshi it can never be a "real Mitsubishi Zero" - it is a reproduction. If it was built by Mitsubishi (or I guess Nakajima originally built them as well), whether of aluminum or cardboard, it is a Mitsubishi REPLICA. That is the way the word is supposed to be used. Replica distinguishes the "real original" from the "real non-original". But it does not necessarily say that the copy is authenic if every detail.

I suppose that a paper maiche Mitsubishi Zero actually would be genuine - it would be an actual Mitsubishi-built Zero fighter. Of course, being made of paper maiche it would not be authenic.

Kevin