Warbird Information Exchange

Time for another controversial topic - I guess I just love opening up cans of worms. But seriously, I do like having these discussions, they are very interesting, I just hope I'm rustling too many feathers. All right, here we go...

I'm going to try an analogy, so bear with me, I'll connect it back to warbirds...

Recently, I happened to read about the Parthenon in Greece. It is in bad condition - without attention, it could collapse or eventually cease to exist. So the archaeologists there are attempting some repairs. This, in part, involves recreating some of the missing elements of the structure. These repairs are aimed to stabilize the remaining structure to prevent further damage. They repairs are NOT aimed at making the monument look or perform as it originally was.

What would be wrong for them to do is to restore it to its former use as a temple. You can't expect artifacts such as these to return to their former condition and function.

I would opine the same idea applies to warbirds.

Now, I am NOT advocating leaving warbirds in their recovered, wrecked state. (Although, doing so every once and a while is interesting. e.g. The wrecked F4F at the NNAM.) I am also DEFINITELY NOT advocating leaving warbirds in the wilderness, ocean, or wherever else they ended up. (Two caveats, however 1. If human remains are involved, that's a WHOLE different story, for our puposes here just assume none are involved. I think we can all least agree here. 2. Just because they need to be preserved doesn't mean that we should scoop them up immediately, there needs to be some sort of established recovery plan involving surveys and documentation.) I also want to state for the record that I realize many warbirds are in private hands and that has to be respected. I am NOT advocating forcing their owners to do anything. (I would suggest instead some sort of education program on the issue, see below.) There are also different kinds of private ownership - two main examples being aircraft kept as part of a museum versus those owned as an individual's personal aircraft (another example would be the ever decreasing group of warbirds in some form of commercial service). Each of these categories need to be approached in a different manner (or in the case of the personal aircraft, possibly not at all).

At a minimum, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect museums to keep a record of how much and what parts of their aircraft are original and what has been replaced. A good example of what I would like to see is the report by TIGHAR (I know their reputation, try to look beyond the name for a second) on the Battle of Midway survivor SBD at the NNAM. The report, while making recommendations and offering constructive criticism, does not have any actual decision-affecting weight. It only notes the repairs made to the airframe and records them for future reference (or for the interest of anyone who is as crazy about the subject as me ). It does not "mandate" any course of action. This would be what I would suggest. I've given some thought as to how I would accomplish it (i.e. convince museums to start doing it), and the best method I could think of would be to start some sort of accreditation like like program that, if a museum fulfills the requirements, they would be given a kind of endorsement, or perhaps financial assistance.

I assume that no one here would advocate returning airframes like the Enola Gay, for example, to the skies. But by the same token, I would also agree that having at least some flying airframes is good. (A recent ride in a B-25J helped convince me of that fact.) So the question as it stands here, is not a black and white, all or nothing approach. A very good example of a recently discovered aircraft to recover for static display is the P-40 in the Egyptian desert (maybe even in its wrecked condition per the above). (For an example of where I could agree with returning a number of airframes to the sky, see my post on the Burma Spitfires here: Burmese Spitfires back in the news...)

I also want to say I respect what others have done, even if I don't agree with the way they did it. I would rather have the aircraft exist in any form, than not at all. Nobody wants an aircraft to lose its historical integrity, but there are differing views as to how much value should be put into preventing that. In other words, all other things being equal, everyone would rather have an entirely original aircraft over one that is not. But, yes, I do respect the efforts of those before me, even if I do believe that they are in some cases misguided.

The development and relative maturity of the warbird movement a offers a promising future. Governments (well, at least the U.S. government) are now more aware and are putting more effort into making sure that their obsolete aircraft are making it into the hands of museums. This in turn, allows for aircraft to be acquired in substantially [more] intact condition and removes the need to replace more of their components.

I think one of the biggest problems with my point of view is that it would remove a lot of the incentive for aircraft recoveries, since most of such efforts are aimed at restoring and preserving such aircraft, and my goal is not to have them waste away to nothing in some jungle. Another issue is that many of the restored aircraft out there today have long since passed the point at which they maintain any significant amount of their history. (I'll leave any discussion of how to paint an aircraft for later, compared to the other issues here, for me at least, it is not as important.)

In summary, I think my belief can be explained by this statement: In the most extreme sense, you can always build another replica, but there is a limited (albeit possibly large) amount supply of actual historical aircraft. But as before, this is nowhere near a cut and dry debate.

Now that my opinions are out there, time for ze kvestions:

- How does your museum keep track of what parts of their airframes are original?
- What exactly is the need for going out and recovering wrecked airframes from around the world? I don't mean nearly complete aircraft, but ones, for example, like the MAAM P-61.
-- It's not that I don't support the recovery of the airframes, I'd rather they exist in some form than not at all, it's just that I wonder what the need exactly is if you are just going to basically rebuild the entire thing.
--- I understand some of the reasons to be: a need for templates, a need to acquire parts that no longer exist and can't be remanufactured, wanting original data plates, etc. Are this correct?
- At what point does an aircraft no longer become a survivor, but instead a replica?
-- (For anyone interested in the philosophical aspect of the issue see Ship of Theseus)
- Finally, the loaded question; for an aircraft museum: Are you ready to admit, to tell your visitors, that the aircraft in front of them is one of latter category from the above question and not the former?

(I apologize for the overly long introduction, but the more I answer here, the less I have to explain later. I also apologize for any seemingly contradictory statements, I assure you there is an overarching theme behind it...I think )

Feel free to respond to whatever part of this you feel like. Ready, set, GO!

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

To start in no particular order: I like what the NASM does. Replica parts no matter how original they look have stamp stating such. In that way in the future anyone studying the aircraft can see which parts are original and which were reproduced. I know some collections and museums have gone to great lengths to duplicate original inspector's stamps so that thier aircraft can look more "original" inside. That could be good if the reproduction stamps are used only on original parts but what if they are used on reproduction parts? Are you defrauding a potential researcher or future owner? The part my duplicate exactly in fit and function the missing original but clearly it would not be original and in other ways such as the molecular structure of material or coatings could be radically different.

As for the reason to recover abandoned warbirds; do you really need a practical reason? The recovery of Glacier Girl and the MAAM P-61 will never be considered an economic success no matter how many times they may be sold on to new owners. Why do it? Because someone somewhere wanted to. In the end that alone should be enough provided legalities regarding ownership and sensibilities regarding war graves are met.

As for what constitutes original, replica and reproduction in the end you have to decide on some definition of what constitutes each of those categories. If there is a consensus it will only come after years of this type of discussion. If you built up an aircraft from components of which each came from a combat veteran aircraft do you have a combat veteran even if in that configuration came to exist decades after the combat? If only some small percentage of an aircraft saw combat is that a combat veteran?

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

I have always been of the opinion that to call an aircraft original, the substantial portion of its primary structural parts that were not designed to be replaced in normal service (i.e. keel beam(s), spar(s), etc) need to be intact. Other things like gauges, seats, even landing gear and engine(s) were swapped in service on a regular basis, so having replaced them does not really remove its historical value. It is when you remove or replace parts that were accumulated over its history simply to improve the appearance of the aircraft (such as removing skin panels that had Battle Damage repair patches on them) that you can harm the historical value of the aircraft, but even then it's not always the case. As long as you document what you've fixed and replaced, then you haven't hurt the value, even if you do recreate the original stamps. The paperwork shows what you replaced, so there's not a need to make it specifically clear what you've done, especially if you are flying the plane.

Many people forget that major parts of these airplanes are and have been replaced during their active service lives. The KC-135 is a prime example of that. About the only thing still "original" on the remaining KC-135R's is the floor beams and spars. Upper and lower wing skins have been totally replaced on several occasions, the floors were replaced during the "R" upgrade, the cockpit was almost 100% reworked through the Pacer CRAG updates, the seats have been replaced at least once in Depot, the booms are changed or modified more often than people realize due to wear and damage, the engines are definitely not original, they added the APU in the "R" upgrade as well that made a major change to the aft fuselage, and the landing gear has been replaced with heavier legged units and bigger tires and brakes. Does that make them any less a KC-135? No, it's just part of the history of the airframes.

Museums are now much more aware of the significance of originality.
I'm sure places like the NASM keep a file on each airfarme listing its maintenance or restoration over the years.

I saw the Enola Gay when it was displayed (in sections) at the mall location immediately after its restoration, long before it was moved to the new facility at Dulles...which wasn't built yet.. The placards seemed to indicate they noted every change or replacement made to the aircraft during restoration.

Several of their historic aircraft have been recovered to keep them presentable.
Also, the Boeing 40B-2 at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn was recovered several years ago.

In the 70s, the NASM sold posters with pieces of fabric attached. A few feet away from me on my wall are sections of AE's vega, the DWC, NC-4 and The Vin Fiz.
They also did that for their Fokker T-1(?) (the first plane to cross America nonstop) , and a couple of their WWI aircraft.
Somehow, I don't think they'd do that today.
Which poses the question, when they recovered the Wright Flyer or Spirit of St. Louis, what becaome of the old (but non-original) fabric?

Before the Wrights loaned the Flyer to the Science Museum in the UK it was recovered. The family kept the original Kitty Hawk period fabric. I've seen some at the NMUSAF, the Smithsonian again made some posters at some point, and the Wright B Flyer group in Dayton was given 300 sq, inches to prersent to contributors. In the 90s, you could get a nice presentation set with a small (about 1.5" x 1.5") square for a $1000 donation. It was later raised to $5000.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Believe it or not, we can't all agree even on that. To some of us, and to many whole cultures, human remains are just dead meat and the reverence with which they are treated just silly mysticism. But we can agree to go along with the majority in our society.



Why not? Certainly they'd want to keep some of the old fabric, because documentation alone is never sufficient. But the revenue to be gained by selling some of it off may be worthwhile. Same applies to sheet metal for later aircraft. You probably have a collection of those as well; many of us here do, including pieces of the CAF's LB-30 courtesy of Gary Austin, and I've never heard it suggested that every fitting, rivet and piece of sheet metal original to the aircraft should be preserved after restoration (although come to think of it, there probably are purists who would so insist). What always amazes me is that more private museums continue to discard such items when almost every ounce of their projects could be monetized with hardly any marketing.



I didn't think the Spirit has been recovered since 1927, give or take a patch. The Flyer has been -- isn't there a big piece of it at the NMUSAF? Non-original fabric/metal from prior restorations should be especially easy to decide to get rid of, having no historical value other than whatever aura it picked up from having been worn by the artifact for a while, but that's an aura people will pay for. One day the NASM probably will have to recover its Albatros D.V and replace the painstakingly reproduced, but inaccurate, lozenge fabric with the correct simple camo fabric, and I'll be a bidder for a few square inches of the existing cloth even though it is neither original or accurate.

August

First off, thanks for the info about the way NASM keeps track of its replica parts. Good to hear that they do such a thing - it definitely made my day.
Any idea on what other museums do? I especially would like to hear about the way NMUSAF deals with it. Even if major national aviation museums are meticulous about documentation, I'm willing to bet that the smaller museums aren't so much - what about them?

Second, I've considered the modifications and replacements aircraft go through while they're in service, and as far as I'm concerned that's completely fine with me. As was said, "it's just part of the history of the airframe".

I have also considered the "ethics" of selling pieces of aircraft and I'm on the fence about it. I want to say "No, you shouldn't do that." and personally would not do it if I was in charge, but I understand why it is done and it seems like it starts to get ridiculous to claim "moral" problems with it after awhile.

To explain what I meant when I asked what the need was to recover abandoned warbirds, I was wondering why - given that the aircraft will be essentially reconstructed anyway - people bother going out and spending $$$ when you can rebuild the entire thing as a replica for [what I assume to be] less cost? Obviously, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here - I'd rather have the airframes recovered than rot away. I understand that some people think that slapping an original data plate on a completely new airframe makes it original; but if that were the reason you could achieve your objective with a screwdriver and skip hauling away the rest.

I'm very pleasantly surprised with the responses so far - they are all well considered and, for lack of a better word, courteous - I expected at least one overly hostile remark by now. Keep 'em coming.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Noha-
In terms of aircraft recovery, I think there are as many reasons for recovery as there are people out recovering airplanes. I, for one, like the idea of recovering them because it essentially stops the deterioration process. There is lots to learn about how aircraft were produced, how they were painted, how they were used, by recovering combat veterans. We are able, in some cases, to discover that old assumptions are no longer valid, or that there is at least room to challenge some of those assumptions.

An aircraft at the bottom of Lake Michigan, or on a hillside in a remote part of the South Pacific, is going to continue to deteriorate until there is nothing left. Recovery stops this process, and allows museums, collectors and others to make informed decisions about the aircraft. I for one like the idea of recovering combat veterans (like the Black Cat Pass B-17 in PNG, for example) and preserving such examples in national collections. In my mind, doing so would/should free up similar aircraft without combat history for private collectors and/or museums who might be inclined to fly those aircraft. (like the fleet of gate-guard B-17s scattered around the U.S.)

Restorers of vintage aircraft will also tell you that there are some pieces of aircraft that are essentially "unobtanium." These pieces were manufactured as part of assembly-line, mass scale production and were feasible in large scale. The jigs and machinery used to make them no longer exists, at least in the configuration that was set up during the war. Making such pieces one at a time is sometimes extraordinarily expensive, prohibitively so in some cases. Certain pieces of aircraft are so expensive to produce that potential fliers are grounded because replacing the parts is too difficult or financially not viable. Not all of us are Paul Allen. Recovering certain parts of "lost" aircraft provides a stock of sometimes flight-worthy parts that can be used to support ongoing restoration of other aircraft. In many cases, usable parts have been recovered from wrecks that are not rebuildable, but are a supply of parts. Some parts, like Corsair spars, that were once viewed as unobtanium, are now being produced because the supply has dried up and the economics have finally made it feasible.

I also think that it's pretty clear that almost no governments post-WWII made systematic efforts to preserve combat veteran examples of key types of aircraft. Even in the U.S., only certain aircraft were preserved intentionally (the Enola Gay and Flak Bait, for example.) In most cases, it was a case of looking around, realizing that the last few known examples were getting ready to be scrapped, and saving whatever was onhand. We only have the German and Japanese examples preserved because the post-war evaluation process gave us a small supply of those aircraft, and NASM thought to grab them. Recovery has, in many instances, given us combat veteran examples of key types (Dottie Mae, for example) that we otherwise might not have. Almost all of the surviving B-17s were stateside trainers or hacks, and were never used in combat. With the exception of the Swoose and the Memphis Belle, other surviving comabt veteran B-17s exist because of recovery or by accident. Recovery plays a key role in the preservation of some of these types.

I also think that simple market economics is at work- basic theories of supply and demand. There will always be a market for P-47s, Zeros, SBDs and B-17s, for example. If recoverable examples are available, it will make sense to go get them. I for one would love for the Navy to go get all of the Lake Michigan aircraft in the next couple of years in a mass salvage operation, if for no other reason than to preserve what's left. They would make incredible trade bait or fundraising opportunities for the museum. As long as people want to rebuild and display or fly these aircraft, there will be pressure to go recover them. Eventually the supply will be exhausted, but until that point expect recoveries to continue.

I also like recovery for simple historic preservation. In my case, I have been part of a team that searched for and finally located the last B-24 produced in Tulsa. Though the aircraft is in horrible shape and is not feasible to recover and/or restore, I would still like to recover some key parts of it to use in our museum's interpretive exhibit about the airplane. Having photos and uniforms and patches and videos is one thing; actually having a piece of the airplane for people to touch, see, smell and experience is entirely different. We have the uniform and other artifacts from this airplane's nose gunner. How cool would it be for his family (and other visitors) to also see sitting right next to that display the actual nose turret that he used in combat? I can't imagine the feeling that his grandson would get sitting down in the seat his grandfather used to fight the Nazis. Such moments, such lessons, make recovery worth it in my opinion.

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

I literally cringe when I learn certain airframes are flying. For example, I was looking on Wikipedia (and later Warbird Registry) today and found out that
the oldest surviving B-25, 1 of only 2 surviving pre-C models, the only surviving pre-A model and a personal transport of Hap Arnold is still flying!
Somebody please trade them another B-25 and put this one on static display. This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to pull my hair out!

All other things being equal, what would you say is a good ratio of flying to static airframes?

To use some quotes I like but most others probably won't:

and


I'm not looking to have a TIGHAR debate here. (If you want that, head on over to the other thread I started.) I can't speak for everyone else, but I believe it's possible to have a debate about the ideas in a statement regardless of the author. If you're of the same persuasion, then I welcome your input even if you don't agree with my positions.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

We currently have the oldest airworthy Douglas Skyraider and A4 Skyhawk. I don't believe we should ground these birds simply because they are the oldest. We do try to keep them as original as we can minus instruments and military equipment we're not allowed to have. We're not just mechanics who simply change parts, but we genuinely strive to consider what maint we do and the impact it will or would have to originality and more importantly safety for our pilots.
I personally think it is more important for us to fly these as long as we can, as there is a finite amount of parts and increasing costs, to share them with each new generation so they can hear, see, and feel what these machines did in our history. We have the best way to show this history that a static airplane can not even come close to.
So the flying versus static, original versus replica debate will continue. I believe we should fly them, maintain them, preserve originality or at least keep the original parts to be installed later if it would become a static airplane.
Hope this gives you another perspective from an operators and maintainers perspective.
Thanks,
David Staffeldt
WHF Maint.

Note that the Tighar position was written in 1994. I would observe that it was much more true then than now, although there is still a good deal of truth to it. Some restoration shops, including some that are loudly praised on this forum, fit Tighar's description to a T. Others have surpassed even the attention to research, preservation and replication that were benchmarked by the NASM's practice as set forth in the authoritative Mikesh book. I read that Gillespie piece a number of years ago, and I recall thinking, "Well, I basically agree, but still -- chill out, dude." Things have been improving and the folks writing tactless, shrill hyperbole about the destruction of priceless artifacts in restoration shops have not made a conspicuous contribution to that improvement, even philosophically.

August

Hmmm... Now that's an idea I've never considered. At first glance that sounds like a good idea. Remove the historic parts, fly it with non historic ones, and then reinstall them later. Of course, it's never really that simple.

I don't want to give the appearance that I'm dismissing the idea; all I'm saying is it I would really have to consider the pros and cons more thoroughly before I form a more serious opinion on it.

I think the argument would be that maintaining the originality of an airframe and keeping it flying are mutually incompatible goals.

To be more specific on why I disagree about the B-25 I mentioned about flying, it's not that the airframe is old, it's that it is unique. It just so happens that the older an aircraft is, the less likely that there are many of them around. In addition, the airframe has an important history to it. The connection that it had to Hap Arnold makes it all the more important that the aircraft remain as original as it can.

I also expect that even if every piece of the aircraft was eventually replaced, the group maintaining it would still go around telling everyone that, "Hap Arnold used this aircraft." and that, to me, would be tantamount to lying.

The thing that appeals to me about these aircraft, is not as much that they are amazing machines (which they are), but that I can walk up to one of them, put my hand on the aircraft and think to myself, "70 years ago this thing was dodging flak over German skies. I am touching the same thing that was there.". The less original the airframe is, the less I can feel that connection.

Glad to hear some differing viewpoints, I still wanna here more though - as much discussion as we can get!

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster