How does a project qualify as a "restoration?"

[CraigQ]

Sounds like there's 3 different R's akin to elementary school....

Restoration
Rebuild
Repair

....or something like that.

You can scratch 'rebuild' out of the mix.

'Rebuild or rebuilt' is only recognized by the FAA when done by the original manufacturer or as 51fixer mentioned, someone specifically designated by the FAA and the Original Manufacturer.

Basically something has to exist in a tangible form before it can be restored. If you have wings and a fuselage, those can be restored.

Last edited by CraigQ on Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[marine air]

It's possible that there won't be that many "data plate rebuilds" in the future. Maybe a Stuka, or another P-51C.

[k5083]

Brandon says the point it to "preserve history" but is history really preserved when most of the parts can no longer be traced to the historical artifact?

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said preserve history I actually meant history. If someone wanted to make a P-51 with fiberglass and wood and slap a data tag on it that's their call. But, if 70 years from now some kid sees that plane and wants to read more about WWII because of it then guess what, that plane just preserved history.

We can't be shallow minded. A good number of these restored historic aircraft never saw combat. The reason they're historic is because of a war that was fought and sacrifices that were made. It's pointless to argue over how original they are if 100 years from now know one knows why they're a historical artifact.

We have great shops out there now that if needed can build every part with every exacting detail. People will always know how these planes were built. Will they always know why they were built?

Brandon

Thanks for the clarification. To my way of thinking, you just clarified that when you said "preserve history" you may have meant history, but you did not mean PRESERVE.

You meant promote, educate, glorify, dramatize, commemorate, or something else, but not preserve.

The distinction is important because model airplanes, reproductions, and movies with computer animations can do the other stuff. In other words vintage airplanes can be replaced for all of those purposes. As a real historical artifact, there is no substitute for a vintage airplane. That's why all these apparently picayune details matter to folks who are really concerned about preservation, whereas those with a more educational or memorial mission tend to be impatient with them.

August

[Mark Allen M]

"How does a project qualify as a "restoration?" ... For several warbird owners, from a subjective standpoint, it equates to $$$. "Restoration" sounds much more valuable than "recreation" (i.e. recreate) of course this is all relative to what project/owner/sutuation your referring to. But as your question most likely refers to warbirds, I would state you have a lot of reading to do with multiple regurgitated WIX threads on the subject.

Still sometimes it's good to re-generate old questions as there's always a good amount of new answers (even if most are old answers)

[old iron]

Man, this forum certainly has a larger nastiness quotient than the other aviation boards I've been on; makes me feel like I'm trolling by starting these topics. Still...the knowledge is hard to argue with. Thanks for the replies so far.

This is always an interesting discussion and one that is obviously present in more than just aviation. Personally I feel that since these are finite objects and will eventually wear out, so long as the project was started with an original plane (over 50% works I guess) then I don't care how much you eventually have to replace down the road...it's still a restoration. I've heard people say that the only original part left of the USS Constitution is the keel. So at what point did we lose the "real" ship? If someone restores a plane and keeps it running for 80 years, I'll bet that very little of the plane will be from the war years once year 2094 rolls around.

I don't see any "nastiness" in this debate; there has been wicked nastiness expressed in other threads, but not here. The question was a good one and there has been respectful expression of various points of view.

As I mentioned earlier, where all the wooden parts have been replaced but all the other parts are retained and are known to belong to the original aircraft, I think this could count as a restoration. And the Constitution is a case in point. I have also heard that 98% of the wood has been replaced, but this has happened over the course of time, with each part being carefully made as a copy of the existing previous part. And there is much of the ship - metal parts and so forth - that are original and in their original context. It still is the U.S.S. Constitution (and that it is still operating under the original commission strengths its case).

There is an early Wright Flyer currently being advertised for sale as an original - it has an original engine and chain/sprockets with all other parts built from scratch. The work was done by the people at Wright Connection, which adds credibility to the work. Whether this counts as a "restoration" or "reproduction using original parts" is arguable. I would probably argue for the latter, as the parts are very much less than 50% of the whole, but the current and potential owners would likely argue for this being considered as a restoration.

The next question is whether these judgments applied to wood also apply to metal. Does a P-51 with an original engine, some instruments and a data plate count as a "restoration?" I would say categorically no, especially where the engine and data plate are not physically related to the same aircraft. The only thing that is in the original context is the data plate by itself. It would be to my mind a full-sized and wonderfully detailed model of the original = a reproduction. It presents but does not preserve the original aircraft.

[Deuelly]

Brandon says the point it to "preserve history" but is history really preserved when most of the parts can no longer be traced to the historical artifact?

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said preserve history I actually meant history. If someone wanted to make a P-51 with fiberglass and wood and slap a data tag on it that's their call. But, if 70 years from now some kid sees that plane and wants to read more about WWII because of it then guess what, that plane just preserved history.

We can't be shallow minded. A good number of these restored historic aircraft never saw combat. The reason they're historic is because of a war that was fought and sacrifices that were made. It's pointless to argue over how original they are if 100 years from now know one knows why they're a historical artifact.

We have great shops out there now that if needed can build every part with every exacting detail. People will always know how these planes were built. Will they always know why they were built?

Brandon

Thanks for the clarification. To my way of thinking, you just clarified that when you said "preserve history" you may have meant history, but you did not mean PRESERVE.

You meant promote, educate, glorify, dramatize, commemorate, or something else, but not preserve.

The distinction is important because model airplanes, reproductions, and movies with computer animations can do the other stuff. In other words vintage airplanes can be replaced for all of those purposes. As a real historical artifact, there is no substitute for a vintage airplane. That's why all these apparently picayune details matter to folks who are really concerned about preservation, whereas those with a more educational or memorial mission tend to be impatient with them.

August

Sorry August I did mean preserve, thanks for seeing that. I beleive (my opinion to follow) that educating someone on WWII is helping to preserve history.

I also feel that if one of the missions of a restoration shop isn't education and memorializing then they're probably not going to do a good job preserving.

On a side note I do make a living doing restoration work.

Brandon

[51fixer]

The next question is whether these judgments applied to wood also apply to metal. Does a P-51 with an original engine, some instruments and a data plate count as a "restoration?" I would say categorically no, especially where the engine and data plate are not physically related to the same aircraft. The only thing that is in the original context is the data plate by itself. It would be to my mind a full-sized and wonderfully detailed model of the original = a reproduction. It presents but does not preserve the original aircraft.

In the US it comes down to some form of ownership. That can come from recovering a WWII crash site where you can document what it was and prove/get ownership. No one else can have a claim to it. Or it can come from buying paperwork.
So basically there isn't an amount of original metal that is even required in some respects.
Anyone could build a homebuilt of any WWII fighter and register it as an Amateur Built Homebuilt and get it registered in the Experimental Category. Gerry Beck did this with his P-51A.
Again as far as FAA Airworthiness goes Restoration isn't really a legal term.

Restoration and the viewpoint your coming from is more a Museum/Collector/Purist thing. Not really a Fly an Airplane/Legality/FAA thing.

If you can get the FAA to register a P-51 by some form of proving ownership, then any collection of parts you put together have to follow workmanship and standard practices as approved by the FAA and signed off by a FAA designated Mechanic and IA along with conforming to the TCDS and following P-51 manuals. Then you have an AIRWORTHY P-51. The FAA is concerned with AIRWORTHINESS after the ownership of some form have been proven. A questionable Dataplate won't cause an A/C to crash but the sky is the limit for how things are done, improper materials, bad workmanship, poor piloting, lack of experience, ect. That is where the FAA Rules and Regulations along with quality workmanship and good training along with keeping current in your flying become the focus of most of us involved in these Warbirds.

Most owners and pilots don't have a big concern with linage as much as they want to fly a really cool/exciting/high performance A/C.

[k5083]

Sorry August I did mean preserve, thanks for seeing that. I beleive (my opinion to follow) that educating someone on WWII is helping to preserve history.

I also feel that if one of the missions of a restoration shop isn't education and memorializing then they're probably not going to do a good job preserving.

On a side note I do make a living doing restoration work.

Brandon

Well, that's fair.

There is a gang of us who call ourselves preservationists, who view the preservation of artifacts not as a means to the end of education and memorializing, but as an end in itself. We look ahead to a time 1,000 years hence, when people will not be living in countries they recognize as ours, our wars will have melted into the long litany of human conflict, and our "greatest generation" will seem the parochial conceit that it is. This has consequences for how something is restored, or whether we call it a restoration or reproduction. We preservationists would like for the folks of 3014 to have the most original artifact possible, because we think they will appreciate it, as we appreciate it in a 1,000-year-old sword (or for that matter a 70-year-old plane) that we view today.

Luckily there's room for pluralism, with the Smithsonian and other institutional museums taking more or less the preservationist view, and others a different view. From the preservationist's standpoint, it's also valuable that a lot of airplanes be restored, to increase the chances of some surviving. And while we might prefer, if only one P-51 survives the next 1,000 years, that it be the Smithsonian's, that actually has to be conceded as unlikely since it is displayed in Washington DC, which as a city of some importance, is relatively likely to be destroyed in some war or terrorist act before then. If the one surviving P-51 in 1,000 years happens to be a data plate restoration built in 2014, that will still be a lot better than nothing.

August

[Mark Allen M]

k5083 you need some sort of "America the beautiful" music playing with that post of yours.
I'll give you a +1 though. Well said

[CoastieJohn]

Sorry August I did mean preserve, thanks for seeing that. I beleive (my opinion to follow) that educating someone on WWII is helping to preserve history.

I also feel that if one of the missions of a restoration shop isn't education and memorializing then they're probably not going to do a good job preserving.

On a side note I do make a living doing restoration work.

Brandon

Well, that's fair.

There is a gang of us who call ourselves preservationists, who view the preservation of artifacts not as a means to the end of education and memorializing, but as an end in itself. We look ahead to a time 1,000 years hence, when people will not be living in countries they recognize as ours, our wars will have melted into the long litany of human conflict, and our "greatest generation" will seem the parochial conceit that it is. This has consequences for how something is restored, or whether we call it a restoration or reproduction. We preservationists would like for the folks of 3014 to have the most original artifact possible, because we think they will appreciate it, as we appreciate it in a 1,000-year-old sword (or for that matter a 70-year-old plane) that we view today.

Luckily there's room for pluralism, with the Smithsonian and other institutional museums taking more or less the preservationist view, and others a different view. From the preservationist's standpoint, it's also valuable that a lot of airplanes be restored, to increase the chances of some surviving. And while we might prefer, if only one P-51 survives the next 1,000 years, that it be the Smithsonian's, that actually has to be conceded as unlikely since it is displayed in Washington DC, which as a city of some importance, is relatively likely to be destroyed in some war or terrorist act before then. If the one surviving P-51 in 1,000 years happens to be a data plate restoration built in 2014, that will still be a lot better than nothing.

August

Good perspective!

I agree about Wash DC getting nuked some day and nothing left. Among the many armchair questions after such an event, people will ask why did we put all of our best eggs (aircraft) in one basket?

[k5083]

Well, such is the nature of societies, right? We want our best stuff to be where people can see and celebrate it, so our cultural treasures end up concentrated in our political and financial capitals, arranged conveniently around ground zero for the inevitable attack. And so countless cultural treasures are lost when Rome is sacked, Berlin is bombed, Sarajevo and Kabul are reduced to rubble. Heck, DC has already been destroyed once.

But we can't live in fear or anticipation of catastrophe. We have to go forward as if our cities and society will endure, that's human optimism. It's smart, though, to stick a number of our precious artifacts someplace so inconsequential, so obscure, that not even the sick mind of a terrorist would think to destroy it. Someplace like Dayton, Ohio. (Okay, that was gratuitous. But still semi-serious. No doubt there are still several missiles in Russia with Wright-Pat's coordinates programmed into them, but they probably wouldn't even work any more; the threats of the future are likely to bypass Dayton for more relevant targets. So my bet is for Shimmy to survive longer than Willit Run.)

August

[CoastieJohn]

Maybe a solution.....put the museums underground to protect the treasures.

[Mark Allen M]

Luckily there's still "realism" between "optimism and pessimism

[tow-3]

all I know is that it is dependent on the color the inside of the gear doors are painted.

bob burns

[Dave Hadfield]

I can say from experience that a Data Plate is key. Without it, the project isn't worth as much money.

Money isn't everything here, but it's certainly important to the person writing the cheque.

And as was said, the FAA or TC need to see documentation and they want that to be a data plate.

Value is always a perception, and that varies between people. But with warbirds, if it doesn't have a data plate it's a Homebuilt, and worth about half as much.

Reality doesn't have to make sense.

Dave