How aircraft and dinosaur restorations may be similar

[old iron]

Hello all,

This came up recently on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/christies-shen-tyrannosaurus-rex-auction-cancel-intl-scn-hnk/index.html

At issue is a Tyrannosaurus rex that has just been withdrawn from auction due to matters of how much of the display is original bone. The skeleton in question may only have a few pieces of original bone, the rest being a cast of a more complete skeleton that can be purchased for $120,000. The auction that was being advertised as more real that this actually was had anticipated sale price of $15 to $25,000,000. This amounts to a very substantial mark-up and is what I (a paleontologist, though not vertebrate paleo) would consider dishonesty on the part of the seller; the auctioneer has apparently agreed and withdrawn the item from auction.

We of course see the same thing with aircraft restorations that are sometimes based as wrecked or destroyed aircraft that have few if any parts that can be incorporated into the "restoration" - the so-called "data-plate" warbirds.

The question concerns how much is or needs to be documented. I think the major museums at least strive for documentation of originality piece-by-piece. Lesser museums perhaps less so. What should be the standards for private owners? Should auctioneers (or at least auction houses) insist on some documentation on the aircraft portion that is genuine surviving pieces to that aircraft type. Do, or should the major restorers provide that document (they should, in my opinion).

[Sopwith]

Interesting viewpoint, I can see where you’re coming from but on a rebuild of an aeroplane,a lot of parts would need to be made to airworthy spec out of the same material or modern equivalent, so you couldn’t really compare it to a dinosaur comprising a few genuine fossil parts and the rest made up of casts. Good idea about documenting the original and new build parts in an aircraft that’s been rebuilt.
Incidentally I am presuming you were talking about an airworthy rebuild and not a static exhibit.

[Hooligan2]

Incidentally I am presuming you were talking about an airworthy rebuild and not a static exhibit.

Pterodactyl?

[Sopwith]

Close but no Terry Dactyl

[JohnB]

Does the market really care how much is original?

-Sopwith's comment is spot-on. Since airworthy aircraft are expected to be safe, that introduces an entirely different set of factors.
And safety outweighs originality in airworthy aircraft.

-Most warbirds on the market are airworthy and are offered as flyers.
Most museums have had their "all original" museum pieces (hense the name) for decades, who knows what something like the 'pulled out of service and sent to museum' Chicago Spitfire would go for...I'm not sure there is an established value on them.

-Most importantly, does the market (buyers) "punish" an aircraft value wise, for a "dataplate" restoration?
Personally, I don't think so, but I would certainly welcome the opinion by someone who tracks the market.

-Would anyone really want an all original warbird to fly?
Is it okay to reskin an aircraft to get rid of magnesium rivets?
If so, where do you stop? Safer brakes or fuel injection system? new build pistons and rings? Solid state avionics? Improved fabric on control surfaces?

There is a well respected sports/collector car magazine (which I write for) that covers international sales and auctions which enables interested parties to keep track of values. Reading it, you learn that the warbird market is a lot like the vintage race car market.
Experts put race cars into two categories...original and "weapons grade".

All original cars are basically sold as museum pieces, some are completely static, while others will still be (gently) driven, but not "in anger".

The old racing cars that are still driven competitively in vintage races, are, like warbirds, modified for safety and often, increased performance (better brakes etc).
The market (buyers and sellers) understand this, and there isn't a price penalty for being sensibly modified. In fact, in many cases a modified for current racing car is worth more than an all original unit because it is useable, and not just garage art...an old car with a famous driver's imprint in the seat cushion.
There are more buyers for something (be it car or aircraft) useable than as a static piece.
The warbird pilots I have met place more emphasis on safety (And this usability) than some arbitrary standard of originality.

Funny, one doesn't hear of a "anti-restoration" sentiment in old race cars the way we do with warbirds.
Maybe they appreciate you can't have it both ways.

So it comes down to which you would rather have..
More active warbirds
or far fewer but with more originality (which is invisible to the naked eye).

And to address your final point. When someone buys a warbird, it comes with maintenance and restoration logs, all signed by a licensed A&P.
The buyer knows what has been changed/repaired as well as when and by who.
Remember, to a guy who is betting his life in a 75 year old machine, he's looking for safe items, not snob appeal.
A far cry from fiberglass dinosaur bones.

Last edited by JohnB on Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

[k5083]

Funny, one doesn't hear of a "anti-restoration" sentiment in old race cars the way we do with warbirds.
Maybe they appreciate you can't have it both ways.

I have heard of it. Quite often, in fact.

August

[Noha307]

If you took a look at listings on warbirds sales websites, you will see a lot of:

All new wood

(Source: Platinum Fighters)

Every system has either been replaced or overhauled to zero time specifications.

(Source: Platinum Fighters)

However, as a counterpoint, I know of at least one case where originality was made a selling point: Spitfire IX, MH415. Also, Warbirds News posted an article about provenance earlier this year where the author argues originality can play a role.

I've always significantly respected any shop, such as Century Aviation, that makes a distinction between preservation and restoration. The same goes for museums, like Old Rhinebeck, that does the same thing on their aircraft profiles. Or still others that attempt to strike a balance, such as Allied Fighters' restoration of the P-47 Dottie May, in which they went so far as to lay out the following policy:

Indeed we (collectively) understand the historical importance of 29150 K4-S "Dottie Mae" and plan (where possible & safe) to undertake the following:
A. To preserve as much of the existing airframe as possible. Parts that are in good airworthy condition are to be cleaned and reused, slightly damaged parts to be repaired, replacement hardware to be new old stock where possible and at the last resort non-existent impossible to find parts will be factory new.
B. New material to be clearly marked to assist in any future rebuild/restoration.
C. Document the restoration and preserve all original parts.
D. Retain all original paintwork, decals, significant and noteworthy stenciling.
E. Other fuselage skins bearing the names of the ground crew as well as "Dottie Mae" will be removed and displayed. These shall be replicated on new skins.
F. The original nose artwork has been preserved and will be on display in the future.
G. Stock restoration but retaining flak repairs and completing "K4-S" to as she was on the last mission in May 1945.
H. The R-2800, 18cyl engine has been rebuilt by Anderson Automotive in Idaho.
I. Eight .50 cal heavy machine guns and ammunition feeds to be re-installed.
J. Original instruments, gunsight and canopy.
K. Original skins to remain un-cleaned to preserve the patina of 90 missions. New skins to be weathered to match.

(Source: Allied Fighters)

Interesting viewpoint, I can see where you’re coming from but on a rebuild of an aeroplane,a lot of parts would need to be made to airworthy spec out of the same material or modern equivalent, so you couldn’t really compare it to a dinosaur comprising a few genuine fossil parts and the rest made up of casts.

Yes, it's very correct that some original parts cannot be used in airworthy restorations because they are truly too damaged and pose a safety risk. However, I think a good amount of the time the major determiner of reuse of a damaged part is time/cost and not airworthiness. If you read about the Fleet Air Arm Museum's Fairey Barracuda restoration, for example their October 2015 update, they have done an excellent job repairing parts that would have been thrown out by many other projects. Now, of course, their finished project isn't going to fly. Yet, I think the lessons are still applicable for airworthy restorations. I can't find a reference for it at the moment, but I seem to remember them even having the unique idea that if a part was too damaged to use, they could melt it down, recast the part, and in that way still have the "original material". I also thought I found a video about a company that was able to repair damaged pistons in an R-2800 for a Corsair project, but, again, I can't find it at the moment.

Lastly, since it's relevant, a little plug for a thread of mine from a while ago: Historical Integrity

[JohnB]

Funny, one doesn't hear of a "anti-restoration" sentiment in old race cars the way we do with warbirds.
Maybe they appreciate you can't have it both ways.

I have heard of it. Quite often, in fact.

August

You get the anti-restoration sentiment in old cars (I recall reading about one idiot who said he was not going to polish the brass on his car, which is like saying you're not going to wash it) but not old RACE cars that are raced...In other words, used as intended. The sanctioning race bodies will not allow that.

Heck, a friend had to put on a fire suit and full face helmet just to drive a Stutz Bearcat at 70mph on an empty track.


Noha 307...

The example of Dottie May is an extreme case in favor of preservation. If it's the aircraft I think it is, the P-47 recovered from a lake, I have seen it and the display items that discuss its preservation and restoration. Very impressive. I'm very happy that they preserved as much as they could.

But that doesn't address the more common case of restorations where there simply isn't enough good structure to have an airworthy aircraft.

Then the question becomes simple, would you rather have 170 flying Mustangs in the world or 30?
72 Spitfires or a dozen?

All in all, it's a moot point...the guys who have the money to own and fly these aircraft don't seem to mind putting their millions of dollars (and trusting their lives) in aircraft that may not pass the muster from "purists".

I'm not sure what good it does for folks in the cheap seats to pass judgement on aircraft they don't own, can't afford and can't fly.

And remember too, 99% of the public doesn't care.
They appreciate simply seeing flying aircraft or operating antique auto. They really don't care how much of it is original.
To them seeing a flying Spitfire or operating Ford GT-40 or 1914 Stutz Bearcat is enough of a thrill.

[k5083]

JohnB, your thoughts are valuable but they reflect a very specific point of view and a lack of self-awareness of your assumptions. This is revealed when you ask:

Then the question becomes simple, would you rather have 170 flying Mustangs in the world or 30?
72 Spitfires or a dozen?

The question is only simple if you do not understand other points of view and assume everyone shares your assumptions. From the other perspective, the same question would be phrased, "Would you would rather have zero real Mustangs because they have all been used to make 170 flying replica Mustangs, or 30 real Mustangs?" Not so simple then, is it? Or just as simple but in the other direction?

More failure of understanding is revealed in the question:

I'm not sure what good it does for folks in the cheap seats to pass judgement on aircraft they don't own, can't afford and can't fly.

By "pass judgement" you seem to mean "have opinions," but of course if you used this term, your statement would be more obviously elitist and offensive. For you to say this, yet call other people snobs in a prior post, is, again, not very self-aware. The people with the most useful education, information, and opinions are not necessarily those with the most dollars or power. If they were, Twitter would be doing great.

The OP about the dinosaur is actually very on point. In any field where historical artifacts are collected, including planes, cars, and dinosaur bones, there is a premium for original content at least in a significant sector of the market. In all such fields, it is considered misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent to overstate the original content when selling your artifact. In all fields, there is a tradeoff with functionality - yes, even with dinosaurs. Real dinosaur "bones" are made of fossilized sedimentary rock which is both heavy and fragile. If you want to mount and display the skeleton you are better off with plastic castings. There is certainly a sector of the dinosaur market that will pay more for a functional plastic dinosaur skeleton than for real fossils dug out of the ground. And FAR more for a functioning animatronic dinosaur bearing no internal resemblance to the real creature, which the public eats right up. That does not appear to be the market that this particular specimen was directed to. Both sectors of the market exist with respect to most historical artifacts that I can think of. The highest values may be driven by the functional segment, inhabited by people with gobs of money and more interest in thrills than history. That does not invalidate the history-driven market sector that Old Iron was talking about.

And are the plutes all that insensitive to history? Recently on this forum, someone called out Mike Potter's new Spitfire for not being a Spitfire. Not to pick on Potter or even necessarily to agree with that particular post, which I don't think got the facts quite right, but what if word like that got around, and everyone, even the general public, came to understand that they are not looking at real Mustangs and Spitfires at airshows, just expensive toy replicas? What if we punctured the "custodian of history" puff that they keep spouting and mocked the idea that they have "museums" or "foundations" instead of tax-exempt toy boxes? What if airshows advertising World War II aircraft, Mustangs, and Spitfires were sued for false advertising for promoting what are really just hot rods built a few years ago? Might they push back? Might the values of the planes decline? Might attendance at shows and "museums" decrease? Might the precious tax exemptions be jeopardized? The truth is that the rich warbird owners want it both ways, they want to pretend they have a historical artifact and a practical cool new airplane as well. There's a good argument that we should stop letting them get away with it.

August

[JimH]

Provenance is all that matters, owners don't care how much is original as long as they are airworthy...bottom line. A dataplate or paperwork from a machine with history is all that matters and will always command higher numbers. That is just how the market works.

Jim

[JohnB]

Double post. See below. Sorry

Last edited by JohnB on Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[JohnB]

August

You criticize me for using the term "snob" and you say my post would be more elitist if I had come out and criticized people for having opinions.

But if taken too far, your opinions and thoughts are equally elitist, and perhaps more so.

Yes, the public are kidding themselves if they think that the skin on that Spitfire they are looking at was put there by a young woman at Castle Bromwich while her husband was in North Africa.

But at the end of the day, the people that want or need to know the truth...owners, restorers, historians and the CAA/FAA know the history of that ship.

You seem concerned that "rich warbird owners" are getting away with something.
Perhaps to the very casual part of an air show audience they are.

But need I mention the obvious fact that if it weren't for them spending their money, this hobby of ours...and this forum, would be a very quiet place.
Likewise the vintage racing events at Goodwood or the many museums that offer less than perfectly original dinosaur exhibits that seem to cater to young people. (When I was a kid, I was reading the Putnam series of aviation books, while classmates were reading about dinosaurs, it's the same way today).

Is the goal of the "let's be honest" brigade to lower the cost of newly built warbirds in an attempt to democratize the hobby so the "rich warbird owners" don't have all the fun?
If so, I must point out With fuel, maintenance, and insurance prices being what they are, warbird flying would still be a wealthy man's game even if the aircraft were free.

And if by setting up a museum they are getting a tax write off or a break in hangar rent, it's clear that they don't HAVE to do that. They don't have to share their toys (I know of a lot of historic car owners like that) and of course they could take the money they spend on warbirds and buy a Gulfstream or Falcon, a villa in the Italian Alps or a (now) $12 million McLaren F1, a $70 Ferrari GTO, million dollar wrist watches or a few Brazilian super models and share them with no one.

The collector I know is happy to let kids climb in his B-25, he's more generous about it than I would be, and more than I am about letting kids climb on my vintage roadster.

Should we work to limit warbirds to "approved provenance" examples operated by government agencies? Even then, it won't work if I recall correctly, even some of the RAF's "one careful owner" aircraft in the BoBMF, have newer structures.

The fact remains, not everyone lives within driving distance of London or D.C.
in places like that, you can see 100% original, world class examples of whatever you are interested in, whether it be warbirds or dino bones. It's a quick train trip to London from virtually anywhere in the UK, not so for people in Dubuque or the Dakotas where I'm sure they are satisfied with the restored warbirds in their area.

Remember, not every museum can afford a $15-25 million assembled fossil. The number of all original warbirds likewise is very finite.

So to those who can't make the journey to those collections...do we tell them to be happy with videos on TV?

Yes, the present system is a bit of "Disneyization" (to coin a phrase)
if history. But again, it's transparent enough for those who are really interested in the subject.

In short, less than perfect history is better than no history at all.
I'd rather have a child look at a 1995 built Mustang (And learn the lessons of the 20th Century) than be obsessed with Harry Potter or Star Wars.

In the meantime, airshows and plastic bones give people something to look at, enjoy and learn from.

I'm not seeing much of a downside in that.