Warbird Information Exchange

And how much of an 'original' is required for it to be a rebuild rather than a replica? New-build P-51s with identities of aircraft destroyed in Europe during WWII, registered as the original aircraft, are becoming commonplace - I can think of 2 that have emerged this year alone.

There is a case of a new-build Spitfire assuming an original identity when the owner acquired some parts from a long written-off example and incorporated them into the new-build aircraft retrospectively.

A recent cache of new-build Spitfire parts was offered on eBay with identities from wreck recoveries.

Where do we draw the line? An interesting discussion topic, and one that will run and run.

And that's before we get into the dual identity discussion. 2 weeks ago, I saw and photographed the fuselage of Spitfire XVI TD248, at the Norfolk & Suffolk Air Museum at Flixton. Last weekend, I saw and photographed Spitfire XVI TD248 in HFL's hangar at Duxford. One is made up from the original skinning from TD248, discarded during the rebuild, on a new frame. The other is the airworthy, rebuilt and re-skinned TD248. Both are identified as 'TD248'.

Slightly off-topic, but on a related subject, until recently there were 2 Le Mans-winning D-Type Jaguars with the same identity, both containing substantial parts of the original. Fortunately, the owner of one, at considerable expense, purchased the other and combined the original parts to create a single car of undisputed provenance.

Part of the problem is scope - what your concept includes or excludes.

However, here's a a definition! Robert Mikesh, writing in 'Restoring Museum aircraft' defines replica as follows. (Bear in mind he is talking in only the Museum concept, not, say, private owners.)

"Replica: A reproduction built by the constructor of the original artifact in part or total and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems."

"Reproduction: A resonable facsimile in apparence and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems."

Please bear in mind this is in a particular context, and he elabouyrates a lot around this. Good book, recommended!~

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I must be a very poor communicator, because I seem to fal to explain my point.

I am not asking which of the two TD248 is original, or more original than the other.

I am wondering about look-alike aircraft, like the MB.5 (which isn't really that similar to the original), semi-scale efforts and other self-styled replicas.

When do the replicas become models? Where does scale begin to matter? How much artistic license is allowed? Do flyable aircraft get more or less leeway than statics? In NY, the Intrepid Air-Sea-Space Museum displays an impressive Helldiver, but it is made from tin-sheet and share nothing but the outline with the real McCoy. Are fibreglass "replicas" built to be blown apart on the same level as the beautiful (if inaccurate) MB.5 recreation?

So - forget the original. Just tell me how unoriginal it must be to become a replica.

Gregory

I consider the Fw 190A-8/N in Germany to be new builds, as well as the 262s in the USA. For me they are the real deal, just like a totally rebuilt Spit with only the dataplate original is the real deal.

A replica would be the CAF Kates, Vals and Zekes, as well as this MB.5 dealie.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

So replica=look alike?

Gregory

For me yes.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

As many of you will know this is a subject I've been carping on about since Adam was a lad. In a few days time you will see some of my thoughts published in my regular Aeroplane column.

This is a subject I've wrestled with over and over again. Whilst it is simply impossible to come up with a set of hard and fast definitions that everyone will agree (and this is the real problem) it might help if we take a step back and consider WHY we need such definitions. As a writer and researcher it has become increasingly difficult for me to accurately describe a project where an aircraft is being restored to FLY (and my comments and thoughts are restricted to this scenario).

However, over the years it has become apparent that the only people that say it 'doesn't matter' are those with a vested interest. For me this is a minor distraction. As both Gregory and JDK have stated it is important for the future that we consider such definitions; if only because to ignore them means that history will be distorted, fraud will be committed and we will be doing a grave disservice to those restorers that do strive for originality.

I think the definitons that Robert Mikesh outlines in his excellent book 'Restoring Museum Aircraft' are fine for museum aircraft. They could be used as a basis for our own set of guidelines.

One thing that is important, and I go back to a comment I made earlier, is that we do work at this in an effort to lay down some guidelines. No one (most of all me) wants to see a 'restoration police' (Scotland Yard already have a Fraud Squad) or any organisations or individuals motives questioned. Most of you will know that there are countless organisations and individual restoration shops out there that are scouring the earth for the missing bit to aid a restoration. I calculated some time ago, based on interviews and conversations I had with countless individuals and shops, that for every hour spent working on an aircraft four to five hours are spent on the telephone, writing or emailing and chasing, chasing, chasing that elusive piece or drawing. One thing that does cause raised eyebrows is when someone says 'ahh, it has this identity because it has the original engine cowlings we discovered in.......' We could go on discussing this for years. As you know, I am always interested in everyones' views on this subject and I believe it is important we keep it in the public domain and continue to discuss it. Please don't say it doesn't matter. By the same token I think it is important that we generalise otherwise, even perhaps unwittingly, fingers will be pointed and this is unfair.

Perhaps we should start by laying down some basic principles? I think the first could be what constitutes an identity, and for me, as always, it is that centre fuselage section; simply because this has been the accepted norm (lets say by the majority) for years. An aircraft needs an identity so it can be properly recorded.

My vested (and declared) interest in all this is that I do intend to go into print on the subject in the not too distant future. If you have an opinion or an idea that you would like to express I'd be interested in hearing it, either in our out of the public domain. Those that want to express their views privately - my email address is pac@warbirdguru.com. However, I certainly don't want to kill the debate here.

Paul

To explain my statement above, saying "what does it matter", I was talking about the MB.5 'replica' and its like, which would never pass as the original aircraft.

If however, somebody builds a new airframe to an exact specification and then attempts to sell it as historic artifact, they deserve everything that the law throws their way. Personally I'm unaware of this happening but then again I'm not involved with the industry!

Also, Mike's post about the skins from TD248 is an interesting point regarding dual identities as when I visited CockpitFest this year, I was speaking with a gentlemen who was building a Hurricane section.

Now to play Devil's Advocate, he mentioned that several parts had come from one of the BBMF Hurricanes (IIRC correctly nothing structural and I stress that at no time was I led to believe that the section in front of me was that specific airframe) but if the project were to be sold on several times, then BBMF lost the Hurricane concerned, would the future owners claim that they now owned the original aircraft?

_________________
...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in Space cos there's bugger all down here on Earth!

The unfortunate thing in my view is that a lot of it will come down to the honesty of those who restored/ rebuilt/ reproduced an aircraft. When huge amounts of money are involved honesty is not a virtue for a lot of people.
There have been a few cases of blatant 'misinformation' that I can think of. One was the attempted sale on Barnstormers of the ex Hanns Dittes Buchon conversion to a Me109G-10. The information was deliberately implying that the aircraft was a genuine 109 and not only that , it was the aircraft flown by the ace Muller [ it was , and still is painted in his colours, but there was no part of his particular aicraft in that airframe]. The passing of a Spanish Buchon airframe off as its wartime decendant is common and in my view, deliberate....once again the value of the aircraft being the reason behind it.
The other example I can think of was the report I saw in Flypast that the basically new P-51 ' Millie G' was General Gilliers actual aircraft, being that the tailcone was found to have the serial of one of his aircraft. It is recorded that the airframe was actually destroyed in Europe, not only in the records, but in Gillers log book. Once again putting about this false information is a ploy to raise the value of the aircraft. It may have the tailcone, but as Paul rightly says, it is generally accepted that any provenance comes from the cockpit/ fuselage center section..the 'heart' of an aircraft.
Unless the provenance of an airframe is well documented through the rebuild/ restoration process, the only advice is 'buyer...and historian...Beware'

There is no doubt that, when money is involved, there is a strong incentive to blur boundaries.

Certainly Buchons are in a gray area, particularly if (as I understand) many of the German types built in Spain incorporated major German assemblied.

But my question is different. I am not asking when an "original" (P-51, Buchon, Spitfire) becomes a replica. All I want to know is when a wooden monoplane becomes a "replica Spit" ...

Gregory

I would suggest the answer to what you want to know is "never".

If an airframe is restored using some substantial remains of the original to original specs using the same materials then I consider it an original with the appopriate maintainance to make it static or airworthy.

If an airframe is constructed as in the previous point but not with any substantial original remains, then I would consider this a new build / replica. On a side note I don't have any problem with data plate restorations which I consider to fall in this category. I would love to own a data plate P-51 (as if that is going to happen).

However... if there is a departure from the original design, wood used in the construction of the new Spit's structure for example, then I consider this to be a look-alike, i.e. not even a replica, and certainly not original, even if some original components were used in the build. This does not mean I lose respect for the work or the worker, just lets not misrepresent what it is. More on that point... the Tora Tora Tora birds are not Zeros, Vals and Kates. They are modified Harvards, Texans and Valiants. I.e. the Tora birds are look-alikes (although I would prefer are more professional sounding term).

The only acception I would be willing to make from the above would be if the design required a change for the purpose of saftety or as a requirement for registration rules. Is a P-51 with a dash full of modern gauges not a P-51? I think it is a P-51, and the owner is taking resonable precautions to ensure it remains in existance.

Just my $0.02 CDN worth.

Regards,

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

I think that a definative defination of the word replica is required!

just wondering, is the Defiant with the Boulton Pau Association a model or a replica



It isn't a Restoration or New Build so...

_________________
...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in Space cos there's bugger all down here on Earth!

That's easy.
Non-flying construction, non-original structure: a full-scale model, albeit with some real parts fitted here and there.
Now, let's move one step up the quality ladder ...

Gregory

The Boulton Paul Society call it a full size model.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

More on that point... the Tora Tora Tora birds are not Zeros, Vals and Kates. They are modified Harvards, Texans and Valiants. I.e. the Tora birds are look-alikes (although I would prefer are more professional sounding term).

how does simulacra sound? looks like and appears to be but is not effectively sums up what that means