Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:31 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Phantom fighters
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 3:20 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Roma caput mundi
Quote:
can you just imagine the confusion that'd have come from their having a pilot flying missions in a plane that didn't exist, according to air force records at least?


Better yet, can you imagine being shot down by something that doesn't exist? I can see various Catch 22 scenarios lurking out there.

Gregory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:34 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:55 pm
Posts: 1105
Location: Australia
To comment on Gregory's original question:

Quote:
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
.


By the definitions debated above, its a "reproduction" as soon as the dimensions, materials or construction methods depart significantly from the original design, i.e. steel tube for wood, fibreglass for aluminium, 3/4 instead of 1/1, and even when all those are correct it would be a replica unless more that 50% are orginal manufacture parts in which case its a restored original etc

Obviously a replica is of more value than a reproduction, and as scale and visual accuracy is compromised further away from the original subject so is the value. (Here I mean value in a heritage or educational sense, not an entertainment or even re-sale sense!)

As I said earlier, if we could get these conventions established and accepted then those building new metal "replicas" or even "restored originals" might be satisfied to live with those labels on their efforts and be rewarded for the "effort/value" in that, rather than compromising the history of all other original aircraft with combat history etc by implying "rebirth" of a makers plate on my great grandmothers broom, (I wonder if it still flies or if its static?)

(perhaps "rebirth" is a formal term to be added to the list above, whereby provedence and history is stretched from new metal and a makers plate back from the grave of a corroded/charred hole in the ground?)

In Australia a gentleman assembled some Tiger Moths after the war from surplus "spares" that had never been collectively provided a serial number, as the parts are original they are obviously restored originals but they carry no DHA production serial number, instead they carry his production number, but they are still original parts and made the original way so clearly not a replica.


regards
Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: David Legg and 316 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group