Remeber that P40 time capsule found in the Egyptian desert?

[Richard W.]

I recall all the canopy portions were broken out.

Can anyone tell if they sourced real replacement plexi? How about the propeller blades?

[Triplane102]

OH ! THE GLARE ! THE GLARE !! LOOK OUT ! "LADY BE GOOD" !!!

[Dan K]

...How about the propeller blades?

Well, if you heat 'em with a propane torch just so...and if you back the tractor over 'em just right...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... ater&ifg=1

[tom d. friedman]

[quote="Warbird Kid"]Pitiful. Should have gone to the RAF museum untouched and displayed in a crash diorama scene. It can only be original once... Such a sad end to the story. At least it wasn't scrapped I guess.[/quote

my sentiments exactly when I 1st saw a truly piss poor "taxidermy" job to a legendary warbird. plus, it should have been in the markings of it's pilot's group, both as a tribute to him & as well as his comrades.

[Chris Brame]

You guys don't appreciate the subtlety here - it's obviously intended as a brilliant re-creation of how outdoor aircraft displays used to look 60 years ago!

[JohnB]

Over at the Key Publishing forum , a self-important my moderator called it a "great restoration failure" by comparing it to the ill-fated "Kee Bird" recovery. But let's remember if the exact same thing had occurred in the 1950s-70s, they would have been applauded for it.

Appreciating something unrestored with original paint, etc. is a fairly new phenomena for mechanical things.

(Anyone who has viewed Antiques Roadshow knows that that has been the case for ancient furniture fora long time). In the antique car would, some are taking the unrestricted look to silly extremes...refusing to replace seat coverings when all but a few cm of original material remains, opting to sit on a 21st century horse blanket, or the idiot I saw in a national antique car publication who refuses to polish his brass radiator...a harmless cleaning step that certainty would have been done in period.

Still, you have to wonder how a presumably trained archivist/museum director could allow this? The answer is he was probably told to do it by higher-ups who saw the P-40 as simply a chance to put a rare type on display. Despite Egypt for having a healthy respect for its antiquities, it's still a third world country (I spent a month there in the late 90s) so I'm not sure if it's fair for us to put "our" (wealthy/western) standards to them.

And we might have to be careful about pointing fingers, I'm sure that there are some very strict conservationists out there who could make similar charges against the owners of data-plate rebuilds. I'm sure a lot of WWII paint and metal has been lost so enthusiasts can see more Spitfires and Mustangs at Duxford.

Finally, I'm sure there are those out there who would argue the aircraft should have been kept in place as a cultural artifact...even if no one saw it.
IIRC, several years ago here, a member accused someone of "cultural vandalism" for wanting to remove the rare B-17E known as "Swamp Ghost" from its western Pacific swamp where it was deteriorating. It was finally removed and has been displayed unrestored because it was realized that making it airworthy or even mating it look operational, would be to erase its history.

[JFS61]

My understanding was the plane suffered a good deal of vandalism after it was discovered, so (unfortunately), it really wasn't as much of a "time capsule" has it had been prior to its discovery. At least it is being preserved (even if it is under far less than optimal conditions), which is better than what is happening to many of the remaining Japanese wrecks in the South Pacific that are either rotting away or being melted down by scrappers while people argue over the semantics of recovering them.

And as for this being on par of the Kee Bird tragedy, absolutely not, as that catastrophe was a whole other level of magnitude worse.

[JohnB]

Yes the Kee Bird loss was a shame...but no one was hurt and there are several B-29 survivors...and two flying. Not too bad in the scheme of things.
Proportionally, that's a higher percentage of survivors and flyers than B-24s or Lancasters.

I suspect the guys who complain the must about the Kee Bird are the guys who have never taken a risk. No pain, no gain.

[JohnH]

Consider this - there’s no proof this isn’t a glass replica and I’m told the airplane is still in a storage container. So this one may not be it. There’s a lot of conclusions being made on the forums with no proof that’s the time capsule.

[Dan Jones]

Consider this - there’s no proof this isn’t a glass replica and I’m told the airplane is still in a storage container. So this one may not be it. There’s a lot of conclusions being made on the forums with no proof that’s the time capsule.

I think we can safely "bet the farm" that that's not the case here. There's not a doubt in my mind (for whatever that's worth) that this isn't the "time capsule" P-40 that was found a couple of years ago. Too bad.

[Dan Jones]

delete

[DaveM2]

Consider this - there’s no proof this isn’t a glass replica and I’m told the airplane is still in a storage container. So this one may not be it. There’s a lot of conclusions being made on the forums with no proof that’s the time capsule.

The engine displayed under the nose is the one that was recovered with the air frame, identifiable by the damage, so highly likely it is.

[quemerford]

And as for this being on par of the Kee Bird tragedy, absolutely not, as that catastrophe was a whole other level of magnitude worse.

It's the other way round: the P-40 was a WW2 artefact with a unique story - and with the sad loss of its pilot: it was a time capsule irrespective of any 'vandalism' (and be careful not to get too carried away with that as an excuse for what has subsequently been done to it) and as such a unique piece of history. Much could have been learned from whatever was left prior to its ridiculous and tasteless makeover.

Kee Bird's loss involved no wartime story and no crew fatality; and though what happened was regrettable, its historical significance cannot be considered on the same level as Sgt Coppings' P-40.

[C VEICH]

And as for this being on par of the Kee Bird tragedy, absolutely not, as that catastrophe was a whole other level of magnitude worse.

It's the other way round: the P-40 was a WW2 artefact with a unique story - and with the sad loss of its pilot: it was a time capsule irrespective of any 'vandalism' (and be careful not to get too carried away with that as an excuse for what has subsequently been done to it) and as such a unique piece of history. Much could have been learned from whatever was left prior to its ridiculous and tasteless makeover.

Kee Bird's loss involved no wartime story and no crew fatality; and though what happened was regrettable, its historical significance cannot be considered on the same level as Sgt Coppings' P-40.

Agree completely quemerford. Beyoned that time and the elements would have brought "Kee Bird" to exactly where she is now anyway. The chances of somebody footing the bill to take it apart and haul it out of there being extremely miniscule I would think.

[bdk]

So what would have been a worse prospect for this airplane: The Egyptian "restoration" or a restoration to airworthy condition by a collector?