original vs new built

[henry]

firstly note i'm not trying to start a cat fight here.

what are everyone's thoughts on original vs new build warbirds?

personaly i can see (and agree with) some of both sides.


are they the way of the future?

when is an original aircraft still original? how much can be replaced (for saftey's sake or whatever) before its originality is lost?

if an exact (and i mean perfect down to the smallest fittings) copy is made, how does it weigh up to an original that never saw wartime service and has lost it's gun fittings/hard points/some fuel tanks etc, has modern avionics and a highly polished/high gloss finish?

henry.

ps. i already know i can't spell...

[vanguard]

There is no answer to this question that any two people agree on.

[Jesse C.]

The same sort of discussion has been going on in the Nostalgia Dragster circles regarding original cars and re-pops.

Some cars are being recreated either because the original was destroyed, either accident or just scrapped or modified beyond reasonable rebuild. Some cars even employ original parts from the original car and some are scratch built.

Some are saying that the cars have to be at least 60% of the original car to be considered the real deal and total re-pops are replicas, even if they are done down to the original style bolts as the original and must let it be known that it is a replica. The replicas represent the ones that actually made history and they also show future generations how it was done.

There are only a few original cars still running with upgrades and are considered the real deal. A Woody Gilmore chassis is a Woody Gilmore chassis! Even with newer engines and cages, they are original cars because they made some history vs. a replica.

But in the end, it is up to you to decide. Personally, I love 'em all!

[k5083]

Those categories are too few and too vague to be meaningful in today's warbird world.

August

[rwdfresno]

I don't think there is such thing as sides in a completely ambiguous debate. It is sort of like debating how long a string should be or what color is better, red or yellow?

[T33driver]

But in the end, it is up to you to decide. Personally, I love 'em all!

That's a reasonable angle to take on the authenticity issue as it relates to warbirds and for that matter, breast augmentation.

[rwdfresno]

for that matter, breast augmentation.

When it comes to these I prefer originals as opposed to replicas although a good rebuild looks nice too. As with aircraft I prefer the heavies.

Ryan

[Mudge]

Ryan...somewhat less than subtle, but humorous nonetheless.

Mudge the chess man
(did I spell that correctly?)

[Bill Greenwood]

If it is all new, if none of it was ever a plane built by the factory, then it is not a genuine original. No matter how close the copy is it is still a copy, and of course if you take it to extreme almost no restoration is truly all original. Were the tires,tubes actually factory produced in WWII? How about the fabric, paint, battery,the safety wire, the canopy, seat belts etc. Honda can build a great period looking cruiser bike, but it is not a Harley. My plane certainly qualifies as a Spitfire, the majority of it was built by Supermarine and Rolls in WWII, but it has modern fabric, canopy, similar but not exact paint. When does a restoration become not original? I guess anytime more than half is factory it is a repaired or restored original, but there may be planes we consider as genuine that have more than half the parts new. I don't know if there is any agreed on amount that means it is the real thing.

[george]

Concerning the ultra-rare, such as the B-26F and G, the AM-1, the B-24D, and the non-existant such as the B-32, I think new-build would be wonderful, and would not detract just because it is new.

[RickH]

I don't think I have ever seen anyone turn away when one of the new build F3Fs makes pass. Everyone seems to be interested in the progress and subsequent flights of the Georges, ME-262s, and FW-190. They are all definitely new builds and marketed as such.

No one is claiming that they are restorations or historically important machines in their own right.

I say build them and we will enjoy them for what they are, a faithful recreation of an essentially extinct type.

[rwdfresno]

Ryan...somewhat less than subtle, but humorous nonetheless.

Mudge,

All I am saying is if I have the opportunity to go on a milk run with a couple of jugs I'm not going to complain if they are new builds, ground up restorations, or originals. Sure, it is nice to have one with at least a few real missions under her belt but then again would you turn down an opportunity at a first time flier?



Ryan

[hang the expense]

There are planes that languished for years for lack of reproduction parts and until someone tooled up to remanufacture these parts these planes would never fly again. So my point is I dont see the difference and am glad that planes thought to be lost forever are now flying. Who would have thought you would have ever seen a tomahawk or Hawk 75, 109,fw190,combat veteran p-40s fly again. Oh and dont forget the bombers that are under rebuild as well.

[rwdfresno]

I just wish that someone would come up with a way to make the Hispanos look more like an Me109. Any future new builds, half builds or rebuilds would look nice with an Me109 looking firewall forward. I know the Hispano is an aircraft "all its own" but I guess to me it is just a "replica" Me109 with a Merlin.

[Bill Greenwood]

I got to see the Me 262's while they were under construction in Ft. Worth and then see it fly in Seattle. Pretty special! I guess I would call this a historic recreation. It is certainly a valuable addition to warbirds, in the same style as the best Spirit of St. Louis or Wright Flyer replica.