Extremely rare recovered aircraft: Restore or display as is?

[Hawkeye]

Earlier today I was reading about the restoration of Donald Campbells "Bluebird" jet powered racing boat which was recovered from the bottom of the lake where it (and he) had been sitting for 35 years. I found myself profoundly disagreeing with what they were doing to the boat in their efforts to make it look like new, to the point where they are fitting a new engine and planning to take her out on the water once again. In the process it seems like they are wiping out the boats historical value. It seems to me almost like raising the Titanic, totally restoring her and taking her out for one last cruise. (IMO) Which got me thinking about similar situations with aircraft recovery's. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for restoring aircraft to flight status, always have been, always will be. But at what point do we step back and say "this particular object is far too rare, too historical, and in some cases, too ingrained into public consciousness like Bluebird, to be given "the ground up" treatment? I realize this can be a contentious issue,but I'd really like to hear all of your opinions on the subject. Thank you.

[Dave Lindauer]

I think everyone will answer "That depends..." to one degree or another. It is really hard to generalize.

[Vital Spark]

I think that in such a case a replica should be built to run, and the remains be preserved as close top original as possible as a historic object.

[oz rb fan]

i think any rare plane (especially if it's the last in exsistance)should be restored and displayed in complete condition,but probably not flown.
the bluebird restoration is being done with the family's cooperation,they want it as a living tribute to donald cambell.
if i recall all the parts that are not used in the restoration will go on display in the museum next to the restored boat.
i personly look forward to the nasm's restoration's on the shinden and ho229 amongst other axsis prototypes and sole survivors thats they have.
paul

[michaelharadon]

Bernie Fisher's Skyraider is in the NMUSAF, in pristine condition. It looks like any other restored Skyraider in any other museum.

He landed it in a Special Forces camp that was being over run by NVA to pick up another pilot (!) who had been shot down, and won the CMH for his trouble. I read that the plane returned to base more holes than aluminum, having been the target of a lot of angry rounds.

To me, the cachet of that particular aircraft came from touching down on a strip that was under fire, its battle damage a perfect mirror-or reflection-of its pilot's bravery. It was the battle damage and the circumstances under which it was sustained that made the plane unique. To restore it to new missed a huge point, IMHO.

[Hawkeye]

I totally agree with the need to restore rare airframes, like the Ho-229 or the Shinden.

What I dont agree with is the repairing and "restoring" of damage that is integral to that particular objects history, damage that is a testament to the events, whether heroic or catastrophic, that befell the aircraft (or jet-boat).

But Dave Lindauer is right, it does depend. I'm bothered by Bluebirds restoration, yet I'm not bothered by restoration of birds recovered from Russia, like the FW-189 or the many 109s. Why? I can't really put my finger on it...

I love michaelharadons example btw, it kind of illustrates what I'm struggling to accurately express...

[Fouga23]

The bluebird is a masterpiece of restoration! Besides the new engine, that is about it. The original one was corroded away (magnesium). For the rest, almost every part they found is being restored and re-used. They re-use parts even the NMUSAF or other museum would throw away! Mayor museums come looking at their restoration techniques! This will result in the restored bluebird havind an amazing percentage of originality. Yes, it will be run again, but at as much reduced speed and I think only once. As a tribute for the pilot who lost his life in it. All this with the support of his family!

[Dan Johnson II]

Probably ought to ask the Halifax fans how they feel about the RAF museum display of the Halifax 'as is' that was recovered from the Norwegian lake. I don't see many comments suggesting they like it that way. Seems like the Halifax restored in Canada is a much better tribute to the combat crews and 'erks' who kept them flying.

To me, what's more important is the ability to step back in time and see it as it was when it was flying combat, breaking records or whatever.

Should "Swamp Ghost" ever make it back, I'd hate to see it left as is. Might as well leave it in the swamp then.

These machines represent the folks who lived and died operating them. I want that time machine to be in color, not a pile of wreckage. It's just bits of metal then.

[warbird1]

Uh oh.......another hot topic vitriolic post in the making. I predict this thread will be locked as soon as Mustangdriver, Jack Cook, Matt Gunsch and A2C enter the discussion. It's inevitable.

[Richard Woods]

Guys,

I would take a look at the Bluebird project website. The amount metalwork of the machine they cannot restore or reuse comes in at ounces.

The running of it is going to be a tribute to Donald Campbell before it goes and sleeps in a museum. Remeber too that the search was not just for Bluebird. They successfully found Donald and returned his remains to his family for burial.

Go here:

www.bluebirdproject.com


The Titanic? Too much trouble in my opinion. Better to start with it's sister ship the HMHS Brittanic, it's only in 300 feet of water off the island of Kea.



Regards

Ric

[RickH]

Fascinating reading ! Thanks for posting the link.

I'd say these guys are on top of things. They aren't laboring away in their own little world either, they are fully aware of what goes on in the warbird restoration world, as evidenced by this little excerpt;

For those who’ve just joined us, conserveering is the term we invented for our particular brand of museology, which, in my vocabulary at least, means anything to do with museums. Traditional conservation practice, being a museological cornerstone, was of little use on K7 for two reasons. One – it wouldn’t work. Such were the metal problems that a more aggressive approach was needed if the thing wasn’t to eventually turn to powder; and this led to the second problem. Museum conservators seem to pick away all day with scalpel blades, glass-bristle-brushes and cotton buds. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one wield a welding torch so we wouldn’t have got the front back on our boat any time soon, would we…

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not denigrating an honourable profession – and we’ll need a job-lot of cotton buds to conserve the tin we can’t put back – it’s just that if you split yourself in two in a car crash and end up holding your liver in your hands a herbalist isn’t quite going to be enough, is it…

On the other hand we certainly didn’t want one of those fake Spitfire restorations –an absolute though unfortunate must if the aircraft is to fly safely – where all but the data plate goes in the skip; so we needed to somehow blend sound engineering practice with conservation to achieve the desired result.

Their diary is also well written, a great read, if you have the time....

[Pogmusic]

I agree that restore -- when possible or appropriate. In regards to Fischer's A-1. Was it written off by the Air Force; or, was it returned to service? If it was returned to service, can't fault the USAFM for it being repaired. Just my $.02

[Matt Gunsch]

I agree that restore -- when possible or appropriate. In regards to Fischer's A-1. Was it written off by the Air Force; or, was it returned to service? If it was returned to service, can't fault the USAFM for it being repaired. Just my $.02

Fisher's Skyraider was returned to service as the nomination for the MoH takes a while to work it's way thru the system. By the time it was approved the plane had been repaired, and then shot up even more on later missions.

[JBoyle]

Bernie Fisher's Skyraider is in the NMUSAF, in pristine condition. It looks like any other restored Skyraider in any other museum.

He landed it in a Special Forces camp that was being over run by NVA to pick up another pilot (!) who had been shot down, and won the CMH for his trouble. I read that the plane returned to base more holes than aluminum, having been the target of a lot of angry rounds.

To me, the cachet of that particular aircraft came from touching down on a strip that was under fire, its battle damage a perfect mirror-or reflection-of its pilot's bravery. It was the battle damage and the circumstances under which it was sustained that made the plane unique. To restore it to new missed a huge point, IMHO.

But to be fair, the Skyraider was retured to service soon after as a combat aircraft.
Bernie didn't get the Medal of Honor overnight!
The historical significance of the plane wasn't established until AFTER it was repaired.

Fisher is a great guy. He served with my dad in ADC in the late 60s, and I worked with him at a small commuter airline in Boise in 1979. We had lunch together in SLC once..I rode the jumpseat in the cockpit on the way down to Utah.

[John Dupre]

As someone said it all depends. Like others though I prefer to see the aircraft representative of its operational history. One of the things the preservation only types forget is that the restoration not only restores the object but also the skills it took to build and maintain the object. There are many cases where no one really understood how an aircraft was built until someone tried to restore it and in the process came to understand how the factory made the decisions it did.