And then there were 2, Helldivers that is

[Matt Gunsch]

and possibly 5

The fifth one would be… the Greek one?

Yes, now if they can get the Thai air museum to get theirs flying.

[Mark Allen M]

Yeah, we know some folks here don't like new build warbirds

Why wouldn’t they? Most mustangs are replicas. Most here like mustangs.

[Dan Jones]

Yeah, we know some folks here don't like new build warbirds

Why wouldn’t they? Most mustangs are replicas. Most here like mustangs.

If I was in the market for a Mustang for a regular flyer, I think my preference would be for a new one. It’s a NEW airplane, exciting like a new car, and although it might not be an “original, NAA built Mustang from Inglewood or Dallas”, it would still be a P-51, and a not a “slightly bent, flies a little crooked, little bit loose, original” but instead a new, tight, good performing, stunner. If I was in the market for an investment to just sit in the hangar and be “art”, I’d want an original, bent one.

[JohnB]

The trouble is, we are dealing with a topic that has now agreed upon common definu.

How many flying Mustang out there are really original enough for the purists?
Eighty years on, they've alk been apart a time or two, many, if not most, had major shed metal work done during their military time.
Then they went through a period when they were cheao, and as such were a bit neglected or abused. I'm sure some weren't hangared.

I think folks are kidding themselves if they think their favorite Mustang (or any fighter) is untouched and still has Rosie's fingerprints on it.

I don't understand the vitriol some seem to have against data plate rebuilds.
With aircraft histories being an open bok, nobody (who cares) is being fooled, and those who don't Cate (99% of the public), well....they don't care.
So we have the choice of a few "pure" aircraft that are rarely seen and enjoyed, or have many, including some rebuilds, that more folks can experience.

The two seat ride Spitfires in the UK are largely rebuilds (or extreme mods), should we tell they buyers of $3000 rides to stay at home because its not the same thing that grandfather flew?

I write for a collector car magazine. As such, I've seen my far share of replica Shelby Cobras. Some are good, some are abominations. But given the million dollar values of the real ones, the replicas (which aren't inexpensive) have their place in the world.
The car guys can tell them apart, but the replicas give a vicarious thrill to folks who only know they saw a "Cobra", and don't care about its provenance.


Do we want to go back to the days when you could count the number of airworthy Spitfires on both hands (like when they filmed The Battle of Britain?

So by all means, feel free to call John Muszala at Pacific Fighters and tell him his Mustang rebuild isn't real enough for your standards.

[k5083]

I don't understand the vitriol some seem to have against data plate rebuilds.

Never seen an example that I would call "vitriol" in my life.

The two seat ride Spitfires in the UK are largely rebuilds (or extreme mods), should we tell they buyers of $3000 rides to stay at home because its not the same thing that grandfather flew?

Nobody ever has, or would, say such a thing.

So by all means, feel free to call John Muszala at Pacific Fighters and tell him his Mustang rebuild isn't real enough for your standards.

Again, nobody ever has or would do this.

Straw men. Manufactured outrage. Imagined arguments. This is why the discussion on this topic is so unserious.

August

[DH82EH]

August,
I really enjoy and appreciate your articulation on matters like this.
Respect sir!

[JohnB]

I don't understand the vitriol some seem to have against data plate rebuilds.

Never seen an example that I would call "vitriol" in my life.

August

Simple...
People, who don't own airplanes, griping about aircraft owned by others because they don't meet their self imposed and (due to lack of a consensus on definitions)
arbitrary standards.

We have owners (and volunteers) spending millions of dollars buying, restoring and operating aircraft to help preserve the history of WWII and the people who built, maintained and flew the planes. Only instead of getting "thanks", they get dismissive comments from the peanut gallery.
Remember, these are airworthy private aircraft, not untouched artifacts in the NASM.

Even if you are right, I'd hope people have better manners than to intentionally rain on someone else's parade.

Sorry if it offends you, but that's my take.
I really don't know why a inclusive open minded attitude is so hard to come by just because a Mustang has more new metal in it than you'd prefer.
Let people enjoy their aircraft without negative asides.

[Mark Allen M]

We have owners (and volunteers) spending millions of dollars buying, restoring and operating aircraft to help preserve the history of WWII and the people who built, maintained and flew the planes. Only instead of getting "thanks", they get dismissive comments from the peanut gallery.
Remember, these are airworthy private aircraft, not untouched artifacts in the NASM.

Even if you are right, I'd hope people have better manners than to intentionally rain on someone else's parade.

I have yet to meet, chat or read about an owner of any warbird that actually gives two craps about what anyone else thinks about their airplane. Most understand that you can’t please everyone so why try. When you live at a level of wealth and privilege, which most warbird owners do, your days of concern over what others think are usually long gone. Also the idea that wealthy warbird owners are interested in preserving history before personal satisfaction is usually flipped the other way IMO. I would also bet that most warbird owners who fly their aircraft regularly wouldn’t care nor prefer their planes to have much as far as original material on them.