Bootstrap Aircraft???

mike furline · **Joined:** Wed May 05, 2004 3:45 pm **Posts:** 2635

old iron wrote:

OK, perhaps I am being naive, but can someone please explain to me how an airplane so utterly destroyed is now, at least according to the Warbird Registry, being restored again to airworthy?

If all of the original parts are at best being used for patterns, with the "restored" aircraft being essentially new construction mixed with some original parts of uncertain history, then how can the original aircraft still be considered to exist, and be flying no less!

There is the old joke about George Washington's original hatchet. The handle has been replaced six times and the head has been replaced four times but it is still George Washington's original hatchet.

Kevin

It's all about the data plate and papers, without them it's just another homebuilt.

e.g. You can build yourself a 69 Corvette using only after market parts, but then go try to register it at the DMV without a VIN tag.

It's just a game with the rules & regs.

Mike

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:07 am

old iron wrote:

OK, perhaps I am being naive, but can someone please explain to me how an airplane so utterly destroyed is now, at least according to the Warbird Registry, being restored again to airworthy?

If all of the original parts are at best being used for patterns, with the "restored" aircraft being essentially new construction mixed with some original parts of uncertain history, then how can the original aircraft still be considered to exist, and be flying no less!

There is the old joke about George Washington's original hatchet. The handle has been replaced six times and the head has been replaced four times but it is still George Washington's original hatchet.

Kevin

If I understand this correctly...
Simply put it is likely a whole new aircraft, perhaps with significant parts from other orphans or new built stuff. However, the FAA needs the right paperwork, and it is MUCH simpler to just "rebuild" the old one with the dataplate and whatever else can be recovered so that it is "still" the same aircraft that's already gone through the paperwork process. This is also useful because the airframe could theoretically also be returned to the same category (ie. utility, normal, etc...) as the damaged aircraft rather than a "new build" having to be restored to say the Experimental category - which effects what can be done with it, and likely the insurance as well.

Ryan

Bill Walker · **Posted:** Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:48 am

I expect that quite a few warbird restorations are exactly like George Washington's hatchet. I've seen RCAF accident reports of wrecks being disposed of on site (i.e. left in the lake, or buried at the crash site), and then the "same" aircraft shows up as a re-build some thirty years later.

I guess "rebuilds" are worth more than "replicas". Either way, I think its great to see an old airplane (or at least an old design) fly again.

RMAllnutt · **Posted:** Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:12 pm

Craig is still hard at work on the corsair, and in the middle of building up a new spar and center section. There are a lot of original parts being included in the aircraft, but probably very little from the original airframe, as you could imagine.

I was told that the reason that the aircraft crashed in the first place was due to a massive fuel leak. That's all I know though, and it may not be completely correct.

Cheers,
Richard

Warbird Information Exchange

Bootstrap Aircraft???

Who is online