bdk wrote:
What do you mean by certified?
Basically what you've said, of course.
For an airworthy restoration, it has to be inspected and signed of (piece/s of paper with an authorised signature - a
certificate) that the aircraft is airworthy - this is broken down into more detail, as we both know. For a conservation job, the structural requirements are much lower, as I outlined below and the 'investment' (to use your word) is in retaining as much as is possible of the artefact for its future.
To put it another way - any airworthy restoration will junk more of an artefact's original parts than a static conservation, because the airworthy structural requirement is tighter.
One of my
sub-points is an element of that is (probably) airworthy parts may and often are replaced because they don't have a paper saying they are airworthy, and it is not cost effective in the restoration process (owner's decision) to either NDT or repair them. Off the shelf replacement, which for a common type like the B-17, is easier.
There is a trend to retaining more original and more restored original material in modern restorations - A Good Thing. However it adds time, complexity and cost to an already exponentially more costly restoration.
If I had a cent for every conversation I've had with a restorer that assures me 'we are not compromising in
any way' and then goes on to list all the 'logical' changes, and deviations, and replacements that are perfectly reasonable to that restorer - working only to an airworthy, not historic requirement - I'd have at least ~ well ~ a dollar.
This is where a national level collection's objectives and methodology differ utterly from that of any airworthy restoration.
I'm not suggesting all flying aircraft are 'dataplate specials'. Some fighters are, most heavies, that haven't been restored from wrecks, aren't. However flying aircraft are almost always less original than static. Sometimes in major ways, such as our beloved
Ol 927, which both diverges from an A Model Liberator and has significant changes (engines) and post service 'new' material - itself sometimes replacing a replacement.
Quote:
Scratches, gouges and corrosion can also be simply blended out if sufficient material remains. Damaged holes are routinely repaired using oversized fasteners or bushings.
All of which is an individually minor and cumulatively major step away from the originality of the whole aircraft. Not a major issue, but a dilution of the authenticity of the object. In the case of swamp ghost, would you 'restore' the engines and blowers? Or obtain and use other examples - exactly the same except lacking the actual details of the real engines on that aircraft - which as we know from (equivalent) colour scheme conversations - the devil is in the details for researchers.
Does this matter? On
WIX, generally, no. However a recent thread asked about the types of rivets used on the F6F Hellcat. If I want to know
exactly how Supermarine or Castle Bromwich put in a row of rivets on a Spitfire (for a thesis on engineering standards in W.W.II Britain, for instance) rather than how Historic Flying or Dick Melton did in the 1980 and 90s, I'm going to be looking at a static example, one of the Spitfires preserved unrestored but conserved in a national collection.
In art history, generally dealing with time periods for Renaissance art (my wife's speciality) much longer than aviation, 'restoration' is often a dirty word. We don't want to have to peer through the well intentioned by inappropriate work of people who thought they knew better than Leonardo in the 17, 18, 19 and even 20th century at his paintings - but we do. A perfectly 'restored' Mona Lisa would be a joke. Looking at aviation on
that timescale, the more irreversible 'restorations' we carry out so we can get a thrill watching an aeroplane fly (for however long - but probably not 400+ years) is, ultimately a short term thrill over a long term historic gift.
So what? Well, we (already) have significant arguments over items like Lozenge camouflage from W.W.I German aircraft due in part to over enthusiastic, well intentioned but compromised 'restorers' work in the last century which has lost us most original data for 'pretty' looking aeroplanes.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
