I really do not believe that the aircraft are "restored" at all. The P-38 is a great example of this. The aircraft was recovered from an alaskan wrecksite and was pretty rough. The basic structure was better than the Greenland P-38 in terms of structural integrity, it was in one piece. The whole thing was corroded though, while the Greenland one had no corrosion, it was just broken up by glacial action. The aircraft was recovered by the military though and thus had no chance of flying again. I guess it passed to Hill and they had a shop in California build a static display museum article out of it. They did not restore it to airworthiness, nor can it be in its current state. It must completly come apart again. None of the structure has been done to flight standard as far as I know. Spend some time with a flying 38 and a look at this one is interesting. The P-40 they have is the same way, basicly a non flying replica built on a wrecked center section. The B-29 and C-124 are outside displays, and suffer as well but are pretty well taken care of.
The Hill museum is doing incredible things with the money that they have. It seems to be considerable, as their B-17 looks great the B-24 should be wonderful, and the 38, 40 and 51 are good looking statics as well. The important thing to remember from a survivor standpoint is that the B-17 is a whole aircraft, while the new replica structure on the 38 and 40 are unable to ever fly. To me restoration is restoring and aircraft to its natural environment and capabilities. NASM seems to do this for their statics, but they start with complete aircraft as well. The Hill aircraft are good, but are a big compromise. Why not sell the wreckage of the 38 and put a fiberglass replica on gear to do the same thing? Don't have the answer. I wouldn't want to travel to see a fiberglas replica, while looking over their 38 I just wondered how much of it you could use....
|