Tiger Tim wrote:
Sometimes I wonder why we don't see more replicas. Stuff like Fokker D.XXIs, Buffalo, maybe even a Vindicator or Devastator seem like pretty low hanging fruit as far as having a flying version of an extinct or nearly extinct type. Slightly more off the deep end would be a Do.17 as there's nothing really to copy but at least it could be outwardly the right shape. Why not an Allison-powered Dornier 335, or a composite Mosquito or a whole swarm of Heinkel Salamanders? All should be technically feasible and maybe even doable with a properly motivated group and surely less expensive than, say, a genuine Spitfire.
Is the problem that it isn't genuine? If I built a dead-right Devastator from scratch would it be relegated to live among the homebuilts at Oshkosh? Would it be booed here on the WIX as nothing more than your average homebuilt in wannabe warbird colours?
I'm not picking on any group at all, I'm just curious about how this sort of thing would be received and why nobody has really done it. There must be a reason and it has to be more than just money, right?
I think quality of the replica and the materials used does have a definite impact on the appeal of the project. There have been various smaller scale replicas like mini P-51's and Stukas and WWI aircraft that generate little interest outside the folks that bulid and fly them. Seem to be looked at as toys.
The full scale replicas of the 190's, Yaks, 262's, oscars etc shown in the photos above seem to generate much interest and get a thumbs up from the general public and most of us WIX'ers. This is because they use the same materials and look just like the originals. Are the genuine? Not in the true sence, but some are built to exact factory standards and some even have build numbers like coming right off the line and are built under permission/licence. A touchy area on what to call them, as each project was a bit different in what they did and are called.
This gets into the data plate restoration area, where some rebuilds are essentiallly 99% new material but of a real example. They are labelled as rebuilds so they have some provenance and can genuinally be called a spitfire, mustang etc.
So your hypothetical Devastator would depend on what you did. A proper data plate restoration by a professsional shop using old and new parts built to exacting standards could result in essentially new built Devastator. You would get positive thumbs up from many, but it would not have the same provenance of a genuine WWII survivor.
If you did a new build under licence, but of an exact Devastor you would essentially have something like the new 190. 262, etc. WIXers would appreciate your efforts, but to many it will always be a "new build" or reproduction, perhaps viewed a notch below a genunine survivor, but still valuable and appreciated. A good alternative as real survivors get too rare to fly, or do not exist.
Yes it would be nice to have some more extinct or rare examples brought back this way.
If your "dead ringer" Devestator used composite materials like a homebuilt and just matched the shape and apperance of the original it would be relegated to the experimental line, and you could have legal issues etc over registration and what you call it. It would not be a Devestator. Build quality and standards would influence the apprecation of your build. Is it a 50 footer? (ie does it look great from 50 feet, but obviously look like a replica up close?). If you did a real quality build that looked, sounded and flew like the original folks would appreciate your efforts, but it would never be as good as the original or a reproduction. There is a glider me-163 in Europe that seems to be apprecatied. Uses modern materials and has the shape of the original and does a good job repesenting the Comet.
I think there is some room for new build composite builds to re-create the shape and look of the originals, but they would always rank lower than an original or a rebuild. I would love to see a composite Salamander with a modern engine fly.
If your Devastator were a smaller scale or were a super light composite build powered by a rotax, appreciation for what you did would likley be limited to yourself and a very few others.
Cost is a major issue. Even a compostite airplane would cost a lot to design and build, and will always just be the shape of the original. Will always be restricted to experimental. Most that have the funds would rather spend their money on the real deal, or a close reproduction.
So in my opionion, "better than" goes something like this:
Genuine warbird with documented combat history>genuine warbird>data plate restoration using some old structure>reprodution/new built>replica looking like something (Tora Val/Kate/Zero)>homebuilt composite matching the dimensions/shape>mini-scale representative>RC>nit pickers that criticize everything...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
