Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:38 pm
Recall that these were 'war planes', and as such, required to fly combat missions. When one came home with bullet holes in the rudder... a different rudder was scavenged from the wreck of the one that balled up on takeoff... etc. I would guess that not many of these planes came home 'original'... does that make them less 'real'?
An earlier post commenting that replacing one part, until it was 'done' still being viewed as the same plane, and the allusion to the axe, are both valid; but aren't the owners merely continuing the war-time practice of replacing 'broken' parts -down to longerons and wing spars - as corrosion requires? What makes these 'ground up restorations' less 'real' than the war-time repaired aircraft?
Most owners of a ground-up restoration will tell you that up front... it is usually a good selling point for someone who wants a flyer. As Mike mentions in the WD article - the hidden corrosion factor is going to be a price-factor in the near future with any of the older (mid-70's early 80's) restorations. When the new owners 'repair' the corrosion problems.. will that make the planes less 'real'?
Gerry Beck is fairly describing his A models as 'homebuilt', because he had nothing to start with - and would like to sell you the items so you can build your own. The ground-up restorations... even the so-called 'parts-planes' ... all have some original factory parts... although those parts are getting harder to find.
I know there are a lot of 'games' played with paperwork and dataplates (got a dataplate - register the plane), but for the most part, there is *some* history in there ... and the memories, and ideals, that they stand for, are better represented from the air.
100% original aircraft (maybe) will be found only in static display museum venues. (I would not fly a plane with 60-yr-old hoses/tubing/tires!) This is not all bad. Looking at the plane, and seeing photos, is a good way to preserve 'what they looked like'. But to understand 'what it felt like', the planes need to fly.
Come to OSH, and stop by the corral on the day the mustangs are the 'feature' act of the Warbird show. You can be closer than you ever imagined to 20+ engines turning at the same time. *Awesome* sound... and it does bring to mind what it must have looked and sounded like at Bodney, or any of the mustang airfields, during the war.
I get a lump in my throat every show... remembering what the 'kids' who flew these planes went through, how much they gave up of their lives, their selves, in order to fly these planes - to fight that war. We owe them so much, and anything that helps to remind us that freedom is NOT free, that sometimes good people have to die in order for the rest of the world to live in peace, is a good thing.
They are all 'real' to me.
Just my 2¢ worth.
P51 Line Crew Lead
OSH
An earlier post commenting that replacing one part, until it was 'done' still being viewed as the same plane, and the allusion to the axe, are both valid; but aren't the owners merely continuing the war-time practice of replacing 'broken' parts -down to longerons and wing spars - as corrosion requires? What makes these 'ground up restorations' less 'real' than the war-time repaired aircraft?
Most owners of a ground-up restoration will tell you that up front... it is usually a good selling point for someone who wants a flyer. As Mike mentions in the WD article - the hidden corrosion factor is going to be a price-factor in the near future with any of the older (mid-70's early 80's) restorations. When the new owners 'repair' the corrosion problems.. will that make the planes less 'real'?
Gerry Beck is fairly describing his A models as 'homebuilt', because he had nothing to start with - and would like to sell you the items so you can build your own. The ground-up restorations... even the so-called 'parts-planes' ... all have some original factory parts... although those parts are getting harder to find.
I know there are a lot of 'games' played with paperwork and dataplates (got a dataplate - register the plane), but for the most part, there is *some* history in there ... and the memories, and ideals, that they stand for, are better represented from the air.
100% original aircraft (maybe) will be found only in static display museum venues. (I would not fly a plane with 60-yr-old hoses/tubing/tires!) This is not all bad. Looking at the plane, and seeing photos, is a good way to preserve 'what they looked like'. But to understand 'what it felt like', the planes need to fly.
Come to OSH, and stop by the corral on the day the mustangs are the 'feature' act of the Warbird show. You can be closer than you ever imagined to 20+ engines turning at the same time. *Awesome* sound... and it does bring to mind what it must have looked and sounded like at Bodney, or any of the mustang airfields, during the war.
I get a lump in my throat every show... remembering what the 'kids' who flew these planes went through, how much they gave up of their lives, their selves, in order to fly these planes - to fight that war. We owe them so much, and anything that helps to remind us that freedom is NOT free, that sometimes good people have to die in order for the rest of the world to live in peace, is a good thing.
They are all 'real' to me.
Just my 2¢ worth.
P51 Line Crew Lead
OSH
Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:44 pm
My understanding from dipping my toes into this one over the past few years is that, technically, as long as you have the data plate and one original piece, with the remainder of the aircraft being made with overhauled or NOS parts, the FAA will consider it (for registration and airworthiness purposes) a true factory product and not a homebuilt type aircraft.
The issues that I've seen requiring new components with WWII stuff deal with the varied quality control when the planes were put together. For example, when we pulled Frenesi's wings apart (after spending forever stripping and blasting the .030 thick paint which hid a lot) one wing spar (from the factory) wasn't made with allclad coated aluminum. So it was a corroded mess and had to be replaced. A paperclip can only flex so much before it fatigues; same with these planes. So as time moves on less and less will be with "original" parts installed from the factory.
I think the new manufacture planes like the FW190 and the ME262s are really cool and important to have around. Otherwise we'd never get to see them running, much less flying. Now if we can only get a Stuka flying. I'd take that as a 2007 manufacture any day as long as it had the sirens on it ....
The issues that I've seen requiring new components with WWII stuff deal with the varied quality control when the planes were put together. For example, when we pulled Frenesi's wings apart (after spending forever stripping and blasting the .030 thick paint which hid a lot) one wing spar (from the factory) wasn't made with allclad coated aluminum. So it was a corroded mess and had to be replaced. A paperclip can only flex so much before it fatigues; same with these planes. So as time moves on less and less will be with "original" parts installed from the factory.
I think the new manufacture planes like the FW190 and the ME262s are really cool and important to have around. Otherwise we'd never get to see them running, much less flying. Now if we can only get a Stuka flying. I'd take that as a 2007 manufacture any day as long as it had the sirens on it ....
Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:18 pm
Reproduction or not, it sure was a pleasure having this thing hammering along a couple of hundred feet away! From a spectator's point of view a wonderful airplane is a wonderful airplane.
Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:19 pm
Repro or not that is a class act.
Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:28 pm
Remember it's the people that make these airplanes what they are, whether it was in 1945 or 2005. The things that happen today are just another chapter in the story of that perticular airframe.
When a person gets a heart transplant does anything change with that person's life? Of course not!
Would it be better to let these airplane continue to be dead and not give them a heart transplant so they continue living and telling stories of people.
I'd rather talk to people like Churchill and Lindbergh than go to their memorial. Same goes for airplanes.
When a person gets a heart transplant does anything change with that person's life? Of course not!
Would it be better to let these airplane continue to be dead and not give them a heart transplant so they continue living and telling stories of people.
I'd rather talk to people like Churchill and Lindbergh than go to their memorial. Same goes for airplanes.
Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:34 pm
P51DFltLn wrote:Recall that these were 'war planes', and as such, required to fly combat missions. When one came home with bullet holes in the rudder... a different rudder was scavenged from the wreck of the one that balled up on takeoff... etc. I would guess that not many of these planes came home 'original'... does that make them less 'real'?
The point behind your point is that originality has to be specified as of a certain date. A good deal of the Spirit of St. Louis was replaced after the Paris flight, but it was replaced by Lindbergh and then flown by him on a national tour. It was then preserved in substantially that condition. So we can say it is original, but not with a reference date of the Paris flight; only with that of the tour and the end of its active flying career in Lindbergh's hands. OTOH, many parts of the Wright 1903 Flyer were replaced long after its flying career was over, specifically to make a museum display. Calling what is left of it original is a bit of a stretch.
P51DFltLn wrote:An earlier post commenting that replacing one part, until it was 'done' still being viewed as the same plane, and the allusion to the axe, are both valid; but aren't the owners merely continuing the war-time practice of replacing 'broken' parts -down to longerons and wing spars - as corrosion requires? What makes these 'ground up restorations' less 'real' than the war-time repaired aircraft?
The fact that parts were replaced after the period of historical interest for the airplane.
Most of the rest of your post, and several others on this thread, go to prove perhaps a more important point: that as long as we can use our imaginations and dreams to cover these airframes with our values, memories, tributes, at times schmaltzy sentimentality, and whatever other emotional baggage we wish to burden them with, it really doesn't make a difference whether they are original or replicas. They function not as historical artifacts, but as icons -- triggers for thoughts and feelings that many people (well, at least many of the people who take an interest in these old birds) seem to need to release.
Perhaps, in recognition of that, it is best not to be too hardcore of a preservationist when it comes to these things.
August