New vs Old
Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:23 pm
Final question today from me ... then I have to leave this office ... ugh! ... long day.
If you had two P-51 Mustangs parked side by side. Everything the same from wing tip to wing tip .... all parts, pieces, everything the same.
One was a vintage, restored, top of the line Mustang, the other was a brand new scratch built top of the line Mustang .... i.e. (flugwerk FW190's)
http://www.flugwerk.de/p51.shtm
Vintage $$$$$ ....
New $$$$ ....
What are your thoughts? ... do you really need the history? or would you be happy with a slightly less expensive off the factory floor Mustang.
And peace and prayers to our loss today .... a very sad day again for all of us and especially for our lost airman and his family.
If you had two P-51 Mustangs parked side by side. Everything the same from wing tip to wing tip .... all parts, pieces, everything the same.
One was a vintage, restored, top of the line Mustang, the other was a brand new scratch built top of the line Mustang .... i.e. (flugwerk FW190's)
http://www.flugwerk.de/p51.shtm
Vintage $$$$$ ....
New $$$$ ....
What are your thoughts? ... do you really need the history? or would you be happy with a slightly less expensive off the factory floor Mustang.
And peace and prayers to our loss today .... a very sad day again for all of us and especially for our lost airman and his family.
Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:32 pm
seems kind of ironic, a German company building P51 parts. Good stuff, though.
B
B
Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:34 pm
For me... I would want both. One... with history and with original parts. That one would never be flown. It would just sit on display in my living room. To tell you the truth, I'd actually prefer it in a museum so that more people could see it and learn about it.
The second one, the new-built/replica would get the sh*t flown out of it. Well, not dangerously, but I'd take it flying to airshows, out for pie at Chilliwack Airport, over to Victoria, Tofino... ya know, it would be more like a bang-around airplane, that I could trust knowing that there are no 60+ year old parts in it that "could" fail.
Then again, if I could only have one... I would choose an original. I am too interested in history. I appreciate the people that designed the planes, the men that flew them, and the lives lost in them. I would like my plane to have a story to tell. I'd like it to have a connection to real people who did real things. Something more than an airplane which is a 100% replica of something.
That's my two shiny Canadian pennies worth.
Cheers,
David
The second one, the new-built/replica would get the sh*t flown out of it. Well, not dangerously, but I'd take it flying to airshows, out for pie at Chilliwack Airport, over to Victoria, Tofino... ya know, it would be more like a bang-around airplane, that I could trust knowing that there are no 60+ year old parts in it that "could" fail.
Then again, if I could only have one... I would choose an original. I am too interested in history. I appreciate the people that designed the planes, the men that flew them, and the lives lost in them. I would like my plane to have a story to tell. I'd like it to have a connection to real people who did real things. Something more than an airplane which is a 100% replica of something.
That's my two shiny Canadian pennies worth.
Cheers,
David
Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:46 pm
Chances are, if it's still flying, the amount of original material remaining in the "authentic" plane will be about on even par with the number of original bits required to get the replica airworthy. 
Seriously though, select any Mustang on the flight line, trace its lineage back to 1945 taking into account every instance of restoration, damage, rebuild, refurbishment, engine & accessory changes, parts and skin replacement, etc. It won't take long to realize that most airworthy survivors have very little of their original selves left intact. There maybe plenty of new-old-stock (NOS) parts in there, but very little that's original to that specific airframe from its days in military service. It's one of those new "ugly truths" about warbirds that's becoming more and more of a conscious understanding amidst the recent surge of the information age.
Regardless, true provenance is more of a spiritual perspective toward a particular aircraft rather than one tied directly to its physicality. Kind of like grandpa's axe - the one that's had it's handle replaced twice, and its head replaced three times. A wise man understands that the value of the meaning centers on grandpa anyway, not the friggin' axe. Without the aces, the heroes, the stories, and the history, a P-51D would be no different than any other fighter concept that never made it past the initial stages of testing. Maybe an interesting footnote in the progress of industrial progression, but little if any appreciable admiration or emotion attached to it beyond the mundane. In the end, the value behind these original planes (or artifacts if you will) is directly relative to a persons ability to use them as a conduit to "touch" the truth of that plane's specific past. For any other purposes, the plane might just as well be a perfectly executed replica.
As for me, any warbird that I might personally decide to fly might just as well be a replica, or at least an original airframe with an otherwise uneventful history. Of course, that's only if the type I want to fly is available as a replica, etc. No way do I want to be remembered as the guy who screwed the pooch and crashed the last intact combat veteran Fw-190! I'd just as soon resign the rare authentic combat-veteran aircraft to a world class museum, to stand guard over the memory of greater men than me for many centuries to come. My 21st Century "enthusiast pilot" desires have no business stepping all over all that kind of history IMO.
That said, there will always be a definite and obvious value to keeping as many warbirds flying as is logically possible - to maintain their exposure to future generations, whether they be original or replica. An FG-1D Corsair that only flew as an otherwise "generic" Navy Rerserve aircraft during peace time is most definitely more valuable serving as a living tool, helping to expose future generations to the heartbeat of history at air shows. When the day comes that there are not ten or more FG-1D's that match that description, I'll probably need to rethink my formula. Value will always be judged on a scale of relative rarity, and those parameters seem to change on a yearly basis in the world of warbirds.
I do know this. If they ever stop flying completely, interest among new generations of prospective enthusiasts will die off in rapid succession, dragging the great soul of the tribute down with it. In the big picture, that's what "keeping them flying" is all about anyway - in my humble opinion.
Seriously though, select any Mustang on the flight line, trace its lineage back to 1945 taking into account every instance of restoration, damage, rebuild, refurbishment, engine & accessory changes, parts and skin replacement, etc. It won't take long to realize that most airworthy survivors have very little of their original selves left intact. There maybe plenty of new-old-stock (NOS) parts in there, but very little that's original to that specific airframe from its days in military service. It's one of those new "ugly truths" about warbirds that's becoming more and more of a conscious understanding amidst the recent surge of the information age.
Regardless, true provenance is more of a spiritual perspective toward a particular aircraft rather than one tied directly to its physicality. Kind of like grandpa's axe - the one that's had it's handle replaced twice, and its head replaced three times.
A wise man understands that the value of the meaning centers on grandpa anyway, not the friggin' axe. Without the aces, the heroes, the stories, and the history, a P-51D would be no different than any other fighter concept that never made it past the initial stages of testing. Maybe an interesting footnote in the progress of industrial progression, but little if any appreciable admiration or emotion attached to it beyond the mundane. In the end, the value behind these original planes (or artifacts if you will) is directly relative to a persons ability to use them as a conduit to "touch" the truth of that plane's specific past. For any other purposes, the plane might just as well be a perfectly executed replica.
As for me, any warbird that I might personally decide to fly might just as well be a replica, or at least an original airframe with an otherwise uneventful history. Of course, that's only if the type I want to fly is available as a replica, etc.
No way do I want to be remembered as the guy who screwed the pooch and crashed the last intact combat veteran Fw-190! I'd just as soon resign the rare authentic combat-veteran aircraft to a world class museum, to stand guard over the memory of greater men than me for many centuries to come. My 21st Century "enthusiast pilot" desires have no business stepping all over all that kind of history IMO.
That said, there will always be a definite and obvious value to keeping as many warbirds flying as is logically possible - to maintain their exposure to future generations, whether they be original or replica. An FG-1D Corsair that only flew as an otherwise "generic" Navy Rerserve aircraft during peace time is most definitely more valuable serving as a living tool, helping to expose future generations to the heartbeat of history at air shows. When the day comes that there are not ten or more FG-1D's that match that description, I'll probably need to rethink my formula. Value will always be judged on a scale of relative rarity, and those parameters seem to change on a yearly basis in the world of warbirds.
I do know this. If they ever stop flying completely, interest among new generations of prospective enthusiasts will die off in rapid succession, dragging the great soul of the tribute down with it. In the big picture, that's what "keeping them flying" is all about anyway - in my humble opinion.
Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:17 pm
Very nicely done Rob, this is why I try to come up with good questions that stir wonderful debate. ... I've come to the right place. ... I found a home here ... I just hope my business survives .. lolol
Another question though .... If all the original warbirds retire to Museum's and all that fly are new replica's .... do you think the interest in warbird's at airshows will diminish?
Another question though .... If all the original warbirds retire to Museum's and all that fly are new replica's .... do you think the interest in warbird's at airshows will diminish?
Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:17 am
Hellcat wrote:Very nicely done Rob, this is why I try to come up with good questions that stir wonderful debate. ... I've come to the right place. ... I found a home here ... I just hope my business survives .. lolol
Another question though .... If all the original warbirds retire to Museum's and all that fly are new replica's .... do you think the interest in warbird's at airshows will diminish?
Does your interest diminsh when you find out the girl has fake boobs?
Phil
Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:11 am
Rob Mears wrote: taking into account every instance of restoration, damage, rebuild, refurbishment, engine & accessory changes, parts and skin replacement, etc. It won't take long to realize that most airworthy survivors have very little of their original selves left intact. There maybe plenty of new-old-stock (NOS) parts in there, but very little that's original to that specific airframe from its days in military service. It's one of those new "ugly truths" about warbirds that's becoming more and more of a conscious understanding amidst the recent surge of the information age.
This happens WHILE the airplane is in military service, too! Every time the airplane goes through depot maintenance parts are replaced, refurbished, etc.
Why is it that nobody bats an eyelash about the airplane's 'provenance' when an airplane gets a major overhaul while on active service...yet when this happens after it is retired and becomes a 'warbird', it somehow diminishes the value?
Warplanes are not like classic cars. Cars don't go in every so many hours and get major overhauls on a regular basis; airplanes (especially military airplanes) do.
It's possible to have a classic car that has every piece of metal that it left the factory with. That's simply not possible with ANY military airplane.
Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:50 am
A couple of thoughts.
As long as the aircraft is honestly represented, it makes no difference to me. However, many aircraft have, to put it politely, 'enhancements' to their history, which adds prestige and cash value.
Most civil aviation authorities prefer a nice clean paperwork trail pointing to a mass-produced original. It's easier to go that route than make a new-build anything.
These discussions usually focus on fighters (often Mustangs or Spitfires) where the usage (then and less now) demands a hight replacement of the original structure, leading into the 'what's original' argument. However, most people don't consider larger types, such as multi-engine heavy bombers and transports, which in many cases retain 90% of the original structure (but probably not engines). See Gary Austin's work on 'Ol 927, or the proportion of Lancaster PA474 which remains from the original build.
Because there's a difference between military service and warbird use, and the difference in historical value is clear - between addition and subtraction from that.
In the case of a museum, modifications, repairs, changes and whatever to an artefact (in our case, a military aircraft) while in its primary use are part of its primary history. (Sometimes, secondary service and use is of interest as well.)
Once the aircraft has entered preservation - either as a display item in a museum or flown by a private owner - any changes are 'subtractions' from the aircraft's military use, rather than 'additions' to its history.
(Some of us regard the warbird's post-service history as important as well, but that's not always the case.)
Regards
As long as the aircraft is honestly represented, it makes no difference to me. However, many aircraft have, to put it politely, 'enhancements' to their history, which adds prestige and cash value.
Most civil aviation authorities prefer a nice clean paperwork trail pointing to a mass-produced original. It's easier to go that route than make a new-build anything.
These discussions usually focus on fighters (often Mustangs or Spitfires) where the usage (then and less now) demands a hight replacement of the original structure, leading into the 'what's original' argument. However, most people don't consider larger types, such as multi-engine heavy bombers and transports, which in many cases retain 90% of the original structure (but probably not engines). See Gary Austin's work on 'Ol 927, or the proportion of Lancaster PA474 which remains from the original build.
Randy Haskin wrote:Why is it that nobody bats an eyelash about the airplane's 'provenance' when an airplane gets a major overhaul while on active service...yet when this happens after it is retired and becomes a 'warbird', it somehow diminishes the value?
Because there's a difference between military service and warbird use, and the difference in historical value is clear - between addition and subtraction from that.
In the case of a museum, modifications, repairs, changes and whatever to an artefact (in our case, a military aircraft) while in its primary use are part of its primary history. (Sometimes, secondary service and use is of interest as well.)
Once the aircraft has entered preservation - either as a display item in a museum or flown by a private owner - any changes are 'subtractions' from the aircraft's military use, rather than 'additions' to its history.
(Some of us regard the warbird's post-service history as important as well, but that's not always the case.)
Regards
Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:04 am
Hellcat wrote:Another question though .... If all the original warbirds retire to Museums and all that fly are new replicas .... do you think the interest in warbirds at airshow's will diminish?
Speaking only for myself... nope.
It's nice to go to a show where you can see a real, genuine piece of history. But, quite often, that 'piece of history' is whole only through the use of many newly fabricated parts... sometimes mostly new-fab parts. So, to me, it doesn't matter a whole lot if a bird is a 'new build'... it's the sights, sounds, smells, and sensations that matter most.
phil65 wrote:Does your interest diminsh when you find out the girl has fake boobs?
Again, speaking only for myself... yep...
Fade to Black...
Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:47 pm
banndit wrote:seems kind of ironic, a German company building P51 parts. Good stuff, though.
B
I seem to recall that it's also a German company that overhauls Spit props....
Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:06 pm
ZRX61 wrote:
I seem to recall that it's also a German company that overhauls Spit props....[/quote]Hoffman builds wooden prop blades.
A lot of recent Mustang restorations are using new build parts because the original parts are no longer available (a fuselage needs a wing on one plane and a wing needs a fuselage on another). Others are getting polished to win "Oshkosh style" awards and are 100% re-skinned for that purpose. I think there are a lot of older restorations out there that have a significant amount of original military parts on them. Longerons are a known intergranular corrosion problem as are a few of the other extrusions so a lot of those get replaced during major rebuilds. The old school repair was to grind out the corrosion and use doublers per the repair technical order. The airplanes are so valuable now most owners just get the longerons replaced.
Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:09 am
This debate comes up all the time in the hot rod world. A new steel deuce body vs real Henry steel. If you can afford a real deuce, then by all means. Same with the Mustangs. I would be happy with either.
Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:57 am
If I could afford to buy and fly the new build replica I could probably afford to go the stretch and by the restored original. and if money was no option I would go with the original as long as safety and maintenance issues were not different
I dis-agree with the view that most warbirds, and particularly fighters are not consisting of their major airframe components? (and would certainly agree with JDK on the Intactness of many B25's B17's and Lancasters etc.
While most warbirds and particularly fighters would certainly have had replacement engines I would expect most Mustangs, Spitfires and P47s that are traceable as complete and none crashed airframes from the 1940's are largely carrying the major airframe assemblies they exited the factory with.
A case in point would be 5 of the 6 CAC Mustangs in Australia A68-104, 105, 107, 118 and 170 are all largely traceable as the original airframe assemblies, the sixth is a composite recovered from the USA.
Some times major military overhauls resulted in a semi "production line" of parts undergoing disassembly and inspection/refurbishment and wings etc may get swapped from fuselage to fuselage, depending on the timing and work required on each component, but those "service" exchanges of parts are all part of the aircrafts "service" provenance.
Post war replacement of the odd wing/tailplane etc due to corrosion or damage with NOS parts doesnt significantly diminish the provenance or originality of the aircraft much for me.
In the early days of Warbird operations 1950's/1960s few if any aircraft underwent major restoration back from the dead, if was crashed or worn out it was junked and another "army surplus" purchased to replace it.
Obviously in later times as complete airframes dried up the warbird movement started assembling composite restorations from fuselages, wings that were from totally unrelated identitities etc either NOS or recycled from parts salvaging and crashes etc, ie the Lance School of T6 production - smiles, in these cases the fuselage was usually the source of the resultant composite identity.
Now in more recent times and the increasing prices of these "old aircraft" we have "new manufacture" production lines of Spitfires, P40's and Mustangs not as composites from original manufactured parts but largely of new skins and fuselage frames and skins, and new spars and ribs etc,, with perhaps only undercarriage and some plentiful/available NOS parts being used, but "ascribed" an "identity" from some supposed rusty identity plate claimed to be recovered from a 60 year old hole in the ground.
- I am afraid I dont prescribe to the "Grand-dad's Axe theory, these have no real provenance and are clearly "reproductions" rather than restorations, and are really no different from the acknowledged reproductions of FW190, Oscars or ME262's undertaken recently.
To present them as the "original" aircraft , and simply "restored" rather than "reproductions" is in some ways to commit "fraud", when little if any of the metal existed or ever flew in WW2, let alone with that particular identity. In my mind t is really no different to trying to pass a counterfeit $100 or fresh copy of the Mona Lisa.
I understand there is a general line of thought that @ 60% of an industrial artefact should be its original identity to claim any provenance, these new build airframes would be lucky to hold 60% of NOS parts let alone 6% of any parts from the identity being claimed.
While a "New Build" can fly safer, and look as good if not better than an historic original or restored composite "identity" aircraft, I feel the warbird market will eventually mature into reflecting the true and traceable provenance rather these newly "reproduced" provenance and prices will eventually reflect that.
Having said all that, I applaud the skills and efforts of those restorers who are creating these new build aircraft, and appreciate their skills and quality of work, in some cases their finished product is probably better than the original manufacturer's, and certainly admire those who openly acknowledge their "reproduction" status and their "reproductions" role in returning an extinct type to the air.
I dont wish to have an argument on this issue or my interpretation, they are my views and opinions, I am not seeking everyone to take them up as Gospel.
regards
Mark Pilkington
I dis-agree with the view that most warbirds, and particularly fighters are not consisting of their major airframe components? (and would certainly agree with JDK on the Intactness of many B25's B17's and Lancasters etc.
While most warbirds and particularly fighters would certainly have had replacement engines I would expect most Mustangs, Spitfires and P47s that are traceable as complete and none crashed airframes from the 1940's are largely carrying the major airframe assemblies they exited the factory with.
A case in point would be 5 of the 6 CAC Mustangs in Australia A68-104, 105, 107, 118 and 170 are all largely traceable as the original airframe assemblies, the sixth is a composite recovered from the USA.
Some times major military overhauls resulted in a semi "production line" of parts undergoing disassembly and inspection/refurbishment and wings etc may get swapped from fuselage to fuselage, depending on the timing and work required on each component, but those "service" exchanges of parts are all part of the aircrafts "service" provenance.
Post war replacement of the odd wing/tailplane etc due to corrosion or damage with NOS parts doesnt significantly diminish the provenance or originality of the aircraft much for me.
In the early days of Warbird operations 1950's/1960s few if any aircraft underwent major restoration back from the dead, if was crashed or worn out it was junked and another "army surplus" purchased to replace it.
Obviously in later times as complete airframes dried up the warbird movement started assembling composite restorations from fuselages, wings that were from totally unrelated identitities etc either NOS or recycled from parts salvaging and crashes etc, ie the Lance School of T6 production - smiles, in these cases the fuselage was usually the source of the resultant composite identity.
Now in more recent times and the increasing prices of these "old aircraft" we have "new manufacture" production lines of Spitfires, P40's and Mustangs not as composites from original manufactured parts but largely of new skins and fuselage frames and skins, and new spars and ribs etc,, with perhaps only undercarriage and some plentiful/available NOS parts being used, but "ascribed" an "identity" from some supposed rusty identity plate claimed to be recovered from a 60 year old hole in the ground.
- I am afraid I dont prescribe to the "Grand-dad's Axe theory, these have no real provenance and are clearly "reproductions" rather than restorations, and are really no different from the acknowledged reproductions of FW190, Oscars or ME262's undertaken recently.
To present them as the "original" aircraft , and simply "restored" rather than "reproductions" is in some ways to commit "fraud", when little if any of the metal existed or ever flew in WW2, let alone with that particular identity. In my mind t is really no different to trying to pass a counterfeit $100 or fresh copy of the Mona Lisa.
I understand there is a general line of thought that @ 60% of an industrial artefact should be its original identity to claim any provenance, these new build airframes would be lucky to hold 60% of NOS parts let alone 6% of any parts from the identity being claimed.
While a "New Build" can fly safer, and look as good if not better than an historic original or restored composite "identity" aircraft, I feel the warbird market will eventually mature into reflecting the true and traceable provenance rather these newly "reproduced" provenance and prices will eventually reflect that.
Having said all that, I applaud the skills and efforts of those restorers who are creating these new build aircraft, and appreciate their skills and quality of work, in some cases their finished product is probably better than the original manufacturer's, and certainly admire those who openly acknowledge their "reproduction" status and their "reproductions" role in returning an extinct type to the air.
I dont wish to have an argument on this issue or my interpretation, they are my views and opinions, I am not seeking everyone to take them up as Gospel.
regards
Mark Pilkington