Nathan wrote:
Hi all,
As many of you know I am a stickler to authentisity of warbirds and originality. I understand warbird owners can paint and call their warbird the way they like. If people are gonna call the CAF's B-24 an LB-30 then I really don't see what the matter is in saying that The Collins foundation's B-24 is the only flying B-24 in the world. In a way its correct . As far as I know most of my life I was grown up calling the CAF's B-24 an LB-30. Thats what I have always heard from other people. But now the B-24 was converted back to B-24A standards so then you can also say that there are two B-24's flying today and I would rather place my money on saying two are flying rather then one. The general public won't know the difference Between a B-24 and an LB-30 no less as they would be able to understand the difference between a P-39 and a P-400. But it would be nice if the general public learned the difference that way we don't get people saying the wrong stuff.
I guess its unavoidable. I kinda like the CAF's B-24 being called an "A" model now. Seeing how I also get a thrill out of early model aircraft. Knowing a rare B-24A is flying gets me happy!
Thanks,
Nathan
Nathan, I tend to agree with you, I dislike it when the warbird industry makes false claims, ie new build aircraft being described as "original", when they are obviously not, I much prefer the approach taken by those who have built the "reproduction" Yak 9's, Me262's, 190's and Oscars to admit and celebrate the creation of accurate "reproductions" or "recreations" than to claim they are rebuilds from an original smouldering dataplate and left hand wheel nut.
In relation to the P51C, I am not that convinced much of the aircraft is from the identified airframe, however that is in common with many other warbirds today such as recent build P40's and Spitfires? I would prefer to call many of them "reproductions" or "recreations" rather than "restorations", but would be happy to have any of them in any case, and still admire the outcomes.
(and I do realise an issue of certification/design liability etc can arise if the aircraft is not considered a "restoration" of an existing airframe and instead is to be considered construction of a "new" example or even "new" design, so I sympathise with the issues)
Obviously media coverage often gets carried away with reporting an aircraft in an historic colour scheme as the actual wartime aircraft, but thats more evidence of editorial and journalistic errors than the owners intentional mischief.
Many aircraft are painted in ficticious or borrowed paint schemes, and many more are heavily modified to create jump seats or dual controls, and I guess this is better done on a 'recreated" aircraft rather than a restored original intact aircraft with full and historical provenance.
The effort, skills and accuracy of those producing these aircraft is not diminished by the label "recreation" or "reproduction" only the truth in its provenance is affected.
Eventually the market will reflect "originality" versus "reproduction" or "recreation", most likely in the area of museum acquisitions or specialist collectors such as Paul Allen etc, but for most warbird operators, it will probably remain a judgement of price, looks, performance and maintainability.
I think eventually enthusiasts will also recognise original manufacturing and service provenance over workshop "recreations" without necessarily diminishing the enjoyment of the "recreation" in anycase.
In the longer term the more original and historic aircraft have the risk of being grounded or "recreated" to keep them in the air in anycase.
I dont think that will cause workshops to stop being able to profitably undertake these "recreations" or for their resale values to drop, just for the different attributes to be considered by various buyers and sellers.
When it comes to complete restored "original" aircraft with a known provenance I think its clear those histories really cant be embellished or changed, and I dont think most intentionally try to do so.
I think for most of us Ol'927 or Diamond Lil is a B24/Liberator, although many of us know it more technically as a LB30, I dont think the CAF has ever tried to hide its own history, nor should they, as they have every right to be proud of the aircraft, their efforts to preserve it, and what it portrays.
In regard to both the Collings Foundation and the CAF, I have the greatest admiration for their efforts and outcomes.
I do however cringe at certain marketing efforts to attract visitors and sponsors, but I dont think these are aimed to belittle the efforts of others but simply to ensure their own activities continue to exist.
In Australia our only B24 restoration is often billed as the aircraft or type that saved Australia from Japanese invasion, whereas history would probably place that credit with RAAF Beauforts/Kittyhawks and USAAC aircraft in 1942/43, rather than a RAAF B24 delivered in 1944, but its obviously not done to belittle other collections or museums, or preserved aircraft but to simply create a marketing differentiator to attract visitors or sponsors.
Strictly speaking the Collings Foundation are operating a former RAF Liberator GR VI originally KH191 of the RAF and IAF, It is obviously also a B24J 44-44052, although never delivered to the USAAF or served as such, on that technically is it really a B24J or a Liberator GR VI?
(ie Were there British equipment installations in the Liberator GR VI that varied from a B24J in the USAAF?)
I personally dont see any difference to Ol'927 being built as a B24A but delivered to the RAF as an LB30.
They are both B24's as far as I am concerned.
The issue of the Collings Foundation "advertising" as the only flying B24 is one for them to deal with, I am not sure it causes any great loss to the CAF in any case.
If the Collings Foundation feel they need to market their B24 as the only one flying so as to keep it flying then I dont have a problem, eventually an enthusiast, determined journalist, interested Joe Public or corporate sponsor will stumble over the CAF and Ol'927's existance, and in that case it only shows the Collings advertising in a poorer light.
So long as they are not making the claim to denegrade the CAF or Ol'927 it doesnt really matter.
I personally dont think Collings would loose many visitors/supporters if they advertised it as one of only two B24/Liberators flying in the world today, but so be it?
In the end however I hope we have at least two, (and both of these) B24's flying for us for many more years.
And I hope workshops continue to add to the quantity, quality and variety of warbirds even through "recreations" as it forms a valid preservation activity in its own right, its just deserving of a more honest description of the outcomes.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
With all of the technical speak and nit-picking that goes on here on WIX, I thought that maybe someone else would pick-up on the fact that the Collings B-24 is the only one FLYING at this point in time. Not if, but when Lil gets back in the air, Collings can no longer claim to have the only B-24 flying. If Kermit Weeks were to somehow get his back in the air, then we might have the distinct pleasure of seeing three B-24s flying! That would be awesome to say the least.
