Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:05 am
I too have come into this topic a little late. It sure is a complicated issue, with arguments, in my mind, both for and against aircraft recovery.
As with most WW2 aviation nuts, I began my interest with plastic model kits - building, painting and then usually destroying in some mock battle. Anyway, since then I have visited numerous air shows around Australia and been 'up close and personal' with many warbirds. Though this gives me a thrill, I know that the best experiences with aircraft I've had, are walking to and then going over a wreck site - taking only photos.
The thing that bothers me with restoration is when an individual or organisation begins hoarding aircraft parts - locking them away in a hangar somewhere. Then building a composite aircraft from pieces from these recovered aircraft as well as newly built parts, then pass it off as a famous Ace's mount - with the original identities being lost to the ages. Whether this is just an oversight, or done for other reasons, I don't know.
Primarily I consider myself a historian - a desk jockey - not an aircraft engineer, pilot etc and have no aspirations of ever owning my own aircraft. I see wreck sites in Papua New Guinea as being a sort of battleground - like Omaha Beach, Kokoda, Gallipoli etc etc - and am currently saving to one day (soon) visit the country to visit these battle and wreck sites.
However, as a volunteer at the Australian War Memorial, I see a restored P-40, Zero, Mosquito, Spitfire, Sea Fury and Mustang at least once a week. Though these to me are every day items, I do see what they can do for other visitors who are not as lucky to see them so often - and I can understand the potential for these aircraft to teach others about what happened.
So as you can probably see, I'm a fence sitter leaning towards pro-rust-in-peace. I'd be happy to comment on anything above, so feel free to post here, the PWD Forum, or e-mail me directly.
All the best,
As with most WW2 aviation nuts, I began my interest with plastic model kits - building, painting and then usually destroying in some mock battle. Anyway, since then I have visited numerous air shows around Australia and been 'up close and personal' with many warbirds. Though this gives me a thrill, I know that the best experiences with aircraft I've had, are walking to and then going over a wreck site - taking only photos.
The thing that bothers me with restoration is when an individual or organisation begins hoarding aircraft parts - locking them away in a hangar somewhere. Then building a composite aircraft from pieces from these recovered aircraft as well as newly built parts, then pass it off as a famous Ace's mount - with the original identities being lost to the ages. Whether this is just an oversight, or done for other reasons, I don't know.
Primarily I consider myself a historian - a desk jockey - not an aircraft engineer, pilot etc and have no aspirations of ever owning my own aircraft. I see wreck sites in Papua New Guinea as being a sort of battleground - like Omaha Beach, Kokoda, Gallipoli etc etc - and am currently saving to one day (soon) visit the country to visit these battle and wreck sites.
However, as a volunteer at the Australian War Memorial, I see a restored P-40, Zero, Mosquito, Spitfire, Sea Fury and Mustang at least once a week. Though these to me are every day items, I do see what they can do for other visitors who are not as lucky to see them so often - and I can understand the potential for these aircraft to teach others about what happened.
So as you can probably see, I'm a fence sitter leaning towards pro-rust-in-peace. I'd be happy to comment on anything above, so feel free to post here, the PWD Forum, or e-mail me directly.
All the best,
Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:32 am
Then building a composite aircraft from pieces from these recovered aircraft as well as newly built parts, then pass it off as a famous Ace's mount - with the original identities being lost to the ages
Let's suppose a P-40 ace gets 4 kills in his plane; then they replace the tail, and he gets 1 more kill to become an ace in the same plane.
Is it an aces plane? They replaced the tail before he got 5 kills. I suppose the plane is an unauthentic composite? I suppose the tail must be removed and placed by itself in a museum, and the forward fuselage should be placed in a separate museum as a four kill airframe. Almost sounds kind of snobish
Kind of like how Rolls Royce has to make sure the slots on the heads of all their engine screws have to line up. Really snobish
It kind of reminds me of how folks drink tea, and that they have to hold out their pinky when the drink it to be proper. Also, to be a real snoooob, you have to drive a mercedes to the golf course and shave your poodles. Come on, now get real.
Chris
History and Seapuppies!
Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:48 am
If the tail is replaced in the period of THAT history..then it's "his" 5-kill
machine with a HISTORY of that fix, and his honours. If 60 yrs later, the
tail, or whatever is replaced..then it is no longer the original aircraft,
but an original preserved for its intended display purposes using
current repairs..regardless if you did it with "actual" period materials! The originality begins to fade. The less you have of the ORIGINAL..the less you
have a "True Representative" of that history!!
As to the lining-up of screw slots...
Chris,
I hope in your lifetime..that you are able to experience the care of quality
and pride that has been the "stamp of excellence" for Rolls Royce! Superb
machines! Nickels, "setting edge-on the manifold"...perfectly balanced! I
cannot claim the same largesse...but when I strive for excellence, I
remember what I've observed. Scrutiny in all phases of the project!
Work coming from your favorite machinist..you detect for flaws. De-burr, chamfer, peen, lighten, harden..grind and measure..measure and grind.
Make it Breathe..Zapp-it..Life!! I've created Life!!!!Ad Nauseum!
Hylomar!...Wasn't this sealer/adhesive created specifically for the
extreme requirements of the RR machines?? Too bad Norton motorcycles
didn't realize that sooner...they wouldn't have leaked as bad!!!
And when you're all done...it's really a kick!!!..if someone notices thru
all the "glitter and shine" of carefully polished aluminium and paint....that
I "capped it off "..with aligned slots! Symmetry is more than skin deep!!!
I've seen your Harvard pics..you have a care for detail...but your talk suggests your in a rush. In time ,you'll realize that patience with people
as well with the machines...will get you thru the worst of times!
I ain't sayin' slow down..I'm just saying "realize what your moving thru"!!!
Listen and see where you are....things "glide" alot better when they're
polished.
Be ahead, above the headhunters! I'll wager,..one of these days, all your
Dzus fasteners will line-up!
sorry 'bout the sermon...but it is Sunday....
machine with a HISTORY of that fix, and his honours. If 60 yrs later, the
tail, or whatever is replaced..then it is no longer the original aircraft,
but an original preserved for its intended display purposes using
current repairs..regardless if you did it with "actual" period materials! The originality begins to fade. The less you have of the ORIGINAL..the less you
have a "True Representative" of that history!!
As to the lining-up of screw slots...
Chris,
I hope in your lifetime..that you are able to experience the care of quality
and pride that has been the "stamp of excellence" for Rolls Royce! Superb
machines! Nickels, "setting edge-on the manifold"...perfectly balanced! I
cannot claim the same largesse...but when I strive for excellence, I
remember what I've observed. Scrutiny in all phases of the project!
Work coming from your favorite machinist..you detect for flaws. De-burr, chamfer, peen, lighten, harden..grind and measure..measure and grind.
Make it Breathe..Zapp-it..Life!! I've created Life!!!!Ad Nauseum!
Hylomar!...Wasn't this sealer/adhesive created specifically for the
extreme requirements of the RR machines?? Too bad Norton motorcycles
didn't realize that sooner...they wouldn't have leaked as bad!!!
And when you're all done...it's really a kick!!!..if someone notices thru
all the "glitter and shine" of carefully polished aluminium and paint....that
I "capped it off "..with aligned slots! Symmetry is more than skin deep!!!
I've seen your Harvard pics..you have a care for detail...but your talk suggests your in a rush. In time ,you'll realize that patience with people
as well with the machines...will get you thru the worst of times!
I ain't sayin' slow down..I'm just saying "realize what your moving thru"!!!
Listen and see where you are....things "glide" alot better when they're
polished.
Be ahead, above the headhunters! I'll wager,..one of these days, all your
Dzus fasteners will line-up!
sorry 'bout the sermon...but it is Sunday....
Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:04 pm
but your talk suggests your in a rush
Wrong answer, I don't rush.
As for originality, people are too obsessed with the past. If you damaged the airplane, and used original parts today. It's in the repair manual. and that applies just as well today.
The plane discussed above with the tail replacement would not be the original 5 kill aircraft. The point is a repair done by the manual then is just as valid as a repair done today if it's done the same way.
Then your airplanes past and present are continous. It's all what you think about your plane or work, not what some historian dictates.
Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:26 pm
After watching hours of the Barrett/Jackson Car Auction yesterday, I was somewhat enlightened by the "points" a car gets in regard to its being all original, or restored to original specs. Then you have restored to better-than-new condition, etc.
When it comes down to it, if a person intends to fly a plane, then they cannot be sensitive to pure originality. There's a reason why planes like "Enola Gay" belong in a museum while "FiFi" enjoys the airshow circuit. I'm all about keeping them flying, but if Ira Kepford's Corsair was discovered untouched and intact somewhere in the Solomon Islands, I'd be the first to demand that it be preserved "as is" in a suitable museum where the curators wear kidd gloves to clean it.
Meanwhile, the rest of the survivors that have run of the mill Reserve duty history should continue to maintain the living spirit of the breed. If someone locates the data plate from Pappy Boyington's F4U-1A, go ahead and attach it to a flyer and let her rip. Regardless of their history, I can't think of a single ex-ace fighter flying anywhere in the world that is anywhere near being the actual plane that it was when it made history. Even Glacier Girl has had the vadt majority of her metal replaced.
For the rare instances when a plane is so historically significant that it would literally be a crime to alter it's current state (i.e. Yamamoto's Betty), or when a plane has miraculously survived 100% intact (NASM P-38. NEAM XF4U-4) preserve them in a museum by all means. Otherwise, don't drive youerself crazy counting rivets on the flyers. If the spirit of the airworthy warbirds is to remain alive, then eventually they will become all-new aircraft anyway. Airworthiness Directives, repairs, and other factors will see to that.
When it comes down to it, if a person intends to fly a plane, then they cannot be sensitive to pure originality. There's a reason why planes like "Enola Gay" belong in a museum while "FiFi" enjoys the airshow circuit. I'm all about keeping them flying, but if Ira Kepford's Corsair was discovered untouched and intact somewhere in the Solomon Islands, I'd be the first to demand that it be preserved "as is" in a suitable museum where the curators wear kidd gloves to clean it.
Meanwhile, the rest of the survivors that have run of the mill Reserve duty history should continue to maintain the living spirit of the breed. If someone locates the data plate from Pappy Boyington's F4U-1A, go ahead and attach it to a flyer and let her rip. Regardless of their history, I can't think of a single ex-ace fighter flying anywhere in the world that is anywhere near being the actual plane that it was when it made history. Even Glacier Girl has had the vadt majority of her metal replaced.
For the rare instances when a plane is so historically significant that it would literally be a crime to alter it's current state (i.e. Yamamoto's Betty), or when a plane has miraculously survived 100% intact (NASM P-38. NEAM XF4U-4) preserve them in a museum by all means. Otherwise, don't drive youerself crazy counting rivets on the flyers. If the spirit of the airworthy warbirds is to remain alive, then eventually they will become all-new aircraft anyway. Airworthiness Directives, repairs, and other factors will see to that.
Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:42 pm
The Australian War Memorial Zero is mostly new metal. Anyone who thinks that we find these aircraft and dust them off for display, flying or otherwise is dreaming. I say, do whatever it takes to get them back in the air or on display for this generation and the next...
After all grandpa's 100 year old axe has only had 5 new heads and 8 new handles!
After all grandpa's 100 year old axe has only had 5 new heads and 8 new handles!
Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:53 pm
Hi Rob:
I agree with you totally. What you are saying is reasonable. People can take anything to an unhealthy extreme for example warbirds, and the environment. The trouble is that the special interest groups which are the insane minority ruin it for the rational and reasonable majority.
The environment and some archeology are great examples. With the environment we all know about the liberals from the far left typically freaking out over drilling for oil in Alaska and the non scientific, non logical nonsense about polar icecaps melting and raising the ocean levels. (There's not enough water in them to do it)
Here's a solution I have for Mr. Taylan, and Mr. Leahy:
Respectfully (I don't think I'm out of line), buy a wreck from the jungle as well as the soil and surrounding foliage, and put it in your back yard. Don't force your far left views on the majority.
Thanks,
Chris
I agree with you totally. What you are saying is reasonable. People can take anything to an unhealthy extreme for example warbirds, and the environment. The trouble is that the special interest groups which are the insane minority ruin it for the rational and reasonable majority.
The environment and some archeology are great examples. With the environment we all know about the liberals from the far left typically freaking out over drilling for oil in Alaska and the non scientific, non logical nonsense about polar icecaps melting and raising the ocean levels. (There's not enough water in them to do it)
Here's a solution I have for Mr. Taylan, and Mr. Leahy:
Respectfully (I don't think I'm out of line), buy a wreck from the jungle as well as the soil and surrounding foliage, and put it in your back yard. Don't force your far left views on the majority.
Thanks,
Chris
Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:35 pm
If anything, I guess we've established that I must be a snob. 
As I said in my previous post, I understand the need for restoration work to be done, and totally respect those doing this work for public museums - such as the Australian War Memorial, RAAF Museum etc (if I didn't, I wouldn't be volunteering there).
I've even visited the Precision Aerospace facility at Wangaratta (on numerous occasions), and had a ball of a time seeing what was done there. At one of the restorer's requests, I located documents on the Ki-61 Tony for their restoration and hope to travel back there again soon.
What I am against though are the shady deals done behind the scenes. If all this is done for the good of preservation for future generations etc - what is there to hide?
Sorry if I've been misunderstood Chris, but I haven't been trying to force my views on anyone. I understand that recovery and restoration - both legal and illegal - will continue, no matter what I do or say. I've only been trying to express my view on this debate.
As I said in my previous post, I understand the need for restoration work to be done, and totally respect those doing this work for public museums - such as the Australian War Memorial, RAAF Museum etc (if I didn't, I wouldn't be volunteering there).
I've even visited the Precision Aerospace facility at Wangaratta (on numerous occasions), and had a ball of a time seeing what was done there. At one of the restorer's requests, I located documents on the Ki-61 Tony for their restoration and hope to travel back there again soon.
What I am against though are the shady deals done behind the scenes. If all this is done for the good of preservation for future generations etc - what is there to hide?
HarvardIV wrote:Don't force your far left views on the majority.
Sorry if I've been misunderstood Chris, but I haven't been trying to force my views on anyone. I understand that recovery and restoration - both legal and illegal - will continue, no matter what I do or say. I've only been trying to express my view on this debate.
Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:39 pm
All well and good..what bugs the crap out of me is those who try to pass something off that it is not....an example that keeps popping up is Buchon owners saying they have one of the original 109s sent to Spain in 43, and last year a certain P-51 being described in some of the avaition press as a real 'Millie G' flown by Giller, when it is proven that the particular aircraft was destroyed in Europe. Honesty takes a back seat to dollars unfortunately - but that is the age we live in I guess 
Re the Pacific Wrecks thing..... a simpler task would to be to make some attempt to spray those wrecks that aren't to be recovered with some sort of preservative keeping them alive for generations down the track who want to visit them 'in situ'. Energy would be much better spent doing that than trying to block the efforts of the recovery of wrecks that need to be saved...satisfies both points of view maybe
Dave
Re the Pacific Wrecks thing..... a simpler task would to be to make some attempt to spray those wrecks that aren't to be recovered with some sort of preservative keeping them alive for generations down the track who want to visit them 'in situ'. Energy would be much better spent doing that than trying to block the efforts of the recovery of wrecks that need to be saved...satisfies both points of view maybe
Dave
Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:09 pm
Hi
Oscar duck is quite right about the Zero in the AWM and the P40 and some of the other aircraft . The facts are that after all this time even as a static restoration aircraft have to restored ( Well perhaps they don't if you follow the path of some museums ) and this means fitting various parts that weren't on the aircraft or have to be new built - nearly all museum aircraft are by definition composite representations - not the origional.
The AWM is lucky to have a collection which includes a number of "Time Capsule" aircraft including the 109, 262, 163, Mk11 Spit, the Lanc etc. all of these machines were largely unmolested since the War but are they original - The Lanc has just undergone a complete refurbishment and i am sure it is not as it was on the day it left service, How many parts remain on the Spit from the day it ceased front line service? The 109 had various assemblies replaced during service. I am not critical in any way of the AWM on these aircraft it's just that they illustrate the various levels of restoration practiced to get an aircraft on display.
To illustrate my point here there are two other AWM aircraft that I would focus on. The AWM has a very nice restoration based upon a Beaufort airframe it obtained some time ago. This machine was not complete but was largely representative of one aircraft in terms of components. The AWM restored the machine using other components it sourced from wrecks and collectors as well as some new build material. The AWN was at pains to preserve as much of the original aircraft as possible down to preserving the painted surfaces where possible and then matching the paint on the newer surfaces. This is a great restoration and in terms of representative significance is a milestone for me in how it should be done.
On the other hand the AWM has an Oscar or rather the fragments of an Oscar and has chosen not to restore it and meerly display it as it was found. The particular machine had been wrecked during the war and later vandalised to a very large degree. The unfortunate aspect is that the aircraft doesen't depict either a wrecked or intact Oscar but depicts for me the results of the post war vandalism with much of the structure having been hacked up with axes and skin stolen for trinkets etc. I am sorry but I have to say that I would far rather see this machine used - no matter how small the components - to create a representation of an Oscar in the same way as the Zero or the P40. It would be much more inspirational to see the aircraft as it was not how it was found. I have much the same reservations about the Hendon Halifax although at least it isn't vandalised
Anyway John White and others at the AWM please don't take this as a knock of the collection - you should all be very proud of the achievements - we don't have to agree about everything. I just used you as the Guinea pigs - the same applies to most major collections.
So I guess I would sum it up as
"I think static display aircraft should be restored to as close a condition as when they ceased service /saw action and include as much of the original material/finish as is possible."
As for airworthy - I am all for replicas and as little original material as possible - I wouldn't fly with anything suspect.
Regards
John P
Oscar duck is quite right about the Zero in the AWM and the P40 and some of the other aircraft . The facts are that after all this time even as a static restoration aircraft have to restored ( Well perhaps they don't if you follow the path of some museums ) and this means fitting various parts that weren't on the aircraft or have to be new built - nearly all museum aircraft are by definition composite representations - not the origional.
The AWM is lucky to have a collection which includes a number of "Time Capsule" aircraft including the 109, 262, 163, Mk11 Spit, the Lanc etc. all of these machines were largely unmolested since the War but are they original - The Lanc has just undergone a complete refurbishment and i am sure it is not as it was on the day it left service, How many parts remain on the Spit from the day it ceased front line service? The 109 had various assemblies replaced during service. I am not critical in any way of the AWM on these aircraft it's just that they illustrate the various levels of restoration practiced to get an aircraft on display.
To illustrate my point here there are two other AWM aircraft that I would focus on. The AWM has a very nice restoration based upon a Beaufort airframe it obtained some time ago. This machine was not complete but was largely representative of one aircraft in terms of components. The AWM restored the machine using other components it sourced from wrecks and collectors as well as some new build material. The AWN was at pains to preserve as much of the original aircraft as possible down to preserving the painted surfaces where possible and then matching the paint on the newer surfaces. This is a great restoration and in terms of representative significance is a milestone for me in how it should be done.
On the other hand the AWM has an Oscar or rather the fragments of an Oscar and has chosen not to restore it and meerly display it as it was found. The particular machine had been wrecked during the war and later vandalised to a very large degree. The unfortunate aspect is that the aircraft doesen't depict either a wrecked or intact Oscar but depicts for me the results of the post war vandalism with much of the structure having been hacked up with axes and skin stolen for trinkets etc. I am sorry but I have to say that I would far rather see this machine used - no matter how small the components - to create a representation of an Oscar in the same way as the Zero or the P40. It would be much more inspirational to see the aircraft as it was not how it was found. I have much the same reservations about the Hendon Halifax although at least it isn't vandalised
Anyway John White and others at the AWM please don't take this as a knock of the collection - you should all be very proud of the achievements - we don't have to agree about everything. I just used you as the Guinea pigs - the same applies to most major collections.
So I guess I would sum it up as
"I think static display aircraft should be restored to as close a condition as when they ceased service /saw action and include as much of the original material/finish as is possible."
As for airworthy - I am all for replicas and as little original material as possible - I wouldn't fly with anything suspect.
Regards
John P