Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:04 pm
The mear fact that you know its a Waco puts you ahead of alot of people!!!! I cannot recall how many times I get asked at fly-ins about my "Beech Staggerwing"! I then have to laugh and say the stagger is in the wrong direction.
Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:39 pm
A Waco WTF ! I like that ! Funny!
August, I'm going to steal it, but if I get asked, I'll credit you!
Dave
August, I'm going to steal it, but if I get asked, I'll credit you!
Dave
That's funny
Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:22 pm
k5083 wrote:I have gotten pretty good at the 3-letter codes over the years, but when I run across a photo of one whose type I just can't identify, I provisionally label it a "Waco WTF".
August
On a day that I needed some humor, you provided it August. That's a good one. We have a few WTF WACOs at Creve Coeur. I've heard them called UFO WACOs before but I like WTF better.
Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:29 pm
Glad you guys liked it.
August
August
Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:37 pm
I have one for clarification. It's a photo from '07, I think one from Mark Nankivil. It's a YMF-F5C. YMF is a 1934 two place open with a 225 Jake. What does the F5C mean? The aerofiles 'remarks' section is a bit fuzzy to my comprehension of Waco-ism.
The a/c is white/maroon N30RS. It's pretty airplane anyway but it caught my eye because its in my high school colors. I don't know where it was taken but there's a white Connie, an Avenger and an o/d B-25 in the background. ( I don't think that's Creve Coeur)
Doug
The a/c is white/maroon N30RS. It's pretty airplane anyway but it caught my eye because its in my high school colors. I don't know where it was taken but there's a white Connie, an Avenger and an o/d B-25 in the background. ( I don't think that's Creve Coeur)
Doug
Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:03 pm
That is not a Waco....that is one of the new "products" being built in MI. Known as Waco Classic These are not much like the real thing. It is built to the original TC but as these are public domain it requires individual conformity inspection to be eligible. The original Waco would have been a YMF-5. 1935 year.
Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:04 pm
Ah-so. It's getting pulled from my binder.
Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:15 pm
The only designation I rate is Howard's DGA for 'D@mn Good Airplane'.
If you've got it, flaunt it.
*The Net-nanny's subsitution 'Darn' is for Wuzzocks.
If you've got it, flaunt it.
*The Net-nanny's subsitution 'Darn' is for Wuzzocks.
Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:37 pm
WacoYKC and Wheelsup, referring back to the pseudo Waco I mentioned, is there any model designation with those that identify them so rookies like me wont get fooled again? Replicas have their place but for me right now, I like the real thing.
Doug
Doug
George Washington's Cherry Tree Axe
Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:36 am
Wheels up wrote:That is not a Waco....that is one of the new "products" being built in MI. Known as Waco Classic These are not much like the real thing. It is built to the original TC but as these are public domain it requires individual conformity inspection to be eligible. The original Waco would have been a YMF-5. 1935 year.
So by that line of reasoning the following will apply;
The aircraft in this Andreas Zeitler photo is not a FW-190.
The aircraft in this George Trussell photo is not a F3F-2.
The aircraft in this Martin West photo is not a DH-88 Comet.
It's too bad that when the MAAM folks finish the P-61 and fly it to Oshkosh for the first time, they will be forced to park it in the Experimental section because after all, it's not a "real" P-61.
Re: George Washington's Cherry Tree Axe
Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:29 am
astixjr wrote:So by that line of reasoning the following will apply;
The aircraft in this Andreas Zeitler photo is not a FW-190.
Actually, it is a FW 190, but not a Fw 190. FW stands for Flug Werke, Fw for Focke Wulf, and Flug Werke build replicas of a Focke Wulf design. No-one is counting the Flug Were aircraft as restorations or originals. As pointed out here before, the fact that the Flug Werke parts don't fit a genuine original Focke Wulf restoration should underline the factor of difference.
astixjr wrote:It's too bad that when the MAAM folks finish the P-61 and fly it to Oshkosh for the first time, they will be forced to park it in the Experimental section because after all, it's not a "real" P-61.
As they started with an original Northrop designed airframe, and have rebuilt it, it's perfectly reasonable to regard it as a restoration.
The others are all replicas, representing the type - not original.
I'm not elitist about replicas or the like; Doug's post is perfectly clear on that too - that's great. But what is a problem is representing a copy as an original. It's dubious financially and ethically, and is a distortion of history, due to the fact that the compromises of the replicas detract from the real attributes of the original.
Cheers,
Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:16 am
I agree with WHEELSUP. The Classic Waco YMF-5 is not a Waco in terms of an aircraft built by the Waco Aircraft Company of Troy, Ohio. It is a representation of the Waco YMF-5. The fuselage is longer, the gear has been shortened, the tail has been raised and there are numerous unseen changes within the fuselage and wings.
With that said, I do appreciate the workmanship and quality of work and the time that goes into building these airplanes. The very first YMF-5 built by Classic Waco was far closer to the original then the ones being produced today. The airplane they used as a pattern to begin building these came from my airport. It was a true YMF-5 s/n 4209 registered NC14080.
With that said, I do appreciate the workmanship and quality of work and the time that goes into building these airplanes. The very first YMF-5 built by Classic Waco was far closer to the original then the ones being produced today. The airplane they used as a pattern to begin building these came from my airport. It was a true YMF-5 s/n 4209 registered NC14080.
Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:01 am
There are far more Waco Classic YMF-5's and YMF-5 Supers than there ever were Waco built YMF-5's, still a Waco design......
Tom-
Tom-
Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:50 am
Who's name, as the builder, is on the FAA registration and requisite (in US) data tag on fuselage side? N30RS
Would you consider the Legend Cubs or the Texas Sport and Wag Aero(which are assembled by the buyers) to be Pipers? They may be based heavily on the original Cub design, but they are not Pipers. You will notice I am differentiating between the model and make, just like Waco and YMF-5.
The new Classic Waco may be produced using (they do not own the type certificate) the original design but they had one chance to be a Waco...and that was gone 70 years ago.
I suppose there is no end to the debate. What clarifies these matters is the legal aspect. Who's name is listed as the builder on the dataplate, identification plate (the one required to be affixed to the outside), and the registration? If it is built with an original plate...then I suppose it could be considered "original". It is to the underwriter, administator, and manufacturer (they are the ones who will assume liability). Even if this is reduced to the serial number. What this assures is, there is not the possibility that there are two of the same aircraft running about. Afterall, a fuselage structure is a replaceble component. So if one replaced the entire vehicle but had an original serial number with a verifiable chain of ownership....who is the manufacturer? The party whom issued that serial number. And thus it can be considered original.
Again, who is to be held liable for the aircraft when litigation arises? The bearer of the title "manufacturer". And that is found on the registration.
I am not condemning Waco Classic. They are beautifully built and pretty aircraft. They are to be commended for persevering for 24 years now (as long as Waco was in production) through some bad times with an "antiquated" product.
Would you consider the Legend Cubs or the Texas Sport and Wag Aero(which are assembled by the buyers) to be Pipers? They may be based heavily on the original Cub design, but they are not Pipers. You will notice I am differentiating between the model and make, just like Waco and YMF-5.
The new Classic Waco may be produced using (they do not own the type certificate) the original design but they had one chance to be a Waco...and that was gone 70 years ago.
I suppose there is no end to the debate. What clarifies these matters is the legal aspect. Who's name is listed as the builder on the dataplate, identification plate (the one required to be affixed to the outside), and the registration? If it is built with an original plate...then I suppose it could be considered "original". It is to the underwriter, administator, and manufacturer (they are the ones who will assume liability). Even if this is reduced to the serial number. What this assures is, there is not the possibility that there are two of the same aircraft running about. Afterall, a fuselage structure is a replaceble component. So if one replaced the entire vehicle but had an original serial number with a verifiable chain of ownership....who is the manufacturer? The party whom issued that serial number. And thus it can be considered original.
Again, who is to be held liable for the aircraft when litigation arises? The bearer of the title "manufacturer". And that is found on the registration.
I am not condemning Waco Classic. They are beautifully built and pretty aircraft. They are to be commended for persevering for 24 years now (as long as Waco was in production) through some bad times with an "antiquated" product.
Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:20 am
Wheels up wrote:What clarifies these matters is the legal aspect.
Bravo! It is not often around here that the legal aspect is credited with clarifying anything. You've just earned an honorary membership in the Wix Lawyers Alliance (WIXLA), if you want one.
Seriously, when talking about a new production run based on an antique type, or an avowedly homebuilt replica, there is no real debate, even before you bring in the lawyers. It is all very well for Shuttleworth to build a replica Sopwith Triplane and then convince Sir Tom that it is so accurate that it deserves to be allocated the next triplane serial number and certified original by him, but everyone recognizes that that sort of thing is only cute, not real.
It only gets fuzzy when you are talking about one-off, hand built airplanes using at least some original components. That is where the legal standards may diverge from the historical ones. As both a lawyer and a preservationist, I recognize that those two fields have different standards and would not be so quick to "cross the streams," so to speak.
I would like it if new-build replicas that are produced in multiples did not use the trademarks of the aircraft they are imitating, like "Waco" or, to take another example, the new build "Yak-3Us" or whatever they're called. Monikers like "Wag-Aero Cuby" were fine with me, I liked how they turned "Cub" into an adjective meaning "Cub-like" which was really what the airplane was. However, there is enough flex in trademark law that some of these modern companies cannot be stopped from incorporating the original names. Assuming that our race (and a few of our aircraft!) survives another millennium or so, from which perspective 1935 and 2005 will not seem far apart, much confusion could be created as to what was a technically state of the art product when built and what was already a throwback.
August