Warbird Information Exchange

Hi Jack,

I guess there is a certain point of view in this matter. I can't really say I remember someone trying to pass off a warbird that wasn't. But lets say someone found Robert L. Scotts P-40E...only the forward fuselage was left. And they used that and built the rest with new parts. In my view it would be considered the real thing.

I am not sure where this dataplate thing came up from. If thats all you have is a dataplate then why all the fuss about someone making an airplane out of it? I guess if you want to build an aircraft and have an aircraft to put that dataplate on then I think that would be considered a reproduction.

I call those "reincarnations"...and I love seeing them, anywhere, anytime...

Here's a nice example...Mr Charleston in the UK started with not very much and ended up producing this...



...is this a Messerschmitt 109E? Far as I'm concerned, yep!

S.

Will an A-36 do?

http://www.americanaeroservices.com/web ... 6home.html

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

I never would have dreamed of seeing this many razorbacks in my lifetime. There are some pretty good rumors floating around about other projects that are in the pipeline...cool stuff.



alphabet soup




just for good measure


I have more...just can't find 'em...

Jim Harley

I see your point Jack and indeed it is valid. However suppose someone had George Preddy's actual P-51 and was interested in keeping it flying, and say corrosion was found in the longerons of said P-51. Would replacing the longerons mean that it is no longer the Preddy P-51? What about down the road when corrosion is found in the wing spars and the wings are sent to Odegaard for rebuild? Does swapping a time-exed motor for a zero-time engine mean that the airplane has lost historical value? As you and I know parts are replaced on warbirds all the time. Does it make a difference if many parts are replaced at once or if one part is replaced every few years? If we were really picky we would track the serial numbers of each carb and mag that was ever attached to an airplane so that we could be sure that the spark plugs on a show-circuit Mustang were of the same batch as those with which it went to war. IMHO if the airplane is to sit groundbound in a museum until the end of time and be a monument to its former self, then leave it as they find it. But if we are to make the airplane flyable again, it seems prudent to replace corroded longerons.

_________________
real airplanes have round engines

Same old argument rehashed over and over. Longerons don't make an aircraft, rule of thumb is that the centre section is the 'core' of the aircraft and is the minimum on considering anything to be 'original'
The NASM has prity clear guidelines accepted by 'most' as to 'what is what' re historic, rebuild, reproduction, replica aircraft. It has been posted many times previous so a quick search will no doubt find it- on this board, on the Flypast board etc etc etc.

Dave

Replacing damaged parts while retaining a majority of the original airframe to retain airworthiness is a compromise to originality but wouldnt normally destroy provenance traceable back to the wqartime production and service history.

Creating a majority of new parts to add to a minority of original parts would question the provenance traceable back to the wartime production and service history but might still be able to claim to be restored from the wreck/remains of XXXXX.

Creating a majority of new parts added to a data plate recovered from a smouldering hole in the ground and added to little or no NOS spares or parts sourced from other wrecks seems to stretch the imagination in claiming any relationship to the wartime production or wartime service history of any particular example, and would be better simply presented as reproductions.

We are seeing some fantastic warbird newbuild productions occurring, F3F's Oscars, FW-190's ME262's, Yaks etc but no need to fabricate provenance, but instead a celebration of the engineering achievements.

The "New Metal" Mustangs and Spitfires are clearly exact to design, and are certainly Mustrangs and Spitfires, but it does seem debatable if they are really the "airframes" they claim to be.

Some of these aspects arise from the airworthiness regulations being more "sypathetic" to restorations than new construction, but some of it does relate to the perceived marketability of "restored original" as against "reconstructed".

Perhaps overtime the industry will mature and value these "new" aircraft for the quality of the work, the accuracy of construction, and the more durable, more reliable new condition they possess, and perhaps counteract any perceived lower value arising from their reduced authenticity?

I still applaud those who construct them, and thank those who fund them and operate them for all of our enjoyment, I just hope we dont confuse them for the trully historic and/or original airframes sitting next to them on the flightline, or in the static museum?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Our plan is to be at OSH with the Redtail. I hope a photo flight with Old Crow, Boise Bee, The Red Tail and any/all other high back Mustangs can take place....

Keep checking here for updates:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=21114

There should be some exciting progress to report after our February trip North!

In the end they are just machines. But they represent the people who flew and operated them.

If a new build Mustang, gets one kid to want to learn more about the history, I think it's done it's job. A replica painted as Kidd Hofer's bird, might just get someone to learn more about the Kidd and his spirit will continue to live on.

Would I prefer a 100% original combat vet to a replica bird? Absolutely. Are Old Crow and Impatient Virgin the real deal? They sure seem like it, but that's not alot of original metal.

That being said, which current flying Mustang would be considered the most original?

From where I was standing at "Gathering of Mustangs"......That would be "Tender Tear"

It looked like it flew thru a time warp, to a world of polished aluminum.

_________________
"I've already got four, and I've got thirty cornered" Lt Paul Pablo VF-14 USS Essex

From where I was standing at "Gathering of Mustangs"......That would be "Tender Tear"


........."Twilight Tear"?

VL

It's the same old, isn't it? Still fun to go around again...

At that level it's doing a great job; about the level of a photo print or a model kit. I think we might expect more real history from those that restore warbirds.

Which is why having the variety is good.

None as much as a number of static examples, which is why there's a need for both. I treasure my ignorance of Mustangs, so I can't give examples, but in Spitfires, the IWM, AWM and Chicago examples all provide a historical document no flying Spitfire does.

That said, there are magnificent 'recreations' of what we currently believe them to be like - Mk.I A213 in Spitfires and Happy Jack's Go Buggy in Mustangs, I'd say.

However there are some owners who are scrupulous about what's not 'right' about their restorations - the Mk.I for examples has some deviations which are documented, which is how it should be. Unfortunately there are other owners who believe that their money hasn't just bought them a fine restoration, but silence from those that know about dubious and shoddy historical 'research', as well as more 'history' than that aircraft ever had.

You want a non-combat Mustang to be a European veteran? No problem. Just carefully select your evidence, and there you are. History? About as credible as those people 'researching' their family history who 'prove' they are descended from royalty.

The problem with flying Mustangs particularly is paperwork focussed on certification, not historical accuracy, and paper trails that aren't reflections of the aircraft they support - and worse.

Oh, and on a trivial level - shiny - a desire for bling over reality. I like Kermit's Redtail, but it was never like that in service. Yes, they got polished, but not that much. There was a war on, they were just another tool to do a nasty job with.

Just my 2d.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I cannot wait till this summer! Seeing the Redtail Mustang back in the air will be spectacular. More than anything, it will be just good to know that the aircraft is up and flying again. I'm looking forward to seeing more progress photos, and it will definitely be a great sight to see the fuselage and wing mated together again!

While doing research on the P-51B/C over the last year, for various related projects, there seem to be at least hints as well as documented proof of two or three P-51B/C's (I won’t present any identities) under way to flying condition, besides Redtail and Bee. I'm really glad that there is an, what seems to be growing, interest and ability to build these planes from barely any surviving airframes. Just four or five years ago I couldn't imagine there being nearly as many flying B/C models as there are today - taking a look at the MustangsMustangs page on flyable B/C's, the page looks quite full compared to how it first was (I'm still waiting to see Bee moved over to its proper category, which will make the list that much longer). Going to Oshkosh this past summer and being able to walk around not only one, but two P-51B's, with Malcolm hoods besides, was like heaven to the early model Mustang enthusiast within me.

Yes, "Twilight Tear".
I had been thinking about my 1/18 model of "Tender Terror" earlier.

_________________
"I've already got four, and I've got thirty cornered" Lt Paul Pablo VF-14 USS Essex

JDK wrote: "Unfortunately there are other owners who believe that their money hasn't just bought them a fine restoration, but silence from those that know about dubious and shoddy historical 'research', as well as more 'history' than that aircraft ever had."

I'd say you hit the nail directly on the head.

_________________
Charles Neely