Dataplate knockoffs...

Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:56 am

I don't understand all this about dataplates and stuff. I sure wish someone would explain to my why a P-51 is suddenly not a P-51 when it doesn't have all the original parts it started with.

Human beings have almost none of the cells they were born with, when they die. I see an old airplane the same way: It's gonna need some new parts eventually. How much of that has to be original to make it a warbird? It's not like there is some sort of rule about it, right?

Why don't we simply assign some terminology to the different builds, from all original parts (which would be falling apart) to flying with original rebuilt parts to flying with parts from six different birds, etc...

I mean, WIX is pretty big in the Warbird world. So somebody build a classification system and we can make a game of trying to stick to it. If we can actually pick it up ourselves, we might just be able to spread it into the rest of the warbird world and thus fix the headache of arguing over Bumfut Snuffy's old P47 being a fake because it has the wrong paint scheme...

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:08 am

No need to re-invent the wheel..... the NASM has already done it, see my post in the ABC thread.

Dave

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:15 am

Now, watch that crazy talk, Dave. Somebody might hear you and try it.

I tried actually, and came up with a couple hundred NASM posts...I'll try clarifying my search later :p

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:22 am

Muddy

Will try and dig it out when I get the time..check back next week :wink:

Dave

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:24 am

It sorta reminds me of the ad I saw once, selling an original, 12th Century English battle-axe....... the head had only been replaced twice, and the handle four times ....

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:39 am

Ok, stole this from a Flypast thread which JDK had posted this edited version from Mikesh.....so looks like a combination of NASM/NMUSAF definitions.

Robert Mikesh, former Senior Curator of the National Air & Space Museum, in ‘Restoring Museum Aircraft’ gives six categories: original; restored original; replica; reproduction; look-alike and mock-up.

Briefly, he defines them as follows:

“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” He gives Spirit of St Louis as an example.

“Restored original (Restoration): An artefact composed of at least 50% original components (by surface area or volume) and the remainder returned to accurate early condition made with the same materials, components and accessories.” – He quotes it as a USAFM definition.

“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artefact in part or in total.” Another USAFM definition. Interestingly he gives the example of the Gee Bee Super Sportster build by the New England Air Museum with the technical supervision of the Grandville Bros Chief Engineer Pete Miller. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.

“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”

Unfortunately I don't have the book (but have read it) so can't supply the 'lookalike' or 'mockup' definition, although it isn't really relevant I guess

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:44 am

DaveM2 wrote:“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” He gives Spirit of St Louis as an example.

I understand that the original fabric was torn off of the Spirit of St. Louis by souvenir hunters after it landed in Paris and was replaced sometime later. If so, is it still original?

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:56 am

BK

Had it ended operational service at that point?

Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:56 am

The NASM standards for originality are definitely well-thought out and make sense when restoring historical artifacts. However, how many of the airplanes in their collection do the NASM fly? I have never been there, nor do I care to do any serious investigation, so I will defer to others, but I would hazard to say that few of their most original airplanes could pass a C of A inspection to return to airworthy in their unadulterated, original condition. In the last thread I used longerons solely as an example. Of course there are other parts to an airplane, but eventually enough parts will be replaced that the airplane will not carry many of its original parts. Jack is right, that new build metal constructed around a data-plate removed from a smoldering hole in the ground is not nearly original as a factory fresh example. I will on the other hand restate my original question: does replacing one part at a time make an airplane more original than one where many parts are replaced at the same time?

Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:06 am

warbirdcrew wrote:The NASM standards for originality are definitely well-thought out and make sense when restoring historical artifacts. However, how many of the airplanes in their collection do the NASM fly? I have never been there, nor do I care to do any serious investigation, so I will defer to others, but I would hazard to say that few of their most original airplanes could pass a C of A inspection to return to airworthy in their unadulterated, original condition. In the last thread I used longerons solely as an example. Of course there are other parts to an airplane, but eventually enough parts will be replaced that the airplane will not carry many of its original parts. Jack is right, that new build metal constructed around a data-plate removed from a smoldering hole in the ground is not nearly original as a factory fresh example. I will on the other hand restate my original question: does replacing one part at a time make an airplane more original than one where many parts are replaced at the same time?

WC- I would say the 'one part at a time' is more 'original' as at any 'point in time' you can STOP and compare both (same type aircraft -same origins etc). One will have everything replaced.....one hasn't gotten to that point yet.....
However once the centre section is replaced it isn't 'that' aircraft any longer, but a reproduction or 'clone'. Then we start getting into trouble with two aircraft having the same 'IDs' as happened to a Spit in the UK.....potential 'can o worms' comes to mind.
Anyhoo as has happened many times on many forums the discussion is subjective and ends up chasing its own tail.....old adage 'buyer ( and historian) beware :wink:

All hypothetical of course.......

Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:12 am

bdk wrote:
DaveM2 wrote:“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” He gives Spirit of St Louis as an example.
I understand that the original fabric was torn off of the Spirit of St. Louis by souvenir hunters after it landed in Paris and was replaced sometime later. If so, is it still original?

A often repeated (probably press) exaggeration.

There is a famous photo (I happened to be looking at the other day) by Charles E Brown of it in the hangar at Le Bourget under guard. There are some rips in the fabric, but nothing more than that.

Warbirdcrew - no, like most national level collections, the NASM's aircraft do not fly. That's why airworthy warbirds, generally are less original than static examples. (And why 'airworthy' while very important, isn't 'the best' standard for originality. It's great for aircraft that fly, obviously.)

I will on the other hand restate my original question: does replacing one part at a time make an airplane more original than one where many parts are replaced at the same time?

The big confusion people have is 'between 'in service' replacement, and in preservation replacement. The Swoose is a good example of the importance of that difference.

And there's different historical values to a 'factory fresh' aircraft (tells you a lot about how they were made) and an 'ex-service' example (tells you a lot about how they were used.)

HTH.

Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:13 am

As always with this discussion, reference the Theseus Paradox.

Quote from Wiki:

the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object

This is a philosophical question that has been pondered through the ages. As such, it's not something that's going to be solved by the warbird community.

It is not simply a matter of establishing standards, as the post with the NMUSAF standards shows.

Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:30 am

Are we going back to flogging this dead horse again!?! Your brand new, shiny, really cool 2009 BELCHFIRE V-7 with 137.8 miles on it is 100% original UNTIL you burn out a dome light or tail light, then does it stay 'original' or is it now a 'replica' because it's no longer 100% 'as delivered from the manufacturer'?
I was under the impression that every last teeny bit of argument about this was pounded flat last Summer, and several people left that conversation with a bad case of the jaws, let it rest-

Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:16 am

Try telling the RNZAF that their P-3's [that have been rebuilt with new wings/tail feather and horiz stabs [not by Lockheed] are not the real tghing] as have many other aircraft. What's the difference if I buy and old P-3 and build those items and fit them.

original oil/fuel/paint/bulbs/radios wings off another aircraft etc.

My T-28D was a composite but this was done by the service not me. Is it not genuine..?

Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:36 am

Not hard if you apply the appropriate definitions in the appropriate manner. Which is why museums have (and use) definitions, and warbirders don't.

See above, and previous, and in other discussions.