Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:59 pm
Hmmmm... My wife would disagree!snj-5 wrote:Moral of the story is: Don't throw anything away!!!
Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:41 pm
bdk wrote:Hmmmm... My wife would disagree!snj-5 wrote:Moral of the story is: Don't throw anything away!!!
BDK... Well then just throw it in the hanger!
Mike
Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:16 pm
Don't be giving away all my secrets!mrhenniger wrote:BDK... Well then just throw it in the hanger!
Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:42 pm
SNJ-5
Agree completely - trouble is that a lot of restoration goes to business now where the imperitave is to get the airframes out the door and get to the next one - That is their business and I have no problem it's just that it leaves out the emotional and historical perspective involved.
An aircraft is two things
Firstly it is a physical bit of equipment utilised to perform a function - flight. It exists and must be kept in a state so as to perform it's function at an optimal level which requires construction to be focused on strength and safety - little heed is paid to originality of components or provinance as a priority - the priority is function.
Secondly there is the emotional layer to an aircraft where Warbirds and historic museum aircraft fit in where there is a muddying of the waters. A school of thought says that a warbird should meerly be an extension of the first point ie just a functionally based aircraft and you take whatever liberities are required to present a functional safe facamile of the original aircraft it puports to be - others say it should be as much of the original structure and components as possible and thus maintain a degree of "authenticity" Most aircraft flying as warbirds occupy a point between these two extreams and could be classafied as follows
Flying
1 ) Full Replica paying only scant regard to original specifications and materials /construction methods
2) Faithful Replica (Sometimes called a "New Build Original")- a machine which is totally new build but follows closely upon original specifications/materials / construction materials
3) Restoration - ie an aircraft largely rebuilt from an existing aircraft and utilising the bulk (say 50% +) of that aircraft and being largely indistinguishable from that original aircraft.
4) Refurbished/Original - an aircraft in such condition as to allow it to be rebuilt/operated with 90%+ of the original construction/structure in place
Static
Replica
Same as 1 above but just a virtual mock up for display purposes.
Faithful replica
Same as 2 above but constructed so accurately as to be indistinguishable from the original factory fresh aircraft
Partial Replica
Similar to a replica but utilising up to 50% of original components.
Restoration / original
A retoration utilising 50% or more of an original aircraft and built to exact standards of originality
Restoration / refurbishment
The cosmetic restoration of and aircraft which is almost completely original so as to preserve and conserve it's originality.
All of these categories have their place and purpose in our industry.
The issue for me is where an airframe gets recovered and forms the basis for an airworthy restoration. These days most of that airframe will get discarded and most of the machine will be a new build "data plate" restoration with an original Identity and provinance to which it has no real connection. It seems mindless that the components of the original are not utilised in a static rebuild. We are going through way too many historic wrecks and scrapping them at the end of a project - in some cases 3 or more machines will be scrapped to create one flyable machine. Why scrap the 3 original wrecks - I just don't get it. For those of you who say this doesn't happen I can assure you it happens all the time and I have seen many cases in the past 12 months alone.
Regards
John P
Agree completely - trouble is that a lot of restoration goes to business now where the imperitave is to get the airframes out the door and get to the next one - That is their business and I have no problem it's just that it leaves out the emotional and historical perspective involved.
An aircraft is two things
Firstly it is a physical bit of equipment utilised to perform a function - flight. It exists and must be kept in a state so as to perform it's function at an optimal level which requires construction to be focused on strength and safety - little heed is paid to originality of components or provinance as a priority - the priority is function.
Secondly there is the emotional layer to an aircraft where Warbirds and historic museum aircraft fit in where there is a muddying of the waters. A school of thought says that a warbird should meerly be an extension of the first point ie just a functionally based aircraft and you take whatever liberities are required to present a functional safe facamile of the original aircraft it puports to be - others say it should be as much of the original structure and components as possible and thus maintain a degree of "authenticity" Most aircraft flying as warbirds occupy a point between these two extreams and could be classafied as follows
Flying
1 ) Full Replica paying only scant regard to original specifications and materials /construction methods
2) Faithful Replica (Sometimes called a "New Build Original")- a machine which is totally new build but follows closely upon original specifications/materials / construction materials
3) Restoration - ie an aircraft largely rebuilt from an existing aircraft and utilising the bulk (say 50% +) of that aircraft and being largely indistinguishable from that original aircraft.
4) Refurbished/Original - an aircraft in such condition as to allow it to be rebuilt/operated with 90%+ of the original construction/structure in place
Static
Replica
Same as 1 above but just a virtual mock up for display purposes.
Faithful replica
Same as 2 above but constructed so accurately as to be indistinguishable from the original factory fresh aircraft
Partial Replica
Similar to a replica but utilising up to 50% of original components.
Restoration / original
A retoration utilising 50% or more of an original aircraft and built to exact standards of originality
Restoration / refurbishment
The cosmetic restoration of and aircraft which is almost completely original so as to preserve and conserve it's originality.
All of these categories have their place and purpose in our industry.
The issue for me is where an airframe gets recovered and forms the basis for an airworthy restoration. These days most of that airframe will get discarded and most of the machine will be a new build "data plate" restoration with an original Identity and provinance to which it has no real connection. It seems mindless that the components of the original are not utilised in a static rebuild. We are going through way too many historic wrecks and scrapping them at the end of a project - in some cases 3 or more machines will be scrapped to create one flyable machine. Why scrap the 3 original wrecks - I just don't get it. For those of you who say this doesn't happen I can assure you it happens all the time and I have seen many cases in the past 12 months alone.
Regards
John P
Waste
Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:42 pm
An excellent explanation Setter...I agree there should be some way not
to be so wasteful in what we do with these relics.
to be so wasteful in what we do with these relics.
Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:05 pm
Question,
Let me see if I have this straight.
In reading on this and other boards it seems that the paper work and serial number of an airframe can get transfered to a collection of experienced or new manufactured parts that may or may not have any real connection with the origional airframe, which may or may not still exist.
Now, if the origional airframe exists and is restored, it cannot be titled as the origional that it is, as someone already has an imposter that is titled using it's paperwork. So if another set of paperwork doesn't exist for another airframe, it has to be titled as a replica or homebuilt, even tho it is the origional?
So, it is quite possible to actually "own" a plane without even a single piece of the plane in existenance.
I wonder how the "value" of the phantom plane is decided for property tax purposes.
Is there a clearing house for paperwork for destroyed airframes that restoration shops go to get titles if they don't have one for a restoration/rebuild or are they basically sold by people tracing past owners of wrecks and purchasing the titles that way.
At one of our SARH symposiums, Bob Swanson remarked that at the time (late 1940's) he didn't understand why someone wanted to purchase the data plate off his crashed Mustang (which he did sell). He later guessed that they used it to title another Mustang.
Just wondering......
Kenn
Let me see if I have this straight.
In reading on this and other boards it seems that the paper work and serial number of an airframe can get transfered to a collection of experienced or new manufactured parts that may or may not have any real connection with the origional airframe, which may or may not still exist.
Now, if the origional airframe exists and is restored, it cannot be titled as the origional that it is, as someone already has an imposter that is titled using it's paperwork. So if another set of paperwork doesn't exist for another airframe, it has to be titled as a replica or homebuilt, even tho it is the origional?
So, it is quite possible to actually "own" a plane without even a single piece of the plane in existenance.
I wonder how the "value" of the phantom plane is decided for property tax purposes.
Is there a clearing house for paperwork for destroyed airframes that restoration shops go to get titles if they don't have one for a restoration/rebuild or are they basically sold by people tracing past owners of wrecks and purchasing the titles that way.
At one of our SARH symposiums, Bob Swanson remarked that at the time (late 1940's) he didn't understand why someone wanted to purchase the data plate off his crashed Mustang (which he did sell). He later guessed that they used it to title another Mustang.
Just wondering......
Kenn
Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:46 pm
And then there are those that have new unused data plates and stamp them with whatever they choose 
Dave
Dave
Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:50 pm
Well Kenn
Yes you are more or less correct although most new builds do contain a few parts from original machines some don't at all - thats the crazy side I was alludeing to but it works after a fashion - a bit monty python "cheese shop"
Regards
John P
Yes you are more or less correct although most new builds do contain a few parts from original machines some don't at all - thats the crazy side I was alludeing to but it works after a fashion - a bit monty python "cheese shop"
Regards
John P
Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:28 pm
Hi Dave
I was in Manilia the other day and I had a P38 data plate . I was jokng with a guy that people traded the data plates and that people could even make new ones
Two days later he appeared proud as punch with 10 blank replica P38 data plates ( new Build replicas) I honestly can't tell the difference from the originals - They are now destroyed!!!! But makes you think
I am clearly in the wrong business .......................
Kindest regards
John P
I was in Manilia the other day and I had a P38 data plate . I was jokng with a guy that people traded the data plates and that people could even make new ones
Two days later he appeared proud as punch with 10 blank replica P38 data plates ( new Build replicas) I honestly can't tell the difference from the originals - They are now destroyed!!!! But makes you think
I am clearly in the wrong business .......................
Kindest regards
John P
Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:46 pm
Hi Dave
I was in Manilia the other day and I had a P38 data plate . I was jokng with a guy that people traded the data plates and that people could even make new ones
Hi Setter
What's the news on the unexcavated or excavated P-38s in Manila?
Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:53 pm
Hi Chris
Two excavated in good condition
I think they will look to market them next year for various reason not least because a lot of P38s are being traded at present.
Regards
John P
Two excavated in good condition
I think they will look to market them next year for various reason not least because a lot of P38s are being traded at present.
Regards
John P
Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:52 am
Companies like Banaire in California purchased hundreds of T-6 data plates and logs after the aircraft were scrapped and had been selling them for years for just the purpose you suggest. The have been sold out for quite a while though. Lots of Harvards flying in the US with this paperwork which allows them into Standard Category rather than Experimental Exhibition.kennsmithf2g wrote:Is there a clearing house for paperwork for destroyed airframes that restoration shops go to get titles if they don't have one for a restoration/rebuild or are they basically sold by people tracing past owners of wrecks and purchasing the titles that way.
Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:51 pm
How much does a flyable P-38 cost? How much does a P-38 restoration project cost?
Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:23 pm
Wolverine
I don't know exactly but based on other types and allowing for scale and two allisons I would think somewhere between Aus$1.2/1.5 M here in Aus thats about USD $1-1.3m COST not sale price. Much more in the US or the UK
Regards
John P
I don't know exactly but based on other types and allowing for scale and two allisons I would think somewhere between Aus$1.2/1.5 M here in Aus thats about USD $1-1.3m COST not sale price. Much more in the US or the UK
Regards
John P
Kenn/BDK--two queries
Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:00 pm
Hi all--
Noticed two things for different reasons and thought I'd ask...
1. BDK--you mention Bob Swanson's crashed '51 possibly surrendering its ID to another airframe. Presumably the crashed one was NX66111 "Full House", the ID of which survives (ex-Dominica); can you confirm the original NX66111 no longer exists? (Have seen a pic of it post-crash-landing, and it looked pretty good, but that's by 2005 standards...1946 standards would be less generous!)
2. Kenn--your mention of Texan dataplates being used to turn Harvards into T-6s (so to speak) clicks with Peter W's inquiry about the vanished ex-Age Of Flight Museum Harvard 4, 20300. Could that be how she disappeared...hiding in plain sight? I do know the Mk.4 Harvards were indeed Experimental rather than Normal (I forget why but it accounts for all the weird and wonderful replica configurations they've been converted to!)
S.
Noticed two things for different reasons and thought I'd ask...
1. BDK--you mention Bob Swanson's crashed '51 possibly surrendering its ID to another airframe. Presumably the crashed one was NX66111 "Full House", the ID of which survives (ex-Dominica); can you confirm the original NX66111 no longer exists? (Have seen a pic of it post-crash-landing, and it looked pretty good, but that's by 2005 standards...1946 standards would be less generous!)
2. Kenn--your mention of Texan dataplates being used to turn Harvards into T-6s (so to speak) clicks with Peter W's inquiry about the vanished ex-Age Of Flight Museum Harvard 4, 20300. Could that be how she disappeared...hiding in plain sight? I do know the Mk.4 Harvards were indeed Experimental rather than Normal (I forget why but it accounts for all the weird and wonderful replica configurations they've been converted to!)
S.