Marbird Winners Oshkosh 2016??

[Ed Likes]

Anybody know who the major warbird award winners are at Oshkosn 2016? Thanks in advacne.

[JohnTerrell]

They won't be announced until tonight, and will likely be posted online tomorrow.

For the WWII awards, Pat Harker's massive and rare Stinson L-1 and Tri-State Warbird Museum's RNZAF P-40M are certainly the favorites to win.

For the post-WWII awards, I should imagine that the Colling's TF-51D and Paul Keppler's F-86 are in the running.

[jdankos]

Tristate p40 is grand champion.

[hurricane_yank]

Surprised it took the prize over the L-1.

[Dave Homewood]

Tristate p40 is grand champion.

If this is correct, fantastic. Congratulations to all those involved in the restoration and operation of this aircraft, and thanks for keeping the RNZAF WWII story alive for so many people to see.

[DaveM2]

The RNZAF P-40 has come a long way since it was recovered out of the Rukuhia grave yard- well done to Paul and Tri-State

[Taigh Ramey]

Tri State's P-40 won Grand Champion WWII.

Pat Harker's Stinson L-1 took Reserve Grand Champion

The Collings Foundation' TF-51 won Grand Champion post WWII.

I posted some photos of these aircraft on Facebook here:

https://www.facebook.com/taigh.ramey

[mazdaP5]

I had a hard time shooting it, the canopy seemed to always be covered.

[JohnTerrell]

Surprised it took the prize over the L-1.

The Tri-State Warbird Museum's P-40M is stunning, and very authentic and detailed (the kind of/level of details are a match to the Warhawks Inc. restorations). That L-1 restoration is also stunning - even the modern fabric was treated with a new system to reproduce the correct look of vintage/period-correct fabric (as seen from inside the aircraft).

Edit: Oddly enough, in the warbird judging criteria, the massive and extremely rare L-1, which took 6 years of work to restore, is ranked in the same "difficulty factor" of restoration as an L-2, L-5, L-18, PT-19, and PT-22. With the judging tallied based on points, the L-1 only gets 1 for difficulty, where as the P-40 automatically gets a 5.

Last edited by JohnTerrell on Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[Lynn Allen]

The L-1, did it come out San Antonio, Texas by chance? Or Ober, do you know where it went to??

[JohnTerrell]

The L-1, which has the serial number 41-19031, originally crashed in Nome, Alaska in 1944. It was recovered in the early 80's by John McCabe of Kansas and the project was later purchased by Kermit Weeks in the late 90's. While with Weeks, the wings were rebuilt by Paul Stecewycz, who also restored Weeks' (former-Tallmantz) L-1. The project was later purchased by Pat Harker (C&P Aviation) and the main rebuild was carried out at American Aero Services (work was also carried out by C&P and some final parts at Aircorps Aviation as well, and I'm not sure who handled the engine rebuild). The aircraft is painted in the same markings it originally had when based in Alaska in 1944. Pat Harker is in the unique position of owning the trifecta of restored/flying Stinson L-birds - the L-1, L-5 (also newly restored), and L-13. He is also in the process of rebuilding/making better the French-built "Storch" that used to be owned/flown by Jerry Yagen/Military Aviation Museum. (Of course all in addition to the F-82E, P-51H project, O-47 project, and P-51D rebuild.)

[Lynn Allen]

The L-1, which has the serial number 41-19031, originally crashed in Nome, Alaska in 1944. It was recovered in the early 80's by John McCabe of Kansas and the project was later purchased by Kermit Weeks in the late 90's. While with Weeks, the wings were rebuilt by Paul Stecewycz, who also restored Weeks' (former-Tallmantz) L-1. The project was later purchased by Pat Harker (C&P Aviation) and the main rebuild was carried out at American Aero Services (work was also carried out by C&P and some final parts at Aircorps Aviation as well, and I'm not sure who handled the engine rebuild). The aircraft is painted in the same markings it originally had when based in Alaska in 1944. Pat Harker is in the unique position of owning the trifecta of restored/flying Stinson L-birds - the L-1, L-5 (also newly restored), and L-13. He is also in the process of rebuilding/making better the French-built "Storch" that used to be owned/flown by Jerry Yagen/Military Aviation Museum. (Of course all in addition to the F-82E, P-51H project, O-47 project, and P-51D rebuild.)

Thank you John...

[JohnB]

In giving awards, does the EAA make any effort to reward restorations that have a large degree of original components?

The more complex and valuable the aircraft, often the less original it is.

This topic is one that's been ongoing in the old auto community for years, of course with aircraft, safety is of paramount importance and often entire airframe are basically new (especially when the a.c. in question is one recovered from a wartime crash site).

Nothing against any a.c....but I'd like to see the percentage of original parts taken into account when giving awards.

[Taigh Ramey]

Yes, EAA Warbirds judging does give consideration for original equipment as it falls under the category of authenticity. Authenticity covers 20 points or 20% of the basic score. These 20 points are broken down in to 4 categories namely Paint and Markings, Cockpit, Engine Prop and Accys and Airframe Components. original components in each category will add to its score.

Here is a link to the EAA Judging standards manual:

https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/~/media/51fff1500ea844e3aa0e0413be8c4d86.ashx

[Noha307]

In giving awards, does the EAA make any effort to reward restorations that have a large degree of original components?

For reference, the P-40 has new wings outboard of the landing gear, as this is the point at which the originals were cut off while it was in the scrapyard. On the other hand, you can still see the less than perfect wartime riveting job that was done on the fuselage skins. The L-1 I understand was Weeks's parts bird that he scavenged from, so the majority of the fuselage parts are not original. The person I spoke to said the wings were restored outside of their shop, so he was unaware how original they were.

However, both aircraft were extremely well done and very authentically restored. I don't envy the judges' position at all, and I imagine the decision was very agonizing.

This topic is one that's been ongoing in the old auto community for years, of course with aircraft, safety is of paramount importance and often entire airframe are basically new (especially when the a.c. in question is one recovered from a wartime crash site).

I think the P-40 is an good example of this. To reach Oshkosh, it had to shadow another aircraft, since the only modern equipment installed was a radio that could only be pre-programmed with 2 frequencies. I don't think this made the airplane any less safe, but it certainly made the trip more difficult.

Yes, EAA Warbirds judging does give consideration for original equipment as it falls under the category of authenticity. Authenticity covers 20 points or 20% of the basic score. These 20 points are broken down in to 4 categories namely Paint and Markings, Cockpit, Engine Prop and Accys and Airframe Components. original components in each category will add to its score.

The question I have is: Does the judging make the distinction between "accuracy" and "originality" - with accuracy being when the parts are as of the same type (i.e. same part number) that were on the aircraft at the time of its operational life, and originality being when the parts are the same exact ones (i.e. same serial number) that were on the aircraft at the time of its operational life.

Reading through the EAA Judging Standards Manual, it seems that the descriptions of "authenticity" laid out within only covers "accuracy" and not "originality". The fact that it speaks of "factory fresh" condition indicates to me that what is valued is "accuracy" rather than "originality". There is a section that states

Penalties are to be given for lack of restraint in “over restoration.”

which I at first thought could refer to overzealous replacement of original parts with new ones - and therefore deal with "originality". However, the later mention of

Chroming of parts not originally chromed will earn minus points.

that is provided appears to be as an example of "over restoration". If this is the case, this again seems to indicate that the manual has "accuracy" in mind, rather than "originality".

To put it another way: If there were two aircraft that were equal in every regard, including accuracy, but one had more original parts, would the one with more original parts win, or would their be a tie?