JohnB wrote:
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.
JohnB wrote:
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.
Taigh Ramey wrote:
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
EAA Judging Standards Manual wrote:
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
EAA Judging Standards Manual wrote:
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?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
to this in 3 months: 
Help us get her all the way back 
