JohnB wrote:
I'll go out on a limb and risk the wrath of the purists out there who think
any warbird without 100% wartime metal is a bad thing by saying that's good news for those of use who put aircraft numbers and airworthyness ahead of originality.
Ooh! Ooh! Can I be the pedantic curmudgeon?
I would say there's nothing wrong with rebuilding an airplane around a data plate
per se. It can be a great way to provide a story to tell with the airplane. However, for me, the problem is when people try to represent it as something that it's not. If you want to use the data plate to apply a corresponding paint scheme to the airplane that's fine, but when you answer the question did this airplane fly in
[insert historic event here] with "yes", then it is problematic.
As I learned from
another WIX post, while Gerry Beck's P-51 was technically not considered a data plate rebuild and no connection with a wartime airplane was sought, his attitude towards it is a good example of the compromise position above.
Xrayist wrote:
The data plate thing also puzzles me. I don't see any difference when the plane is in flight, or on the ground, for that matter. Is there a difference?
Not to get too philosophical on you, but let me suggest this comparison: If given the choice, would it matter to you whether you saw the original Mona Lisa in France or an exact copy somewhere else? I think to a lot of people it would, but in the end, I guess the answer is up to you.
FuryFB11 wrote:
Mick G wrote:
What happens when the data plate is damaged to the point it is not usable. Is a new reproduction data pate made? In that case, would we still consider it an original WW2 era aircraft, or would this now become a reproduction?
The dataplate itself isn't actually too important, all the FAA and other aviation authorities need is a means to identify the aircraft and its subsequent history. So that could be an original serial number painted on the airframe somewhere. As an example, the wreck of Spitfire P9374 was identified from the serial number being painted on an ammunition chute in the wing. And yes, new dataplates can be manufactured.
While it wasn't a warbird, I am aware of at least
one case where the FAA has prosecuted someone over swapping data plates between aircraft. (That incident, along with a few others, seems to have kicked off something within the helicopter community as
apparently some OEMs are now publishing lists of "destroyed" or "scrapped" airframes.)
Also, to potentially answer Mick's question, according to the first article above, when a new data plate is required, one option is to purchase a new one from the original manufacturer. No idea what you would do if it went defunct or was purchased by another company. (Maybe someone should try asking Boeing for a P-51 data plate
since they seem to think it was one of their products.)
In regards to whether it would become a reproduction, from a regulatory standpoint (while speaking definitively on a philosophical subject is essentially impossible, not so for the FAA
), I have always assumed the FAA's
major portion rule (aka the 51 percent rule) would apply. Even though I believe it was written in regards to homebuilt kits, I see no reason why it wouldn't be relevant for warbirds.
To end on a bit more of a fun note, the data plates for the first two production PT6 turboprops
came to light not too long ago.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
