F2G Super Corsair Project Sold?!

[Dan K]

You missed off Zeros too (Blayd and the Russian ones are effectively replicas)

Does Roy Rehm's Boeing 100/P12/F4B assembly line count?

[Warbird Kid]

P-38
P-40
P-47
P-51
Corsair
Spitfire
Hurricane
Mosquito
Bf-109
FW-190
Zero
Oscar
Yak 9
I-16 / I-153
Boeing 100/P12/F4B
B-17

[Mick G]

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?

[FuryFB11]

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.

[Mick G]

In that case, there is no need to "recover" a dataplate wreck to build a reproduction aircraft. The wartime registry for all of the units ever manufactured will give a virtually unlimited supply of serial numbers which can be used for generations to come. As long as there was sufficient evidence that the previous airframes were destroyed (to avoid a double serial number issue in the future), then the numbers should be fair game to put back into circulation.

[Xrayist]

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? Also, I may be wrong, but isn't Goldfinger a "data plate" aircraft? I personally think that it is one of the most beautiful mustangs flying, but then again, I am partial to mustangs, or any other warbird, painted in "civillian" schemes.

[GRNDP51]

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? Also, I may be wrong, but isn't Goldfinger a "data plate" aircraft? I personally think that it is one of the most beautiful mustangs flying, but then again, I am partial to mustangs, or any other warbird, painted in "civillian" schemes.

Pretty sure Goldfinger is not a data plate (I don't believe that airframe has ever crashed seriously enough to warrant a data plate restoration actually).

[phil65]

Goldfinger looked good at Reno two weeks ago...

Phil

[Mike]

P-38
P-40
P-47
P-51
Corsair
Spitfire
Hurricane
Mosquito
Bf-109
FW-190
Zero
Oscar
Yak 9
I-16 / I-153
Boeing 100/P12/F4B
B-17

The Oscars, Flug Werk 190s and Yaks are not “data plate restorations”. They are new-build replicas, and are registered as such. They do not purport to be restored originals (in most cases).

[Hooligan2]

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? Also, I may be wrong, but isn't Goldfinger a "data plate" aircraft? I personally think that it is one of the most beautiful mustangs flying, but then again, I am partial to mustangs, or any other warbird, painted in "civillian" schemes.

Pretty sure Goldfinger is not a data plate (I don't believe that airframe has ever crashed seriously enough to warrant a data plate restoration actually).

It appears to be the former Risky Business and was one of the aircraft flown back from Nicaragua by Will Martin in the '60s. Certainly does not seem to have had any serious accidents.

His book "So I Bought an Air Force" is well worth a read if you haven't seen it!

[Noha307]

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.

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.

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.

[paulmcmillan]

My original point was never About the use of data plates more that we have now reached the point where we recreate certain aircraft if enough money is available and the aircraft has enough “star quality”. To make it worthwhile

[SparrowV12]

isn't Goldfinger a "data plate" aircraft? No, Goldfinger was the Bisquit, N35FF (Flarhety[sp?] Factors) and was one of 6 flown back from South America.


(Maybe someone should try asking Boeing for a P-51 data plate since they seem to think it was one of their products.)
Cal-Pacific Airmotive in Salinas is the certificate owner these days, likely do better asking them about it as they are the manufacturer...

[Kyleb]

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.

The challenge (IMO) is that virtually none of today's flyers are combat veterans. They are all stand-in's for combat veterans. Beyond that, all the fighters (give me a little license with the "all", please) have been rebuilt at some point, so even if Mustang serial number XYZ hasn't been rebuilt from a pile of crash debris, it has been so completely rebuilt that very little of what left the factory in Dallas or LA remains.

So I really don't care if it is a P-51 replica built in some guy's shop or it has an orignial dataplate, but is really like George Washington's hatchet (handle replaced twice, head replaced once). Very little of it is original, and virtually none of it fought with the Stars and Stripes on the wings and fuselage.

Point is, the comparison of The Original Mona Lisa versus a copy isn't relevant here. Originals may exist at the NASM or the USAFM, but none of the flyers really qualify.

[Mike]

That’s totally untrue Kyle. Many, many of the flyers still have most of the original structure and metalwork that they left the factory with. Just because they have been “rebuilt” doesn’t necessarily mean that the entire structure has been replaced.