DTAM P-47D Thunderbolt "Bonnie" Unveiled

[corsairfan]

Great job, it I’m starting to lean more towards “replica” than “restoration” over the past several numbers of years. Really just how much original makeup do these pristine warbirds truly have?. Data plates alone have never convinced me of a true restoration. And not even a few original parts and pieces convince me. It may have started as a pile of “combat veteran” junk out in the islands in the South Pacific, but there isn’t much (if any) “combat veteran” to it now. Looks all brand new to me. As with so many others out there flying.

The difference here between the car world is that these are planes that have to fly. If you want a historically accurate plane then it's just going to be a display in a museum. There is definitely a place for that and I'm all for it but to see the restorations fly and to hear and smell them in action is worth the lack of originality for me. I agree that the average person may not understand that the only thing original on the plane may be the seat, the stick and the data plate but I think the tradeoff of being able to see these planes in the air is worth it to me. If an original, unrestored car breaks down on the road you just call the flatbed. If an original, unrestored plane tries to fly you're going to need more than a flatbed to clean up the mess. I think this is a gorgeous restoration and it's nice to see the Pacific Theater get some recognition.

[quemerford]

Great job, it I’m starting to lean more towards “replica” than “restoration” over the past several numbers of years. Really just how much original makeup do these pristine warbirds truly have?. Data plates alone have never convinced me of a true restoration. And not even a few original parts and pieces convince me. It may have started as a pile of “combat veteran” junk out in the islands in the South Pacific, but there isn’t much (if any) “combat veteran” to it now. Looks all brand new to me. As with so many others out there flying.

The difference here between the car world is that these are planes that have to fly. If you want a historically accurate plane then it's just going to be a display in a museum. There is definitely a place for that and I'm all for it but to see the restorations fly and to hear and smell them in action is worth the lack of originality for me. I agree that the average person may not understand that the only thing original on the plane may be the seat, the stick and the data plate but I think the tradeoff of being able to see these planes in the air is worth it to me. If an original, unrestored car breaks down on the road you just call the flatbed. If an original, unrestored plane tries to fly you're going to need more than a flatbed to clean up the mess. I think this is a gorgeous restoration and it's nice to see the Pacific Theater get some recognition.

It's not about that: it's about describing this as the original when it plainly isn't. Many of us work in the aviation world and know the difference between static and flyer.

I'm overjoyed to see a razorback P-47 flying, but I'd also like to see the airframe which served in WW2. The two are often mutually exclusive.

[Mark Allen M]

The difference here between the car world is that these are planes that have to fly. If you want a historically accurate plane then it's just going to be a display in a museum. There is definitely a place for that and I'm all for it but to see the restorations fly and to hear and smell them in action is worth the lack of originality for me. I agree that the average person may not understand that the only thing original on the plane may be the seat, the stick and the data plate but I think the tradeoff of being able to see these planes in the air is worth it to me. If an original, unrestored car breaks down on the road you just call the flatbed. If an original, unrestored plane tries to fly you're going to need more than a flatbed to clean up the mess. I think this is a gorgeous restoration and it's nice to see the Pacific Theater get some recognition.

No one's arguing any of that. And we've been down this rabbit hole many times in the past. My only point being that if the airplane has zero, or next to zero "original as found in the field" parts attached to it, then I would regard the plane as a replica and not a restoration. It's not quite Apples and Oranges. It's a fact!. This doesn't take away from the appreciation the owner should get from those of us who follow this stuff, but to state something that isn't quite true just to appease the owner or fellow enthusiasts doesn't fly. I'm not sure why someone would be offended by stating the facts and I've never understood why an owner wouldn't want to state the facts either. Not to say any of them do anyway. Just sayin! ...

IMHO It's a beautiful P-47 replica no matter what you want to label it.

[JimH]

In the eyes of collectors/investors and the FAA, the paperwork says that this is 227884. Provenance has an entirely different meaning in the historic aviation world and valued as such. The rest is semantics and one of the reasons this board chased away most, if not all owners and everyone involved. It was a monumental effort on many levels and an incredible achievement for all those involved. Can't wait to hear the comments on Thunderbird with its "D" model wing. I can say, with my own exposure to warbirds, that owners, maintainers, builders, and most pilots...don't give two hoots what anyone thinks about what they own or fly or how its painted. In this day and age it's, dare I say, a complete waste of time to put all that effort in a static airframe. Unless it's a government funded static Aviation Museum or a well heeled specialized collector, static museums have a limited draw...just ask Kermit. Very few are willing to spend upwards of six/seven figures for a static display. Tax write off or not.

Jim

[Mark Allen M]

In the eyes of collectors/investors and the FAA, the paperwork says that this is 227884. Provenance has an entirely different meaning in the historic aviation world and valued as such. The rest is semantics and one of the reasons this board chased away most, if not all owners and everyone involved. It was a monumental effort on many levels and an incredible achievement for all those involved. Can't wait to hear the comments on Thunderbird with its "D" model wing. I can say, with my own exposure to warbirds, that owners, maintainers, builders, and most pilots...don't give two hoots what anyone thinks about what they own or fly or how its painted. In this day and age it's, dare I say, a complete waste of time to put all that effort in a static airframe. Unless it's a government funded static Aviation Museum or a well heeled specialized collector, static museums have a limited draw...just ask Kermit. Very few are willing to spend upwards of six/seven figures for a static display. Tax write off or not.

Jim

BS!!! ... I've got to know plenty of warbird owners / restorers / pilots over the years of being a WIX member. Many of them contact me regularly asking for help researching things and all of them appreciate much of the things 'we' Wixers post here. Not one has stated "Discussing Reality about Provenance" was their reason for leaving WIX. And trust me A LOT of all the folks above are still here. They just don't post much for a whole slew of reasons, most notably they have better things to be doing with their lives. You may know several that give you the excuse you believe in, but I know that's not entirely true. As for semantics?. Some may think a dataplate or a bucket of bolts is good enough to categorize a warbird as a combat veteran restoration and that's fine, but it's not reality ... no matter what paperwork states what.

And NO ONE'S calling out a lack of "It was a monumental effort on many levels and an incredible achievement for all those involved", so lay off the nonsense. Also your "I can say, with my own exposure to warbirds, that owners, maintainers, builders, and most pilots...don't give two hoots what anyone thinks about what they own or fly or how its painted". yet you claim they all got chased away.

It's always the same ole BS! ... No one dare try to discuss reality vs fantasy regarding warbirds built back to flight from all new parts. Wouldn't want to upset any owners and chase them away even though they don't give two sh*ts what we think. Some people may think it's important to kiss rich peoples asses, but I live and work with them all day, every day and most of them can kiss my ass ... and they know it!!

Sorry owners / restorers / mechanics / wives / mailmen .... most recent flying warbirds are replicas!! but if it makes you feel better then they're restorations. Just enjoy them and don't kill yourselves.

[Mark Allen M]

BTW many years ago here on WIX I found in one of my dad's USN logbooks that he flew Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat 70222 while back from the Pacific just after the war ended. He flew 70222 out over the Atlantic firing rockets into the ocean as practice. I was chastised up, down, left and right by a gang of dopes who really let me have it. It caused a sh*t show on WIX that still has my ears ringing all these years later. Back then I didn't know what I know now and no one gave me two sh*ts either. Now I know all this below about the CAF F6F Hellcat I thought my dad flew. Could have been a very cool story but ended up being insulting.

Per Aerial Visuals:

CAF's Hellcat
Restored as an F6F-3.
Adopted the ID of USN BuNo 70222. Glenn Chatfield comments: The Commemorative Air Force has adopted the BuNo 70222 but Goodall shows the BuNo as 70387. However, both those aircraft were lost at sea: 70222 in the north Atlantic on 17 October 1944 (This must be untrue unless a different F6F picked up BuNo 70222 later) and 70387 off Philippines on 14 November 1944.

Point being the FAA paperwork, if I recall, says that this is 70222.

So there's that ...

[Dan K]

...most of them can kiss my ass ... and they know it!!

Sorry owners / restorers / mechanics / wives / mailmen .... most recent flying warbirds are replicas!! but if it makes you feel better then they're restorations. Just enjoy them and don't kill yourselves.

This sounds like a job for Ric Gillespie and Team TIGHAR.


https://tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/guide.html

[JohnTerrell]

Final markings applied with paint, ready for Oshkosh. The cowl name artwork and scoreboard had been temporarily applied with vinyl stickers when it made its first public appearance last month, which have now given-way to more accurately-recreated, painted versions.

Not only neat seeing an airworthy razorback P-47D, but also the fact that it is fully outfitted with armor plating and armored glass, gunsight, original mirror, Curtiss-Electric prop, full intercooler/turbocharger system, radios, fully authentically-accurate cockpit and interior confines throughout, Pacific Theatre-specific modifications as it was found to have, etc.

Photos by Mark Phillips, shared on the Warbird Images Facebook page.

[JohnB]

It's a free country...
So if you want you can call something a replica.
But accept the fact to the FAA and 99% of the public, it's the real deal.

Even the Smithsonian's and NMUSAF's precious artifacts have had substantial work done over the decades. Remember, the Wright Flyer was in a flood, and we know the history of the Memphis Belle.

Frankly, I'm not sure why the semantics are that important.
If I see an airplane (or "replica" of a car that is otherwise unobtainable) and I know it's history, I don't feel the need to denigrate or criticize it in public...certainly not in front of its owner, or even to strangers or online.

I assume WIXers are knowledgeable enough to see and acknowledge the obvious (that a aircraft dug up from a beach is largely new metal).
In short, the people who care will know the history, and the people that don't care...well, they don't care, so it's a moot point.

Yes, it would be great if all the flying Mustangs were straight outta VIIIFC with UK air in their tires, but that's not realistic, especially if you expect them to fly.

Okay, a rebuild may not be your cup of tea, but accept and appreciate them for what they are and acknowledge the fact they play a huge role in our hobby and educating the public about the history we care about.

In short, sometimes, something (even if it doesn't have perfect provenance) is better than nothing.
A rebuilt P-51 still tells the story of the war and the brave men who fought it better than a PA-28 in warpaint.

[k5083]

Not true, I think. A lot of people care about how original an artifact is, even if they are not knowledgeable or plugged-in to the restoration community. It's of interest to even the casual viewer of almost anything purporting to be a historic artifact.

Owners, event promoters, etc. sometimes are candid about this, sometimes silent, occasionally misleading. It's worth setting the record straight in some instances.

But none of us has the burden to convince you that this is worth talking about. You don't have to talk about it. We'll continue, thanks.

August

[Firebird]

It's a free country...
So if you want you can call something a replica.
But accept the fact to the FAA and 99% of the public, it's the real deal.

^^^This.

Certainley, in the UK, use of the word 'replica' would incur it not flying, as the paperwork trail would be very different (see FlugWerke 190 issues etc with CAA) so over here, despite what a rivet counting anorak might call it, its definitely NOT a replica, or any other loose description some might want to call it, even if its only the data plate that was dug out of a smoking hole is what is now flying.

In my view, I can appreciate and enjoy seeing the historic original survivors sitting in museums, but the joy of seeing and hearing these things fly is much better and so for me personally, if looks like one, waddles line one, and quacks like one, then......

[RyanShort1]

Not true, I think. A lot of people care about how original an artifact is, even if they are not knowledgeable or plugged-in to the restoration community. It's of interest to even the casual viewer of almost anything purporting to be a historic artifact.

Owners, event promoters, etc. sometimes are candid about this, sometimes silent, occasionally misleading. It's worth setting the record straight in some instances.

But none of us has the burden to convince you that this is worth talking about. You don't have to talk about it. We'll continue, thanks.

August

I'd say in my circles the truth is somewhere in between. It may not be "original" but a lot of us recognize that, for instance, a LOT of the Cessna Cardinal I fly in on a weekly basis is not original at all and has been replaced over it's last 45 years of flying. It's had several engines, may have had a propeller replacement, half of the landing gear system is original, the interior has definitely evolved, and a lot of the avionics have changed, etc... Also, there's a difference between a historic artifact, that, for instance, is claimed as having been directly involved in a particular combat, and simply a sister-ship that was produced on the same factory line. I think that a lot of the general public is both dumber, AND smarter than we tend to give them credit for, depending on the topic, but this is one where I would tend to think that they are reasonable.

[Mark Allen M]

It's a free country...
So if you want you can call something a replica.
But accept the fact to the FAA and 99% of the public, it's the real deal.

^^^This.

Certainley, in the UK, use of the word 'replica' would incur it not flying, as the paperwork trail would be very different (see FlugWerke 190 issues etc with CAA) so over here, despite what a rivet counting anorak might call it, its definitely NOT a replica, or any other loose description some might want to call it, even if its only the data plate that was dug out of a smoking hole is what is now flying.

In my view, I can appreciate and enjoy seeing the historic original survivors sitting in museums, but the joy of seeing and hearing these things fly is much better and so for me personally, if looks like one, waddles line one, and quacks like one, then......

So the rivet counting anorak in me (actually never really been one) wonders, according to your statements, that if I had an actual Wr. No. or similar type data plate from an original fw-190 then I could call my Flugwerk 190 an original?. All I have to do is make sure it looks, waddles and quacks and I can own a combat veteran 190? … Cool!

Not trying to be a smart *ss, but you said it! Lol

[bdk]

This argument is as old as the hills. Most of the readily restorable airframes have already been restored because they were easier to do. As the aircraft continue to increase in value, it becomes necessary to restore what remains, from remains. Usually the extruded components and the exterior sheet metal suffer the most and need replacement for an airworthy restoration.

Gerry Beck fabricated a P-51A essentially from scratch and admitted as much publicly. This may have been more to advertise his capabilities than anything else. The DTAM Thunderbolt never was "Bonnie" so does it really matter how much was reused of the south Pacific wreck?

[Firebird]

It's a free country...
So if you want you can call something a replica.
But accept the fact to the FAA and 99% of the public, it's the real deal.

^^^This.

Certainley, in the UK, use of the word 'replica' would incur it not flying, as the paperwork trail would be very different (see FlugWerke 190 issues etc with CAA) so over here, despite what a rivet counting anorak might call it, its definitely NOT a replica, or any other loose description some might want to call it, even if its only the data plate that was dug out of a smoking hole is what is now flying.

In my view, I can appreciate and enjoy seeing the historic original survivors sitting in museums, but the joy of seeing and hearing these things fly is much better and so for me personally, if looks like one, waddles line one, and quacks like one, then......

So the rivet counting anorak in me (actually never really been one) wonders, according to your statements, that if I had an actual Wr. No. or similar type data plate from an original fw-190 then I could call my Flugwerk 190 an original?. All I have to do is make sure it looks, waddles and quacks and I can own a combat veteran 190? … Cool!

You can call it what ever you like, which is the point of this rivet counting discussion which will go around in circles until the sun burns itself out...
However, the UK CAA call it a replica because a) there is no paperwork trail to an original ID, even if that is a data plate dug out of a hole, and b) its not got a BMW engine, and is close, but not quite exactly a Fw190, and thus is not supported by them as being a rebuild to original spec, or a new build design certified by a recognised design authority. (and before you point it out, the CAA have indeed let one fly briefly in UK at Legends, as they have just done with the Messerschmitt Foundation Me262 'replica' last weekend, although that is a bit different given its owned/operated by Airbus Ind effectively)