Warbird Information Exchange

I do, I call it a replica!

And everything you've stated regarding the Flugwerk 190's is indeed correct as I understand it. I wasn't exactly serious about that analogy I created other than to make apples into oranges.

Also this isn't a "rivet counting" exercise IMO. It's more of a fantasy vs reality thing. I've never been a dataplate = original fan, but that's just me. In these current times (hesitant to state "day & age") I'm certainly a minority when it comes to expecting facts, truth and reality over made up narratives to proclaim something IS what it ISN'T.

I feel comfortable stating the money some owners put into their warbirds and the value they expect their warbirds to represent dictates their level of original authenticity. But again, that's just me.

Looks good to me, I personally won't lose any sleep over the fact that a majority of it was fabricated after 1945.

Look forward to seeing it at TOM, never was much of a P-47 guy but this is an impressive machine, and the fact that its got South Pacific pedigree makes it that much sweeter.

I feel extremely fortunate to have seen this P-47 in person and flying so recently after being completed and thank the owner and restoration team for putting their time and money into it.

The discussion is interesting and varying opinions are appreciated. What I question is where do those on opposite sides draw the line between restoration and replica? To be original, a restoration or a replica, is an engine rebuild (or replacement) acceptable? Rubber component replacement (hoses. tires, fuel tanks, etc.)? Instruments? Wiring? Fabric on the fuselage or control surfaces? Brake or other wearing parts? Is it a percentage of the total? And if so, where (minus the aforementioned items) does that percentage stand? Remember that many of these were damaged or used in the war to the point that they needed all of this and more. There is history of more than one aircraft in the war that had major components like part of a wing or a fuselage replaced, are they replicas?

I for one feel it is much more important to know that there are people willing to spend their money researching, maintaining, rebuilding, resurrecting, displaying and flying these beautiful machines to honor the people in our history than for me to place a title or description on it. I thank them and appreciate their effort to keep history alive.

_________________
Always looking for P-51D parts.

This is always the direction that these conversations take. No one is condemning or ridiculing those who put time, energy and money into restoring, reproducing or replicating an airplane.

It seems quite simple and easy to understand. The line that’s drawn IMO is NO original parts = replica.
I would consider a restoration to be on the lines of say a B-17 or C-47 that has the original airframe that has been restored with new materials where necessary, but still consists of a reasonable amount of original materials. Most of the recently built Mustangs are replicas IMO. If it has zero material that is original to its past, then it’s a replica.

I understand the argument that if say a Mustang or Corsair is built to the exact factory specifications yet without even one rivet being originally from either the manufacturer or scrap heap or jungle, what difference does it make, it’s still a Mustang or Corsair. My opinion is that it’s a very close replica.

That’s it!! My opinions are just that and have nothing to do with those folks who, as I stated, put in all the effort and money to recreate these airplanes. What I won’t do is jump on some bandwagon and recognize something for what it isn’t.

So 1 original rivet, then its a restoration ?

It would depend on how many angels can dance on the head of that rivet.

So 1 original rivet, then it’s a combat veteran ?

I'd say yes, what was done and added to get it airworthy was done out of necessity - If you like em salty and true, there are always displays like this

Without trying to resolve the "is it real or not" debate, I think this line of conversation should recognize 3 categories, not two. Please note I'm just trying to clarify the semantics, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion here:

(1) "original" / "restoration", to whatever definition you like of what makes something real and original. The Spitfires and Buchons stored in Connie Edwards' hangar for decades probably classify as "original", and most of them are now (or will soon be) "restored", with a fairly significant percentage of the structures and parts still being original, with provenance traceable back to their service years.

(2) "replica" - by which I mean a warbird that *looks* real, but isn't built to the original plans and specs, i.e. doesn't even try to fit under FAA type certification. The best example to me is Bob Deford's full-scale home-built Spitfire (which is typically called a "replica Spitfire"), made out of wood, and using an Allison V12 engine - a thing of beauty that has all the inspiration of a "real" Spitfire, even when it flies, and deserves to stand on any flight line alongside "original" Spitfires. Basically, it's "real on the outside" but not on the inside. And then there are the many scaled-down warbirds which are also "replicas". (Check out YouTuber "Dynodon64" who has been documenting his build of a 1/2 scale W.A.R Corsair - which looks great.)

(3) An then there's "new-build" (or "re-creation"). They're built with exacting precision to the original designs - down to the metallurgy and rivets. They follow all the paperwork to have an FAA type certificate. Clearly there's a huge gray area of when something is "newly built" versus "highly restored original." We can argue forever whether fastening an original data plate, or re-using a few square inches of sheet metal from a recovered wreck makes a real difference in what the resulting airplane is. Regardless, I still offer my never-ending thanks and utmost respect to every dedicated enthusiast who puts in all those hours (and dollars) to re-create these very special machines to the limits of modern-day reproducibility, as it thrills me to see these fly, knowing this is exactly how these machines worked back in the day. They successfully keep aviation history alive.

Bob Mikesh, former Senior Curator at NASM, offered four categories, with definitions and many pages of discussion, in Restoring Museum Aircraft (Airlife 1997). That is one of several pieces of essential reading for an educated discussion of this topic, and that's just in the aviation field, where the discussion of authenticity even at its best is pretty Mickey Mouse compared with the extensive writing and philosophizing done in other areas of historical preservation.

Some of us are interested in being precise and informed about this topic, but we always have to realize that there are strong economic, personal, and sentimental interests in the warbird community in being vague and ignorant about it. So you are wasting time if you are trying to come up with a categorization that will satisfy everybody.

August

Well stated. Luckily I only have myself to satisfy.