Aircraft Authenticity – How about some kind of categorisation?

So before you embark on more of the same, see where the last attempt lead to:

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it : http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?117256-Restoration-enquiry

And 2007’s attempt
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?67068-Difference-between-Restoration-Repro-Replica

And 2005’s attempt
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?46247-Originality-of-restored-aircraft&p=715050#post715050

It’s very difficult to come up with definitions that really fit. My primary experience is with my family’s restoration of a steam wagon – it was restored from a chassis, so there was only, say, 25% original material remaining. However, original spares were used for around another, say, 45%, so it’s in a sense a composite restoration, but with a very clear original identity. So we have something with 70% original parts, but it could definitely be considered “multiple source”. Does that make it Cat 7?

It also strikes me that AR213 is WAY too far down the original list. I’d suggest it’s likely much more original than AB910 (AB had a rebuild after the collision with the Harvard, whereas AR’s only “complete restoration” was done with great care to maintain originality).

My own opinion is somewhat nuanced – and it’s a multi-dimensional issue. Below are the criteria that I personally think are important (in no particular order).

Criterion 1. The range of authenticity – from “full avionics fit and luggage compartment” to “stock WW2 equipment with weapons”.

Criterion 2. The range of originality of the original airframe – from “completely original, conserved airframe” (e.g. “Spirit of St Louis”) to “Restored original airframe” (e.g. Alcock and Brown’s Vimy), to “heavily restored original” (e.g. Hurricane R4118), to “restoration incorporating original components” (e.g. Mosquito KA114), to “data plate restoration incorporating token components” (e.g. Spitfire EE606).

Criterion 3. The amount of original structure, much as above, but not considering the origin of the components for composite airframes. An extreme example here would be that the CAC-18 (Aussie Mustangs) that have ‘adopted’ identities of P51D’s for certification reasons. They might be 0% original on criterion 2, but 100% original on criterion 3. Other less extreme examples would be aircraft like TA122 at Salisbury Hall, where the fuselage is the original component, but the wing is from an entirely different aircraft.

cat 1 P7973 spitfire mk11…awm canberra
cat 2 mh434 spit
cat 3 precious metal….p51R
cat 4 strega…p51..ex a68-679
cat 5 Spit P9374
cat 6 boomerang a46-122
cat 7 taf ki43’s…..special mention to the ww1 replica’s coming out of tval!!!!

If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck I think it is a Duck.
I like Ducks even if the parts are replaced, new or otherwise as it is cracking to see these aeroplanes flying.

I think credit should be given to the people who are putting their hard earned into these projects and get armchairs in some way putting their efforts into a category, look at the 109 thread and the stunning work involved in the wings.

Look at this scene below, I think the quote “I dunno what makes em work” fitting. as the owners of these lovely rebuilt aircraft do know what it takes and all efforts they go to sauce original parts.

It occurs to me that the catergorisation is based purely on what we think we know about an A/C; euphemisms such as “sympathetic restoration” abound, and we are in no way certain as to the depth of restoration/alteration/ replacement, on any given airframe, in short we have to take the owners word that “it is as he says it is” and the owner will have his eye fixed on maintaining or increasing the value of said A/C. (or else the continuity of the history/provenance of the A/C)

No so easy to acomplish these days-instant comms- access to archives, loss reports, digital capture and so on- ‘someone’ knows and in this day and age the slightest ‘slip’ shines the spotlight and brings intense scutiny.

It occurs to me that the catergorisation is based purely on what we think we know about an A/C; euphemisms such as “sympathetic restoration” abound, and we are in no way certain as to the depth of restoration/alteration/ replacement, on any given airframe, in short we have to take the owners word that “it is as he says it is” and the owner will have his eye fixed on maintaining or increasing the value of said A/C. (or else the continuity of the history/provenance of the A/C)

Robert C Mikesh’s book is a good place to start, as is the BAPC national register criteria.

Unfortunately the debate will quickly move away from logic and common sense and pursuit to catergorise what most acknowledge exist, and deteriorate to name calling and deriding on the basis of:

semantics,
deriding armchair enthusiasts against those who “know” because they have “done so”,
claims its “doesn’t really matter”, but you are “still not allowed” to catergorise in anycase,
claims that senior warbird identities “hold grave fears” for the future of warbirding unless the debate in this forum “stops immediately”
claims that a new metal aircraft can take on the “authentic smell” of originality, and therefore “is” one.

So before you embark on more of the same, see where the last attempt lead to:

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it : http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?117256-Restoration-enquiry

Smiles

Mark Pilkington

I have said book and will check the NASM classifications there-in. And these arent specific to NASM, but an international museum standard as i read it.

I’m away from my copy at the moment but I think that Robert C. Mikesh set out to describe various category of airframes in his book Restoring Museum Aircraft.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Restoring-Museum-Aircraft-Robert-Mikesh/dp/0764332341

Any one with a copy to hand prepared to look up the section?

Regards
Ross

🙂 Yup!

Better get them to add the Fury too while you’re about it!

Ah. I’ll get onto that then!

Not complete either. Despite being a BAPC member, the CBFS Hurricane L1639 isn’t in there.

This would be a Type 7 🙂

IIRC it was up to groups to submit amendments etc. for the listings.

At least the information is now where it should be – in the public domain!

Rather than any kind of legislative function I was thinking quite informally, as an aid to discussion – as things currently stand, there is so often noise generated by calling aircraft “original” or “replica”, where if these aircraft were described as Type 2 or Type 7 then conversations could move on..

BTW, although no-one on this thread is guilty of it, there is elsewhere some confusion between provenance (previous ownership) and originality – something to guard against in this debate.

The CAA remit is to ensure the airworthiness of a machine – instill legislative compliance on the behalf of the operator and in the case of rebuilds to ensure that correct procedures – components and airworthiness standards are complied with. It is not the job of the CAA of examine the historic provenance of a machine .

Regards the RAF ‘CAT’ system – it does not relate directly to the amount of damage . It is a guide to the level of manpower required to rebuild the aircraft . Therefore CAT 1-2 would indicate repair within station manpower -CAT 3 usually involves RSS as was or civilian work parties. Anything much above CAT 3 would involve return to manufacturer or a major RSS repair. Depending on age of aircraft – many machines have been written off after CAT 4 damage.

Just had a quick look; whilst I appreciate the idea of a database, it is now no longer possible to compare aircraft across a type/subtype, and the website itself is very clunky.

Perhaps it is early days, but I’m thinking the old paper one did a better job right now.

Bruce

That’s exactly what I thought when trying to look through it yesterday Bruce. When you call up a particular type, you have to go into each individual one to see which example it is, all the query returns is a list of, for example, everything to do with Avro Lancasters (chopped off noses, rear fuselages, complete examples) all lumped in together.

Clunky to the point of being almost unusable, I’d say. Very poor effort in this day and age BAPC, sorry. 🙁

OK, sticking my neck out a little.

Recent threads have re-ignited the old debate about originality, what is a replica, what a dataplate means etc.

Maybe we need a vocabulary, so as to avoid misrepresentation / misunderstanding? As a starter for ten, how about the following list – posted as a ‘request for comment’ only 🙂

Cat 1 – Completely Original – Spit P9306
Cat 2 – Maintained Original – Spit AB910
Cat 3 – Maintained Modified – Mustang ‘Precious Metal’
Cat 4 – Re-built Modified – Bearcat ‘Rare Bear’
Cat 5 – Retrofitted authentic – Spit AR213
Cat 6 – Re-creation with some original parts, single source – Spit P9374
Cat 7 – Re-creation with some original parts, multiple source – FW190 ‘Wk.nr 400616’
Cat 8 – Replica, no original parts – Stormbirds ‘262’s

Notice I have not mentioned dataplates – these having no bearing on the originality or otherwise of the aircraft they are attached to.

Thoughts?

A clinical and neat approach in some ways, but bound, I feel, to inflame more contention than it ever solves.

The CAA do not feel the need to establish such credentials, so I do am not convinced we need to pursue it either. Anyone who has a reason to examine provenance , such as a potential owner can soon find out what is being offered for sale, buyer beware as usual.

Not complete either. Despite being a BAPC member, the CBFS Hurricane L1639 isn’t in there.

This would be a Type 7 🙂

Apologies for potential thread creep, but could any guidance be sought from the National Aviation Heritage Register (NAHR), which is now online and searchable?

http://www.bapc.org.uk/html/nah_register.html

Just had a quick look; whilst I appreciate the idea of a database, it is now no longer possible to compare aircraft across a type/subtype, and the website itself is very clunky.

Perhaps it is early days, but I’m thinking the old paper one did a better job right now.

Bruce

I’m away from my copy at the moment but I think that Robert C. Mikesh set out to describe various category of airframes in his book Restoring Museum Aircraft.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Restoring-Museum-Aircraft-Robert-Mikesh/dp/0764332341

Any one with a copy to hand prepared to look up the section?

Regards
Ross

Nice idea but can I suggest substituting ‘Type’ for ‘Cat’.
Maybe because I’ve been around the RAF for too long but any metion of Cat 5 and I start looking for the smoking hole. It also used to give me palputations every time the SMO told me my hearing was Cat 5.

Haha – yes, fair enough!

Apologies for potential thread creep, but could any guidance be sought from the National Aviation Heritage Register (NAHR), which is now online and searchable?

http://www.bapc.org.uk/html/nah_register.html