What determines a "data-plate restoration"

It seems that if a bloke spends years in his shed building , lets say, an SE5a to original drawings, then he has built a replica SE5a.
But if a team of people do the same thing with a Spifire or Mustang, then they have not built replicas….. oh no no no! The’ve built the real thing apparently.

If it’s an SE5A – it’s an SE5A. It’s really all about conformity – and proving it. In theory, you can build what you like in your garden shed all on yer’ lonesomes. Some folks work with very limited facilites. I know of at least one warbird being rebuilt in the UK with fairly limited facilites. You still need all the paperwork however. Easier if it’s an LAA type, much trickier if it’s on a CAA Permit. Money, expertise and facilities tend to mitigate against rebuilding a P-47 in your garden shed though. 🙂

I may have got things a bit confused here but my understanding is that if you have an original build plate with a constructors number you can jack it up put whatever new build bits you need around it provided they are built to the original spec and your aeroplane assumes the identity of the build plate.
If you build a complete airframe to the original specs but don’t have an original build / data plate to attach to it your aeroplane is a replica / reproduction whatever you want to call it.
It is my understanding that it is far easier to get the CAA to accept an airframe with an original dataplate / identity regardless of the amount of new material used and, for some types with more challenging flight characteristics, it may well be impossible to get exactly the same airframe sanctioned for flight if it does not have an original identity no matter how tenuous that identity may be.
As Bruce said the main thing is to enjoy the sight of these magnificent aeroplanes up in the air while we still can and I for one will be making every effort to get to at least one Shuttleworth show before the end of the season to see the Albatross and RE8 in the air.

A good point; perhaps thats why people join gangs!

The bloke in the shed will at least own his A/C, whereas the team will squable over ownership, and ultimately one of them will run off (and hide) with the aeroplane……

So what if you don’t have a data plate and the aircrafts history has been muddied? If you have the September Flypast you know I am refering to”Fragile but Agile” Is that a genuine P51 a “bitza” or what?

Indeed; I think we can stretch the point to say that anything built to original plans, and to the same specification as the original is indeed a replica.

Indeed, but its also perceived that a ‘Spitfire Mk.26’ is a ‘replica’ too. Maybe we need to come up with some other term for these ‘lookalike’ aircraft – particularly as some look more alike than others….

What constitutes a “data-plate restoration”? A data-plate and a process of restoration. There, simple.

What does “data-plate restoration” mean, signify or imply? A whole lot of different things to a whole lot of different people.

It’s not possible to give an objective answer to a subjective question.

Cheers,
Matt

, but my question is…what determines “a data-plate restoration”?

.

Seems to me the original question has been lost in the smoke being blown by various individuals getting rather indignant that anyone other than an actual aircraft owner/ restorer/engineer etc should have a valid opinion.

Whilst we would all no doubt aspire to owning an historic airframe, very few of us have either the money or the facilities to do so. Doesn’t mean we like looking at them any the less.

Equally it doesn’t mean we are any the less entitled(or qualified) to have opinions relating to the original question….what determines “a data-plate restoration”?

Disparaging remarks about “Anoraks” do little to either improve the situation, or to improve readers’ opinion of those making such remarks .In fact , I suspect that many of those making such remarks , may know far less about the historical aspect of aviation than some they wish to “knock”.

Why not try and answer the original question without getting hot under the collar because someone has an opinion you don’t agree with?

As stated before. I do not wish to be personal and I respect other’s opinions, BUT those opinions MUST be based on fact, not on surmise. I think that here we have a few(no disparagement meant whatsoever) “Anoraks” which (in my opinion) is an “armchair” expert, who’s stated “opinion ” if more often than not, misinformed and without practical experience. By that I mean claims of non authenticity of colours parts, remains, etc. etc. by some who’s only link with the pacticalities of aircraft are solely restricted to “book learning” and the internet and have never, nor probably will never have a toolbox and scarred hands from working on real proper FLYING AIRCRAFT. Nor, I hazard, have they owned or operated such a beast.

Stan – I completely agree with the first part of you post but take issue with the implied notion that in order to have a valid opinion you need to own, work on or restore historic aircraft. There are many noted historians and researchers that bring a great deal to the table of our understanding of historic aircraft and never ‘turn a wrench’ on a live machine! It does not seem right to me to apply such qualifications before their work and opinions, whether based on research (or reading/observation) can taken seriously.

“Just look at the majority of the RAF Hawk fleet…they have had replacement Fuselages/wings/tailplanes…the only ‘original’ structure is the cockpit -does that make them a replica ?
“

But all done whilst in service with their orginal owner, and using original manufacturers parts.

I don’t believe this thread is nitpicking accepted practice, it (as I see it ) is looking at “recoveries” and “rebuilds” keeping the RAF serial no.s (as opposed to a G registration) and adopting the service history of the crashed A/C.

What a Hamsterwheel this thread is …and all the other previous ones 🙂
A flying aircraft is never going to be ‘original’…just be thankful that some people are prepared to spend inordinate amounts of time and money on our behalf to let us see these wonderful a/c fly 🙂
There have been some excellent posts on here,it does not matter what one ‘calls’ this type of aircraft,they look and sound wonderful and we are privileged to see/hear them fly –
as Bruce posted much earlier- if you want to see an ‘original’ go to a museum,where if you are lucky enough then the a/c will have been dusted in the last 10 years and the lights will be on so you can photograph it 😀

Just look at the majority of the RAF Hawk fleet…they have had replacement Fuselages/wings/tailplanes…the only ‘original’ structure is the cockpit -does that make them a replica ?

Just enjoy these wonderful a/c while you can

rgds baz

“The Road to Damascus. “

Now all we need to know is who is in what group! the trouble is there is no governing body set up to examine the percentage orginal expert versus newbuild anorak, and some will have elements of both; you are right about one thing though, “it’s all balls”

As stated before. I do not wish to be personal and I respect other’s opinions, BUT those opinions MUST be based on fact, not on surmise. I think that here we have a few(no disparagement meant whatsoever) “Anoraks” which (in my opinion) is an “armchair” expert, who’s stated “opinion ” if more often than not, misinformed and without practical experience. By that I mean claims of non authenticity of colours parts, remains, etc. etc. by some who’s only link with the pacticalities of aircraft are solely restricted to “book learning” and the internet and have never, nor probably will never have a toolbox and scarred hands from working on real proper FLYING AIRCRAFT. Nor, I hazard, have they owned or operated such a beast.
May I commend to all to reread carefully Post #74 by Snoopy 7422, who has stated the case precisely and who’s opinions I agree with. (Couldn’t have done better meself)
If you are in this class B, be very very careful of expressing your “opinion” re the work and financing of FLYING projects.
Note! None of this detracts in any way those who save cockpits, especially those who “recreate” them nor those who prepare static and/or museum examples, but PLEASE do not carp at such folk re authenticity/colours etc that you have a differing “opinion” on. If you have irrefutable proof that something is “Wrong” then approach the organisation concerned with constructive information. The people concerned may well have a reason for doing it that way or choosing that colour or whatever, But what we don’t need is for some to say “It’s the wrong shade of pink/purple/green and anyway, it was never painted that colour on the Original”

Without skipping a step, Cate smiled, and asked, “Oh, and what color is YOUR Ferrari?”

Totally off topic, but back in the ’70s, when the 727 was still in wide use (and a bit of a bear to land gently), I always enjoyed it when a pushy fellow passenger would say, “Wow, what a lousy landing.” I would smile and say, “And when did you last land a 727?” They never had an answer.

The Color of Money

No David, of course I am not saying that.

We are all entitled to an OPINION, but it is just that.What I am saying is that it is up to private individuals to do what they like with their aeroplanes. Remember for a moment, the hue and cry over the painting of a Wildcat in the USA, in ‘Royal Navy’ colours. Lots of noise was made, but it made not a jot of difference!

As Spencer Flack once famously said, ‘When you own a Spitfire, you can paint it any colour you like’? (Paraphrased!!)

Bruce

Well said … this reminds me of one evening long, long ago, when a friend and I were returning to her car, a white Ferrari, in the parking lot of a quaint little restaurant not far outside Williamsburg, Virginia where we’d just had dinner. A guy getting out of another car next to us who apparently believed that all Ferraris should be painted red, looked at us, looked the white Ferrari, then exclaimed, “Yuk! A white Ferrari??!!!”

Without skipping a step, Cate smiled, and asked, “Oh, and what color is YOUR Ferrari?”

Bruce -the word replica is quite precise in its meaning. However it doesnt really translate that well into the world of aircraft. It’s been widely used to describe all sorts of aircraft over the years -some identical to the original -others clearly not
In terms of the Snipe – I am not sure of the percentage of RAFM Snipe parts that were incorporated in its construction. Clearly its not an original surviving machine -however I wouldnt class it as a reproduction machine either. Its an interesting subject as the RAFM are accepting it within their collection -I would be very interested to know what they class it as !

But David,

It contains – by your own assertion, a number of original parts from Snipe aircraft. According to the Shuttleworth Facebook page, it has a number of original used parts, a number of original unused parts, and an original BR2 engine.

That isnt a replica – and I’m not entirely sure how I would classify it!

In many ways, the term ‘replica’ cannot be accurately used to describe a mass produced item; whenever it was built.

Bruce

Why is it not a replica then? The term replica came from the faithful copying of a piece of art -often by the original artist -often by a person commissioned by the artist to replicate that piece of art. In a time where there was not the machinery to do so – a copy by hand was the only way to do it. In many ways a limited edition piece of art is the modern version of a replica -i.e its sanctioned by the original artist and is a faithful copy of the original. There is nothing derogatory about it.

In terms of the word being used to describe an aircraft -there has never to the best of my knowledge been a concise definition given of what a replica aircraft is. Using the original meaning of the word – it could quite well describe all the Spitfires built that followed the first as they clearly replicate the original item and have the sanction of the manufacturer.
As a standard the definition of a replica is very defined i.e an exact copy
– the reason it has become diluted is that over the years it has been used to describe aircraft that are not faithful to the original item.

Therefore some might view it as a negative description -however to my mind
if you understand the original meaning of the word its very descriptive.

A good example of a replica is the recently arrived Snipe at Shuttleworth. Its not a ‘late production’ machine -the production lines finished not far off a century ago -its not a reproduction -i.e something that looks like the original but may deviate in construction. It is clearly a replica -i.e indistinguishable from the original to the degree that if it was taken back in time to the
production line it would be accepted as having been built then.

The Road to Damascus.

I see this issue has, as expected, continued to rumble on. Opinions have been expressed, and yes, it must be true, everyone is ‘free to have an opinion’. Equally, some of those opinions will be wrong. They may even be complete and utter tripe…
As to the original question – well, at least THAT IS something most will agree on. A ‘Data-plate Special’ is a Spitfire (Or replace that with any type of a/c you wish..) that consists of mainly – or even wholly, replacement parts. Notice that I say ‘replacement’ parts. These may be new manufacture or have been transferred from other a/c. The point is that the parts, whatever their origin – conform to drawing and spec’. This is a fact, not an opinion.

So, lets firstly put this bogie to bed. This a/c is a Spitfire (Or whatever.). Such an a/c is categorically NOT a ‘replica’. It conforms in every respect. It has to, to be airworthy as that particular ‘type’. (Give or take some very minor exceptions.) The Airworthiness Authorities also recognize this explicitly. Fact.
During the war, many other firms built other makers a/c. I have pointed this out before as have others. It’s a fact. Many parts manufacturers also contracted-out production – instruments are a good example. To describe such an a/c as a ‘replica’ is not just ignorant and insulting (Which it is.), it’s plain idiotic. Use the word ‘replica’ for plastic gate-guards and such like. We are talking about real-world aviation here, – not plastic kits or mock-ups, or mock-ups of bits of a/c.

Lets put another bogie to bed. ‘Percentages’ (Groans…..)This is, as a certain man said ‘all balls’. There IS no ‘correct’ percentage’. Got it..? Non. Nada. Nicht. Zippo.
Out in the real world, away from the domain of the internet ‘experts’ there are, – as others have alluded to – , people whose opinions matter. Really they do. Included in this group are others, who even though not directly involved, clearly understand the issues, as many posts in this and other threads may attest. Lets call them ‘Group A’.
Equally, there are people whose opinions don’t matter and who seem completely and utterly impervious to the facts. Now, this factual reality may offend some of the anoraks who endlessly trot-out complete balderdash, but there it is. Lets call these folks ‘Group B’. Someone on TV said, a couple of days ago, that ‘David Iycke believes that the royal Family is a group of lizard-like aliens dressed-up in skin-suits, out to take-over the world’. Many folks have given their lives so that individuals such as Iycke can peddle their gibberish, so I may laugh too, but I’ll still defend their right to talk gibberish. That will not, however, render such ravings as either factual or correct…!!!
Now if the latter group wish to peddle their nonsense and fantasies, fine. Just don’t expect reality and facts, in the shape of ‘Group A’, to stand by and let their gibberish to pass unchallenged. As we’ve seen in the past, they are blind to reality and will, like the boils on an adenoidal teenagers neck, continue to erupt.

As others have said, even if you found a hangar-full of Spitfires (I use this example, as Group A are usually preternaturally obsessed with this a/c, and it may be the only example which works for them…!) then they would still need to be taken-apart and rebuilt to fly. In reality, most ‘finds’ are just shredded, or corroded, or very badly damaged rubbish. Equally, these a/c when rebuilt, usually contain a remarkable number of genuine original parts and assemblies.

There is this constant, ludicrous, suggestion, on the part of ‘Group B’, that the owners and rebuilders of historic a/c are embarked upon some sort of campaign of deception. I think that this is in part driven by their frustration in being outside the loop. Stan Smith alluded to this directly. They aren’t informed and they take this as some sort of insult, and feel that they are being deceived. This is of course arrant nonsense. Just because I don’t tell you what’s in my fridge doesn’t mean that I’m trying to decieve you…! I just have no need or obligation to tell you..! The builders, maintainers and operators know exactly what’s going on – and WHY. So do the CAA. ‘Group B’ also seem to presume that prospective purchasers are myopic and uninformed as they are. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that, as far as I’m aware, no purchaser has raised any complaint of deception. They are, by definition, a very astute and informed minority. They fully understand the technical and practical limitations within which these old a/c are restored, maintained and operated.

A pal of mine has a vintage car. I ride in it, – we jolly off to the boozer collecting flies in our teeth. It’s a very original 1934 model. It’s rusty and clapped. The brakes are awful, the steering like a wagon with the wheel adrift, it’s gutless and blows-out smoke and oil. Oh, and it’s about as reliable as an English summer. He loves it, and it’s fully road legal. To operate a vintage a/c is in no way comparable. Fact. Historic a/c are old designs, – maintained and operated with as much original material and parts as practicable. The requirements in NO WAY compare with an old car etc. Is that too complicated to understand..???????

I have a suggestion for ‘Group B’;- Do everyone a favour, – just presume every historic a/c out there is what you would term a ‘replica’. Really. Just ignore all information as to the history of ANY historic a/c. That way, you will NEVER be disappointed…… it’s a win-win for you guys…! In time, as the truth slowly permeates your baseball caps, you may even come to appreciate the years of effort and toil that has gone into such a/c. The road to Damascus as it were… Bliss.

To crudely paraphrase JFK;- ‘ Ask not the age of the part, ask only that it is correct’. In this context, that is all that really matters. Amen.
🙂