An aircraft's true identity (2003 Zombie)

Originally posted by Lancman

I don’t agree that the Friday 13th replica Halifax is valuable, as we’d otherwise not be able to see a Halifax-there’s been one oin hendon for years y’know, albeit a tad manky looking…I’m afraid I lump that half real, half fake, bag of leftovers ‘Halifax’ straight into the same bin as all the fibreglass Spitfires-good for window dressing and making little kids go ‘ooh!’ only.

Sorry Lancman but I have to say this….

The Halifax at Elvington has many visitors, a fair number of them Halifax veterans. Now, if that airframe is good enough to satisfy these veterans, even bring them to tears, then surely that is reason for it to be good enough for you and I. These men are now in their seventies and eighties, the twilight of their years, they risked their lives and many, many of their comrades died, for us. That is one hell of a debt we owe. And if Friday the thirteenth is seen as any sort of recompense then long may she survive. It’s about respect.

Of course there is a Halifax at Hendon. A fine example of a ‘destroyed’ Halifax. Do you think these veterans are happier seeing a rusty relic reminding them of just how many of their comrades died? Or seeing Friday and telling their Grandchildren and Great-Grandchildren that this is the aircraft they flew in? I’m not bothered about whether you consider it a 1/1 scale model, it makes no difference. To the veterans Friday IS a Halifax and that is good enough for me.

I like Moggy’s analogy of aircraft being actors. The costumes they wear should be as authentic to the breed as possible, but not neccessarily to the individual. dhfan talks about retaining their original serial. I think that’s fine. And here I agree with Lancman, PA474 will always remain ‘474, whatever guise she wears. And if by regularly changing markings it pays honour to a particular crew or squadron, that’s great.

Finally, as for kids going ‘ooh’ at a fibre glass Spitfire then that’s great too. If it engenders a spark of interest to the child it may be sowing a seed for a lifetime passion. If nobody’s interested when we’ve all died, what would be the future of historic aviation then?

Regards,

kev35

Friday the 13th’s a real can of worms.
No doubt it was discussed in depth long before I joined the forum.
I think it is important. It’s good that there’s a real one at Hendon, but you can’t tell much from a wreck on it’s belly.
I’m also not as vociferous in decrying Friday’s authenticity, although I know a lot is new build. Wings for example, are from a Hastings. I gather the Hastings used Halifax wings, presumably built in the same jigs. On that basis, all Hastings have Halifax wings, and Friday’s got Halifax wings.
Think it’s a shame the IWM didn’t offer the Halifax nose they’ve got, virtually any cockpit could replace that at Lambeth.

Whatever, I’m glad I’ve seen it, so there:)

What…you mean…Sean Connery ISN’T James Bond? 😮

I agree that aircraft should always retain their own serial, even if ‘playing’ another part-PA474 being a great example. No matter what squadron, no matter what individual aircraft she’s portraying, ‘474 she is, and ‘474 it says on the side.

The CWH Lanc is a good example of the opposite-you’d think the ‘Mynarski’ Lancaster had come back to life to listen to them sometimes; it has FM213 painted on it, which is ain’t, and never will be.

I don’t agree that the Friday 13th replica Halifax is valuable, as we’d otherwise not be able to see a Halifax-there’s been one oin hendon for years y’know, albeit a tad manky looking…I’m afraid I lump that half real, half fake, bag of leftovers ‘Halifax’ straight into the same bin as all the fibreglass Spitfires-good for window dressing and making little kids go ‘ooh!’ only.

Originally posted by Arthur
would you watch a film in which Doug Bader is performed by Guy Gibson?

:confused: Cold light of day. Several hours to fill before the Norfolk sun passes over the yardarm.

Yes I would. Double benefit, see Guy Gibson, watch film about Duggie. Probably best done at the Red Lion in Whittlesford for two obvious reasons. Except they don’t have a TV.

Arthur says

“if i understand Moggy’s logic:
A plastic replica of a Mosquito (for example representing one of the Amiens prison raid) would be more valuable than a real Mossie which hasn’t seen any action”

Don’t think I said that. Museum aircraft come in three varieties IMO

Ones that fly
Ones that flew
Ones that never flew.

The excuse for the latter is to show us a type we can’t otherwise see. Friday 13th is thus very valuable. Countless replica Spits only useful for dressing the outside of airbases and creating 1/1 diorama or movies, thus of low value.

The middle category sort of obey similar rules. Where an example of the type is still flying I view them much as I would view a corpse. If it’s famous – S Sugar – you stand in awe and think about what the airframe has been through. If it’s another Griffon Spitfire from a 1945 build that never saw combat, who cares?

Gruesome parallel, but if they’d preserved the body of Winston Churchill you’d queue for hours to shuffle past, if it was some guy you’d never heard of who’d died of flu in 1946 it’d be hardly worth the bother surely?

If no flying examples exist then it’s great to see what they looked like. Here I’d rather it represented an historic acheiving airframe than not.

If it flies – then it is by definition, an aircraft, and worth watching. In extremis I have even been known to watch eggbeaters as they clatter past.

If a THUM Mossie was to fly painted as itself or as an Amiens aircraft I really wouldn’t mind either way. (cf. the Sea Vixen thread)

Anyway, gardening beckons.

Moggy

My views are fuelled by Old Speckled Hen,unfortunately not enough to affect my judgement. Don’t like Adnams Bitter, gives me heartburn. Broadside’s fine.

For a long time, my views have been, if you want to repaint an aircraft to represent a different one, it’s OK as long as it retains it’s genuine serial number, with explanation on adjacent blurb. The aircraft is a valid exhibit in it’s own right and shouldn’t have it’s real identity disguised.
Not sure how that applies to civil aircraft, where re-registrations are quite common. Never thought about that.

I have to disagree with Moggy. Any airframe has it’s own history with people that built it, flew it and maintained it. Overpainting that one aircraft to mimic another, more interesting/glorious/known/fashionable does IMHO no justice to the individual history of the aircraft itself.

Also, if i understand Moggy’s logic:
A plastic replica of a Mosquito (for example representing one of the Amiens prison raid) would be more valuable than a real Mossie which hasn’t seen any action… The actor logic is beyond me anyway (probably a lack of Adnams on my behalf) – would you watch a film in which Doug Bader is performed by Guy Gibson?

With a clarity born of several pints of Adnams I can clearly express my thoughts.

I view the airframes as actors.

Each can assume a coat of paint and be a character from history.

Each of us knows that Guy Gibson did not, and could not appear in the Dambusters, nor did Douglas Bader star in Reach for the Sky.

Underneath we all know that Sean Connery isn’t James Bond or Indiana Jones’s father, or a Russian submarine commander.

So actors represent various characters for us, just as an airframe can represent a type at a crucial point in its history.

Insisting that an airframe only ever carries ‘authentic’ paint would be, in my opinion, verging on anorackdom.

Moggy