I have watched over the last few days the debate rage on the replica vs real, and more so the posts regards what should and should not be allowed in the forums! I may as well start by mentioning that I am a big fan of the replica warbird movement, in fact I think I like them better than the real ones!, I admire the ability of anyone that can recreate a fighter etc, in his garage, sure I am more impressed by the full scale, high powered replicas, but I find most of them interesting. So, just what gives the likes of Italian Harvard the right to decide what should and should not be included in the forum “historic Aviation” ? and where does it say that this is a forum dedicated to warbirds? !!
What if I posted pictures of replica racers of the 30`s? ie the various Gee Bee`s. the Mystery Ship, etc, there are no original 30`s racers flying, all that do are replica`s, all 100% , none constructed exactly as per original, but all “historic” would Italian Harvard and co jump all over me for this, as they are certainly not “military”
I see Daz constantly under barrage for posting what I at least consider some really interesting subjects, so I say keep it up mate! historic is just that, history, and these replica`s are reminders of just that.
Now a little more direct on the subject of the replica`s, how can some of you make statements like “burn them, chop them up, etc! if a fellow has spent countless hours building an aircraft, be it a faithful full size replica, part scale, whatever, and actually got it to a safe flying state, who are you guys, ( italian harvard again!) to belittle this effort! I know full well just what it takes to build an aircraft, ( built 7 so far, all Pitts, aerobatic monoplanes, and a Christen Eagle II) and mine have been relatively simple compared to an Allison powered 100% Spitfire! but I wonder if you who say Burn it, chop it up, etc, have any idea of the effort and dedication that was lavished on that aircraft, and I wonder if you have the dedication to build even a small part of it! Oh, and the silly comments like the engine is the main part of the cost of rebuilding a fighter, etc Ha! give it a try, projects are no longer “laying in scrap yards” as Harvard says, and I think he would also find that most warbird projects vastly exceed the end value in cost outlay, over and above the engine!
OK, bottom line, why dont we define this forum, if this is a Military fighter bomber forum, label it as such, but as it says Historic, I see that to be anything to do with aviation that has yet to happen.
Perhaps to make it simple, Flypast should make a new forum, Replica, reproduction, and recreated historic aviation. Then Italian Harvard and co would know exactly where not to go!
By: Mark V - 4th January 2005 at 16:02
Well guys I’m going to chuck my 2 pence worth in, like Daz says I’m doing a Spitfire Tr.9 from scratch. Yes we’ve got some original instruments, and hopefully an original engine, will I be claiming she is original. NO!!!
I will admit that my machine was built by my own hands (and father-in-laws), not anyone at Supermarine! Does this devalue my machine? No! Maybe in the eyes of a few pedantic twits, but to most people she is a Spit, and if I can give them a ride that blows their mind (and hopefully not the barf-bag) then great.
Are we talking about de-valuing in terms of money or historical interest? If it is money then the answer has to be ‘yes’. If an individual were to build an airworthy Spitfire from scratch (but using some original parts and an original engine) he will have parted company with maybe £750,000 or possibly more by the time it flies. If he announces that the finished article is a modern day replica what would it be worth? Half of the construction cost? If the individual is wealthy he may not care very much but most people could not put so much money in to a project that could not be recoverable later. This is one of the reasons why most Spitfire restorations have an original identity. The other concerns UK CAA legislation. I think you would have a lot of difficulty in getting the CAA in the UK to grant a Certificate of Airworthiness to such a ‘new’ aircraft. If the machine is a restored ‘ex-military’ aircraft then the ‘Permit to Fly’ route is open. The legislation may be different in your country but this is how things are here.
Sorry to be a ‘pedantic twit’.
By: DazDaMan - 2nd January 2005 at 19:56
:rolleyes:
By: Flood - 2nd January 2005 at 19:51
Remember Concorde? Remember the Tu144? They looked very similar but you still couldn’t lump both types in as a Concorde or Tu144 without reference to the other.
You could, of course, paint a Concorde in an Aeroflot colour-scheme (or vice-versa) to carry off some sort of subterfuge and people – those who have either a basic interest or no interest at all in aviation – would take it at face value: they did look similar.
Those homebuilts do not look like Spitfires. Or Mustangs. Or Hurricanes. Or Concordes. Paint it in a camo scheme all you want, but it won’t change the truth.
Just because the new Mini has the name ‘Mini’ attached does not mean that it is the same as an original 1950s designed Mini.
Remember the bent-winged Corsair? There was another Corsair, a jet, which was referred to as the Corsair II, and the F4 Phantom was, strictly speaking, actually the Phantom II since the name had been previously used: but these were the names given by the manufacturers/government, not someone trying to pass something off as something else.
Spitlite maybe, Spitfire never.
Flood
By: DazDaMan - 2nd January 2005 at 19:35
Daz if it wasn’t for you starting things I’d have never really found my direction and the help I needed to get started. So my hat is off to you, and yes you’re on the list for a terror-flight when Binky is ready 😉
Binky? 😉
Looking forward to it! 😀
By: ozzy8672 - 2nd January 2005 at 19:29
Daz if it wasn’t for you starting things I’d have never really found my direction and the help I needed to get started. So my hat is off to you, and yes you’re on the list for a terror-flight when Binky is ready 😉
By: DazDaMan - 2nd January 2005 at 19:24
Will it be ‘Radio Controlled’? 🙂
Nope – yours truly will fly the beast eventually.
Ozzy- thanks for your comments. I might have set the forum up, but without folks like you and Harry van der Meer, among others, there wouldn’t even be a group!
By: Jules Horowitz - 2nd January 2005 at 19:23
Canadair;
There is a club here in S.Florida called “Condors”, they fly radio controlled planes, war birds and others, one man even flys a helicopter, and I’ve even seen a jet fly. I went to see them fly primarily because of a B17. It’s 1/9th scale. it has retractable landing gear, it can have engines leave a smoke trail and other goodies. The owner told me that it cost $10,000 to build, and it took him 3 years to complete. This past July it was donated to the Smithsonian Museum to be displayed. He said that his next project is to build a B24.
By: ozzy8672 - 2nd January 2005 at 19:09
Well guys I’m going to chuck my 2 pence worth in, like Daz says I’m doing a Spitfire Tr.9 from scratch. Yes we’ve got some original instruments, and hopefully an original engine, will I be claiming she is original. NO!!!
I will admit that my machine was built by my own hands (and father-in-laws), not anyone at Supermarine! Does this devalue my machine? No! Maybe in the eyes of a few pedantic twits, but to most people she is a Spit, and if I can give them a ride that blows their mind (and hopefully not the barf-bag) then great.
Daz has helped many people find what they want whether scale replica or full-sized copy (my odd case), and I think he deserves a pat on the back for what he has done for many people with v.little thanks. He has helped promote replicas of all sizes and makes of Spitfire, and lets be honest the majority can’t afford the real thing. I’m lucky that I have pretty good backing and lots of help and advice (frequently from fellow fanatics in Daz’s forum).
Lets not argue the toss, lets get flying and have some fun!!! Afterall its not what we fly, its THAT we fly 🙂
Mark
By: Mark V - 2nd January 2005 at 18:18
I say it can be only called one thing a Orignial Rebuild using new materials.
Hi Rob, in the UK the term ‘rebuild’ is usually reserved for an original aircraft that has been restored, in other words when the starting point was a tangible airframe or substantial remains. If starting from nil but building to the original design (with authentic materials) then maybe ‘reproduction’ is a better word to use? Perhaps its viewed differently in the USA?
By: STORMBIRD262 - 2nd January 2005 at 16:24
Bring the little mite’s here Daz.
Is this Sh*t still going :rolleyes: .
Stick it up them Daz 😀 :p :p
Bring all your little goodie’s here for us to see mate 😉 , as I have said already I find them to be the poor man’s tribute to some great plane’s of HISTORIC Merit 🙂 .
The rest that don’t agree, simply do not look at the thread that Daz post’s :rolleyes: .
sound like there a bunch of whinging bloody………ehh grandmother’s :diablo: .
Cheer’s Daz 🙂 , Tally :dev2: Ho! :dev2: Ho! :dev2: Ho! Phil :diablo: .
By: Mark12 - 2nd January 2005 at 12:38
Mark,
Indeed it is PK683, attached is one of the pics of her……
Darren,
…and very nice to. Thanks for posting.
Mark
By: DarrenBe - 2nd January 2005 at 12:24
Darren
Some colour images to look forward to.
They all sound historic to me, especially the ‘Spiftire’. Would that be PK683 at Changi?
Mark
Mark,
Indeed it is PK683, attached is one of the pics of her……
By: Mark12 - 2nd January 2005 at 11:50
It’ll be done – maybe not by the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain (as I’d hoped), but certainly I’ll try and get it done by the 75th.
By which time the design will be, what, 40 years old…??
Will it be ‘Radio Controlled’? 🙂
By: DazDaMan - 2nd January 2005 at 11:22
Perhaps it will become historic before he starts it?
It’ll be done – maybe not by the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain (as I’d hoped), but certainly I’ll try and get it done by the 75th.
By which time the design will be, what, 40 years old…??
By: Mark12 - 2nd January 2005 at 08:51
….and even a few pictures of an immaculate Spiftire.
Darren
Some colour images to look forward to.
They all sound historic to me, especially the ‘Spiftire’. Would that be PK683 at Changi?
Mark
By: DarrenBe - 2nd January 2005 at 01:24
I still see alot of people mixing history and warbird, as if they have to collide in the same sentence, history is aviation past, not warbird aviation past! if so, then please rename the forum to reflect this.
It does appear from certain quarters that historic aviation, and this forum, relates primarily to warbirds or aircraft from WW2. One cannot deny that WW2 led to many developments within aviation, but this was a very small period in the history of aviation.
Today I have started the long process of scanning a couple of hundred slides and B&W photos from my father’s overseas ‘holiday’, forty years ago, to the far east during his time with the RAF. He was sent to a little known conflict where the helicopter took the main stage – a small part of rotary wing history for the RAF and Royal Navy.
There are plenty of pictures of ‘historic’ aircraft – Whirlwind’s, Belvedere’s, Argosy’s, VC10’s, Britannia’s, Trident, Comet, Scout’s, Twin Pioneer’s, DH Beaver’s, Percival Sea Prince’s, HP Herald’s, DC3’s and even a few pictures of an immaculate Spiftire.
Sarcastic Mode ON
If I posted the pictures of the VC10, Britannia’s, Trident, Comet, Herald and DC3 – there will no doubt be a few saying be ‘off with you to the commercial forum’
Likewise with the pictures of the DH Beaver’s – off to the GA forum.
The helicopters – who knows – there are very few pictures of the rotary wing machines of the RAF as it is, anywhere. Might get a few grumbles as there not fixed wing 😉
The spitfire – I know I’m safe – its fits this forum to a tee. :diablo:
Sarcastic Mode OFF
In any case a lot of work is still needed to touch up the pictures, so none will be appearing anytime soon. The slides are a bit dusty etc.
Ironically I’m sure there was a discussion about a year or two ago on exactly the same topic as this thread. If I remember rightly the same battle lines were drawn then as now.
By: crazymainer - 1st January 2005 at 17:42
I still see alot of people mixing history and warbird, as if they have to collide in the same sentence, history is aviation past, not warbird aviation past! if so, then please rename the forum to reflect this.
Sorry Canadair,
A warbird History is is Historical so one is the same. As for what is Historical and what isn’t here is a simple one then.
Koloman Mayerhofer is building two Albatross D.III one will be flown with a very rare 6-cylinder Austro-Daimler ( one of only six know)the other will be for static. koloman has used the right type of wood, cotton and has the right erea engine so what are we going to call it.
I say it can be only called one thing a Orignial Rebuild using new materials.
Also Kermit Weeks just had a DR.1 done to orignial plans thow it doesn’t have a Oberusel Rotary in it Yet, when he puts it on then what are you all going to call this. Once again I say se my answer above.
I guess what we all need to determine is what is a Kit aircraft War FW190 and what is a reproduction/rebuild any full scale WWI or Texas Oscars.
RER
By: canadair - 1st January 2005 at 14:42
I still see alot of people mixing history and warbird, as if they have to collide in the same sentence, history is aviation past, not warbird aviation past! if so, then please rename the forum to reflect this.
By: DGH - 1st January 2005 at 01:59
I think all you lot need to get out more….. 😀
In the spirit of the new year ( and the fact I can barely write as I’ve drunk so much ) can we just all agree to disagree and say that we all have wildly different opinion’s on the subject. This isn’t really a debate more just a case of everyone stating there stance and not preparing to shift on it. I think we all love aeroplanes and the varied types around keep it varied and interesting, there’s room for everyone. The chance of seeing something like a Spitfire in the air is something to be savioured weather it be a rebuild or totally original. Lets call a truce before some of you upset each other and more valued contributors start walking away from the forum throwing there toys at every angle.
By: crazymainer - 1st January 2005 at 00:59
I suppose the Boxkite and Avro Triplane replicas at Shuttleworth were not considered historic at one time, but now they are 40 years old themselves, are they? :confused:
mmitch.
No MM,
They are Historic Replicas of aircraft that do not exist anymore, now in my book if they use the right type of wood and cotton and wire bracing and engine then they are a reproduction using original prints and matierails.
So what say the rest of you.
RER
Sign In
December 27, 2004 at 10:54 am