History…representing the history or the airframe

The TBM scheme is accurate for a TBM-3 flown by VT-83 AG-83 USS Essex in 1945 at Okinawa. I choose that one because of the aircraft name – “Georgia Peach”. [my bride comes from Atlanta and I need the ‘brownie points’; even if it was for an hour!].

Like my TBM [s/n 91110], I don’t have any pictures of my A-26 [44-35898] in service. If you have any, I’d be interested.

🙂

Vne

Sounds like what you are doing not only makes sense but represents the history well.

If an aircraft has a documentable, significant history (your Spit) restoring the aircraft and colours as close as possible makes sense.

When it doesn’t and the data is not availabile…picking representative schemes makes sense and tells the story very well.

With generic airframes/aircraft, to me, the story you are chosing to tell overwhelms the airframe.

What do others think?

Tom H

Hi Vne,

If I recall your A-26 while not having a glowing Military History wouldn’t it be nice to have it restored in its last scheme it had in service.

As for the TBM why not pick a scheme that hasn’t been on TBMs before like a post war French Navy or Royal Netherlands. Just an idea.

Oh and if your trying to guess who I am just think about the person who got your A-26 information from Maxwell.

In many cases it is simply not possible to use an “original” scheme on an aircraft. Take for example my collection: my 0-1 and 0-2 Vietnam vets are both restored and marked as they were ‘at a particular point in time’ during the SE Asian Wargames as confirmed by photos [in the case of the 0-2, the old scheme was still on it] while at the same time I have no photographs of my A-26 Invader or TBM Avenger in service. So what colour scheme should I use on them? I’ve chosen to represent similar interesting aircraft [B-26 Korean War “Hollywood Hangover” and TBM-3 from WW2 “Georgia Peach”] from the period as accurately as possible using photos. Now my Spitfire XIV, which has documented combat victories and a good service record, is supported by a 1944 picture. Guess how we’ll paint that?;)

Composite ships should represent whatever the owner wants….

ah, the paint police…….:diablo:

My comment was more a lamentation that given that there are surviving examples of Lancasters that have been heavily modified for post war use, it is rather sad that the aircraft are now being reverted to wartime spec, and the historical record of the modifications made to the aircraft is being erased. Also, the modifications are not completely reversed – for example KB889 at Duxford has post war major instrument panel modifications left in place, leading to a somewhat confusing representation.

KB889 is a compositie wartime postwar restoration. One has only to look around the interior to see post war mods such as the main panel as mentioned. Another bothersome lancaster is the one in Ottawa. Outside it looks mostly wartime but inside and on the canopy it is in postwar/wartime fit. I feel bad about the Lancaster FM212 as it was the prototype MKXP Lancaster and was 90% complete in side and now it will be stripped out and redone as a wartime lanc. Fortunately all is not lost as Lancaster KB882 is still in post war fit and will one day be restored back to ground running condition!

Bruce and Eddie

I tend to agree with both your comments to an extent…

While I think in a perfect world you are absolutely right, but alas this is not a perfect world.

Our sorta composite B-25 is being restored to represent a specific aircraft because of the history it holds within our local and mandate. A pattern aircraft could not address that.

That is where the issue of which to represent becomes the problem.

If our B-25 was one of Doolittles raiders I would fight to the death it be restored that way…but as an airframe with no charactor of its own having it represent an important moment in time becomes the obligation in my mind.

Your thoughts???

Tom H

This is such a complex issue that I really don’t feel cmpetent to offer any meaningful comment.

I feel that with the availability of really good displays, which interpret the aircraft much better than ever they used to, the actual paint scheme worn by the aircraft can become secondary – meaning that restoring into correct markings for that aircraft is wholly appropriate.

Bruce – that’s an excellent point, and in a roundabout way the point that I’ve been trying to make for some time about modifying aircraft from their original configuration. To quote the excellent Mikesh book –

NASM abides by its policiy of not personalizing aircraft that are of the Category III [i.e. with no significant individual history] variety. Instead, a pattern aircraft is selected that is not associated with any particular pilot or event. Associating an airplane with a pilot or incident may confuse the viewer and give the impression that this is the same airplane. As expressed by Walter J Tuck of the Science Museum in London, “To do so compromises the airplane being imitated and degrades the airplane before us to the level of a full scale reproduction”.

Going back to my earlier post, I definitely understand why Lancasters have been restored to wartime spec. My comment was more a lamentation that given that there are surviving examples of Lancasters that have been heavily modified for post war use, it is rather sad that the aircraft are now being reverted to wartime spec, and the historical record of the modifications made to the aircraft is being erased. Also, the modifications are not completely reversed – for example KB889 at Duxford has post war major instrument panel modifications left in place, leading to a somewhat confusing representation.

In my opinion – a restoration should attempt to completely represent an aircraft at some stage in its life – ideally the most significant point of that airframe’s career. If there is a compelling need to display it as a wartime aircraft (for example), it should follow the above rule of being an anonymous aircraft, rather than representing a famous aircraft. Any deviation from originality should be documented, and it should be abundantly clear to the visitor what the real identity of the aircraft is, and why it is displayed in a non-original scheme.

I think there are some shades of grey here, and yes, it does link to the other thread rather well.

Where we are talking about an aircraft that is significant in its own right, I believe it must be returned to markings it originally wore. Ideally if it remains in its original paint from that period, it should be conserved – an example may be the S6B at the Science Museum.

We start to blur things when we look at aircraft which have a history of their own, but that might better represent history, or the type by being portrayed as something they are not. Look at the myriad Spitfires in museums that are painted to represent wartime aircraft, but that only saw postwar service. Our own Mosquito B35 also falls intothis category.

I feel that with the availability of really good displays, which interpret the aircraft much better than ever they used to, the actual paint scheme worn by the aircraft can become secondary – meaning that restoring into correct markings for that aircraft is wholly appropriate.

When we are looking at composite aircraft, or indeed reproductions, it seems wholly reasonable to repaint in a scheme chosen by the restorers, as long as the aircraft matches the original as closely as possible. For example if you had a B25J aeroplane representing a B25B, with its colour scheme, I consider that incorrect.

Bruce

I’m dredging this thread up as I think it ties to Scorpion89’s Heritage laws thread in a big way.

Can we get some more input here?

Tom H

Excellent points gentlemen

Maple01

I understand we can connect virtyually any aircraft to our local through it’s combat history, or with commercial aircraft, the fact that it transited through Edmotnon. Heck we could justify Wiley Post’s Lockheed Vega or a Martin B-10

But we have limited room and resources so must represent “significant” types.

If you will:

If our location represents a “Chapter” or Canadian history, we only have room for aircraft that wrote a “paragrapgh” in the chapter. Other aircraft end up being represented by models, dioramas, photographs or rotating exhibits.

Edmonton’s history is almost and equal split between Civil and Military aviation and our collection is close to being split that way (bias Civil right now).

We can never display all the types that touched Edmonton, no financially possible, so we must concentrate on significant types to tell the story. Even then we end up with composites, replicas and in some cases remarking to display the relevant history.

We would NEVER alter an aircraft with a significant individual history. If it did not fit the collection we would reffer it to an appropriate home.

Example…a couple of years ago we were forced to turn down a P-51. You can imagine how bad I wanted a P-51. But there is NO connection that was valid in placing it in the collection (d*mn). The aircraft was reffered to other museums with a mandate that included the aircraft and now has a wonderful home, if we don’t take it we make sure it gets a suitable home.

Of all the Spitfires (oh yes another soft spot), there is only (1) with a relevant history to our City, it is in private ownership and far beyond our means to acquire.

A Hurricane on the other hand and a P-39 or P-63 (US or Soviet marked) are must haves.

But back on topic.

Tom H

Eddie, definatly with you about the Lancs, a real shame that none are in the post-war Coastal Command scheme that they served in for 11 years.

Good points gents, however Maple01, I think condemning a provincial museum for being provincial is perhaps a bit harsh. Tom’s been clear that a Lancaster’s outside their league, for the foreseeable future, and is a red herring in Tom’s case, although a good point to discuss otherwise. Having a mandate such as ‘the aircraft and aviators of area X’ is perfectly legitimate if that’s the job; especially if they identify another organisation covering ‘everything else’, as Tom’s said. Too many museums have had indiscriminate collecting policies and while a lot can fit themes, sooner or later a clear policy is required., rather like enough hangarage, it’s a requirement that might come later, but is inevitable if you are to survive & prosper.

I am not sure Tom was limiting his comments to composite airframes…

Agreed, not limited to, but one of his early points, was:

BTW as a general comment, many of our aircraft are the composite of scavanged parts, being not for profit means we often work with what others pass on.

As to your other remarks, good points.

As an archaeologist and historian I have found that everytime I reply in one of these threads that I get howled down for being either elitest or rude.

However here goes – I side with James regarding composite restorations as there is no “individual” historic identity to preserve. If it is a good restoration then I think one should go for broke and do a crowd drawing colour/markings scheme of some particularly famous aircraft. Friday the 13th is an example [I]par excellence[I].

But if it is a genuine intact historic aircraft complete with its own unique identity e.g. the Ryan Spirit of St Louis for example or a Spitfire etc. with a war record or usage record of its own then I err on the side of keeping it as such. A resourceful museum would then be able to fill in type history and variants with photos or models.

The important thing here is that the historic validity of the object, if it exists, is preserved. I am impressed by the way in which that FAA Corsair was restored (or actually unrestored 🙂 ) to show its own marking history.

My 2 cents worth

JDK,

I am not sure Tom was limiting his comments to composite airframes- although very relevent to that situation, there are many world wide examples of complete intact airframes being displayed in colourschemes not original to the airframe.

Obviously there are many flying “warbirds” displayed in more famous colourschemes, in same cases we have two or more aircraft representing an original, but that market has it own drivers beyond preservation and display to the public.

You would be well aware of the F4 Phantom and Catalina at Point Cook, neither being ex RAAF aircraft but both presented as such, a good outcome in my opinion, although I understand the Catalina is a former RCAF example with combat service.

It is difficult to know where draw a line between preserving an artefact for its own history, or using it to portray a more relevent or “representative” example.

Where an aircraft is unique, or has a very significant history of its own, I think it is most appropriate to present it in its own identity, however having said that, paint is only skin deep, and it is better to see an airframe preserved even in another colourscheme than to see it unpreserved or lost fore-ever – a case in point being the rare ex RAAF Bristol Beaufighter now displayed in the NMUSAF in US colours.

Although a problem to be faced in the future, the display of the Lincoln in Australia will be faced with the issue of presenting it as a RAAF Mark 30, as against restoring it as the only surviving test bed Lincoln, a role important to the history of the type, and a role associated with Australia although not via this particular airframe.

In the end, I believe it is appropropriate for a museum to present an aircraft in a way most relevent to its objectives and collection policy, ideally without destroying the underlying airframe for future research or even return to its own identity – all subject to the significance of the airframe in its own right.

Where that can be achieved by the aircraft remaining in its own relevent identity and colourschemes all the better.

good topic Tom

regards

Mark Pilkington

I get your point Eddie but wartime types are IMO a special case, when you consider that of the 7,377 Lancasters built, 3,249 were lost in wartime service it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that any surviving examples are likely to emerge in Bomber Command colours, no matter how tenuous the link to the individual airframe. From the point of view of ‘local relevance’ (which smacks of narrow minded provincialism to me) surely the work-round is to tie in the repaint to a local squadron or individual rather than letting something rot or be scrapped because ‘it wasn’t built here, so has no local relevance’ – in the case of Bomber Command its very cosmopolitan nature should make proving those ‘local’ links very easy!

As my teachers used to say, “read the question”!

Beyond all the excellent points made, if I understand correctly, Tom is asking how one might paint / depict a composite aircraft, with no distinct major identity.

Obviously if there is one identity among the major components, it might be desirable to depict that. However, if you have an aircraft which is made up of bits of numerous different examples, plus new built parts etc, then there can’t be much argument with painting it in an appropriate scheme you choose. At least this is OK with static aircraft as there’s no paperwork or certification requirement for the composite to have a specific single identity.

If your museum, like Tom’s has a specific mandate, and has collected parts and built a composite (and maybe semi-replica) complete aircraft from them, then clearly it is thoroughly appropriate to paint it as the mandate needs; after all, without the impulse to recreate the example, it wouldn’t even exist!

Part of this issues is a basic misunderstanding by the ‘identity hounds’. 😉 There are numerous types flying or under restoration where the ‘identity’ that people often get hot under the collar about may relate to a few pieces or even another aircraft through a misinterpretation of a serial or construction number. We are all familiar with stressed skin construction and major component types like Spitfires and Lancasters, but if you look at slightly earlier designs such as the Hurricane, Lysander and Swordfish, they are all what might be termed ‘Meccano aircraft’, made up of a lot of relatively small parts, which can be interchanged. When restoring one of these from a group of recovered examples, the best bits get combined into one machine. The rest is passed on to another group, who then restore another example, and this trickle-down can continue to occur. Each airworthy, and any sensible static restorer, makes sure each reconstruction has an identity; but each rebuild will have lots of parts from each example from the batch. Hence the mysterious, vanishing/appearing/changing identities for aircraft such as the Canadian Lysanders and Swordfish being talked about by researchers, in the face of the fact that each rebuild was a resurrection from a pile of parts with parts left over. (Sometimes new research does find a lost identity; but by then, the airframe the ID is on will probably be a Frankenstein of aeroplane parts.) In some cases, there is a continuous single identity, with a periphery of changing small parts, but with a ground up rebuild from a pool of two or more airframes (such as the ex-Ernie Simmons Swordfish) each can come out with even the main components created from parts from three different machines. Then the ID is a paperwork requirement, and you are dealing with the famous grandfather’s axe situation.

Regards,

Misha

I understand what you are saying…

We are lucky that so much history took place from our airport and even the hangar that we now occupy.

But I can see other places having a problem.

Our policies were set because of the huge amount of history tied to our City.

The other factor was the realization we could never tell the whole story of the history of aviation in Canada. It was felt that was the responsibility of the Federal and Provincially funded museums such as the National or the Renoylds Alberta Museum.

But we can do a better part of telling OUR chapter than they will ever be able to do. Their mandate is far too wide to have us as anything other than a foot note.

On the other hand we would never have the resources to do their job, so it makes sense.

Tom H

Eddie

You may find this a bit of a surprise, but I tend to agree with you on the Lancasters.

They played a huge role post war in Canada and unfortunately the history generally remains untold.

Our Museum will never have a Lanc as they have a very limited history here and it would be a huge stretch of the collections policy, but if we did it would have to be in Postwar colours as it did not have a significant wartime history here.

It seems so hard to find a proper balance.

Tom H

Another little tidbit that is a personal gripe and I’m sure won’t be widely held – the habit of museums to revert all aircraft to pseudo-wartime spec.

I know people like to see aircraft in wartime colours, but we are losing a significant portion of a type’s history. For example the almost universal reversion of Lancasters to wartime spec. Of the 17 or so Lancasters preserved around the world, four of them have wartime service records. These aircraft are:
R5858 – 130 ops, displayed in wartime colours at Hendon
W4783 – 90 ops, displayed in wartime colours at the AWM in Canberra
KB839 – 26 ops, displayed outside in post war colours at Greenwood, NS
KB882 – 6 ops, displayed outside in post war colours at Edmundston, NB

Of the other 13 Lancs in preservation, 2 are airworthy and in wartime schemes, four are stored or under restoration with no scheme (although I believe the plan is for all four to be painted in wartime colours), one is under restoration to post war french colours and the other six are displayed in wartime colours, and have been converted back to wartime spec. I find this to be something of a shame, as the post war use is the only reason so many survived to preservation. I find it somewhat ironic that 50% of the Lancs with wartime history are in post war colours, whereas only one of the Lancs that were only used post war is in a post war scheme and configuration.