How dead is dead?

F1 show cars are often built from parts which have been found to be out of tolerance and from damaged monocoques which can’t easily or safely be rebuilt to race again BUT there still shouldn’t be two cars sharing the same chassis number.
I believe there is a Ford GT40 which has been resurrected comparatively recently that burnt to the ground at Nurburgring in the mid 1960’s. Everyone in historic racing circles knows the provenance of the car so it doesn’t matter but it does show that it isn’t just aviation where rebuilds have, on occassions, contained little but the constructors plate.
It is just inevitable that anything which gets used will eventually get damaged and at the same time parts wear out so replacing parts and carrying out major repairs/rebuilds is something which can’t be avoided.

For some years race cars (especially) F1 in exhibitions are ‘show cars’ often built without a proper engine. Real cars are far to expensive to leave lying around!
mmitch.

I remember going to a Racing Car Show at Olympia where two identical 1980’s grand prix cars were displayed on different stands not too far apart in the same hall. As I was working there we had a wander around and a close look before the show opened and found that both cars had the same chassis number!

Zx old chap you are such a wag!!!!! lol!!!!

Simliar issue with regards to the 6 original Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupes… there are now 7 of them…

Likdewise D-type Jags have multiplied in the past.
But to be fair, race cars are in a different league.
In period no one minded much as to which cars was which and some very historic and valuable cars have had entire bodies and chassis switched.

To an extent, it’s not dissimilar to what has happened to warbirds.
When a fighter is resurrected after 50 years under a French beach, or after a flash fire during a landing mishap (or indeed, re-sparing a bomber) it’s clear most owner/operators don’t care too much about originality. Simply put, they don’t have the option to be too picky. I’d guess Ferrari would make a new chassis (with the factory blessing and appropriate serial #) for a GTO if you paid their historic division enough Euros, but Supermarine, North American and AVRO don’t have that scheme.
Yes, some museum bound artifacts are priceless in their originality and lets leave it to curators and fanboys who don’t have to risk their lives in aircraft expeted to last for a few hours of combat that are now entering their 8th decade.
For the rest of us, the fat lady has sung, and no one really seems to care as long as the thing flies.

The case proved the original parts of the car which were disgarded after an accident including the bent chassis, which were collected, repaired and build into a car with a reconditioned original engine from “Old Number One” was not “Old Number One”.

The repaired car with new chassis, new coach built body, and new engine was deemed to be the original. As repair and replacement were part of it’s history!

Simliar issue with regards to the 6 original Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupes… there are now 7 of them…

I know it’s not an aircraft, however very interesting when talking about originality. Is anyone aware of the the court case around the late 1980s which surrounded the famous 1920s racing Bentley “Old Number One”.

The case proved the original parts of the car which were disgarded after an accident including the bent chassis, which were collected, repaired and build into a car with a reconditioned original engine from “Old Number One” was not “Old Number One”.

The repaired car with new chassis, new coach built body, and new engine was deemed to be the original. As repair and replacement were part of it’s history!

I was going to clone Amelia Earhart from the bone fragment found by Tighar.. but now have a pet turtle.. 🙁

Commercially it’s when the value of the major assemblies exceed the value of the frame (or something like that) but, in reality, no frame is dead and a C/N S/no. can be built from patten or drawing to a useable standard.

Its not about death though, but the ability and a perceived value, by a group or individual, in the future task’s worth.

(Coo, almost philosophic!)

Look how much pleasure the replica Vimy gave last year…………….:)

I do like to know the provenance of each aircraft but regardless of it being a rebuild, recreation, replica or whatever I am just happy that I can get pleasure from seeing historic aircraft on the ground and in the air.
As examples the Shuttleworth Collection Sopwith Triplane and Bristol M1C may not be originals in that they weren’t constructed “in period” but both have correct engines and the look and feel of an original WW1 airframe AND we get to see them in the air which is a huge bonus. Same goes for the Boxkite and Avro Triplane although both of these are now around 45 years old so they could be regarded as classic/vintage aircraft in their own right.
I think Avion Ancien is right when he says that there are so many different viewpoints for this one that it will never get any better than “agreeing to disagree”

We will need to consult ‘The Book’ when it is available

“G-Ordy said unto forum, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live (Mark12 Page 127. Paragraph 4).”

Déjà vu?

It’s curious how many times this topic comes up under different guises and how polarised the opinions continue to be. I suspect it’s only ever going to be a “let’s agree to disagree” subject because, in the absence of a definitive judicial opinion, there never will be an agreed definition of what is restoration/recreation/replication and where the lines between these should be drawn.

I think JagX204’s comment says it all!

Come off it, Paul, you know that one’s going to do a Lazarus sometime soon.

“Its not dead – it’s only resting”

with apologies to Monty Python…..:diablo:

I think I would agree. It is a very arcane argument and I’m not sure how much it matters. The fact that we can see on the ground and in some cases in the air, historic aircraft, gives me all the plesasure that I look for. But I can see many purists taking a contrary view.

As James says, once all the original airframes have gone, be it through mishap or scrappage, then that’s it. However, in order to restore a historic aircraft there would be a need to change materials (old specs no longer available, etc) so in any flyer there has to be a percentage of non-original parts.

So, assuming that the only limit would be financial, and given that for every type for which there are at least some drawings and/or pieces remaining, thereby enabling the creation of replacement parts, then nothing is ever truly extinct.

My $0.02 anyway……

You can’t re-create ‘originality’, so once a type’s lost, it’s gone. From a historical perspective, that’s why certain aircraft – such as those in the Science Museum’s collection – are priceless international treasures.

That said, the superb and often remarkable achievements of those recreating new build and replica aircraft and sections are certainly a great substitute for these we no longer have, or to fulfil other purposes.

While there are paperwork and financial and social reasons for sometimes blurring the differences between ‘original’ and ‘recreated’ that isn’t necessary, or worthwhile historically.

Regards,

When it is a Spitfire owned by MOD and reduced to components?