Hi,
Perhaps somebody can clear up something I’ve often wondered about, regarding restorations and replica building.
As we are all aware safety and engineering standrds are always rising in aviation, this presumabley means that some techniques considered acceptable say in 1930 are not acceptable today.
Does this mean that a Tiger Moth restored to airworthiness today, is rebuilt to a different/higher engineering specification, than it was originally?
Or if a flying replica of an HP42 was built, would it need to be built to modern standards, or would the historic techniques be allowed?
And finally how far does this effect originality?
Look forward to hearing everonesthoughts, Steve.
By: Dave Homewood - 23rd November 2005 at 20:01
The woodwork currently being built by Glynn Powell for Mosquito restoration uses all new modern compounds rather than the wartime glues, to ensure they last longer rather than begin deteriorating early in life
Lots of restorations these days use modern instruments, radio gear and electrics too, but that’s not really the structural side you ask about
By: Slipstream - 23rd November 2005 at 19:36
My personal thought are that I would want the most modern reliable methods used provided that they didn’t affect appearance or flying characterisics. Let’s face it, aircraft were subject to modifications and improvements throughout their life so why not employ modern methods in a restoration.
For example, if a particular carburettor caused engine failures should we use that type of carb for originality or employ a more modern reliable item? If an alloy spar was prone to fatigue cracking should we replicate it or improve it ? Should we rebuild an engine with moderm materials and closer tolerances etc or work to the original spec’n?
Interestingly, some years ago I used to overhaul propellers for the RAF Chipmunks. Because they were impossible to replace the original DH spec’s on minimum blade diameter and width were relaxed !
By: ZRX61 - 23rd November 2005 at 15:19
Linen is still acceptable for covering, but S**** is WAY better….for starters you’re not replacing it every few years….
Then there are the Merlin parts made by Roush which are far better than the original RR & Packard parts..
As for what was acceptable then not being acceptable now…?
Hmm.. apparently the aircraft covering that starts with *St* & ends with *its* isn’t allowed to be mentioned around here.. LOL!
Sign In
November 23, 2005 at 2:37 pm