With the flying of actual historic aircraft taking it’s toll on the aircraft themselves, the hostility of much of the press to flying vintage aircraft and just plain safety, shouldn’t we be putting more effort into the replication of old designs and flying those instead?
If we continue to fly and rebuild real vintage aircraft they won’t really be around in 5 or 6 generations. I’m thinking WWII aircraft in particular here – and the attrition rate we have noted in the UK over the past couple of years.
I recognise there are now more Spitfires re-flying than, say, 10 years ago – but they won’t last forever, and Hurricanes, Mosquitoes, Lancasters, Blenheims, etc., etc., are either gone or in very short supply.
I believe it is important to keep the images of many of them in the air – for both our enjoyment, and as an aid to teaching generations to come, but do we really NEED to have the “Real McCoy”?
I’m not advocating simple rebuilds of vintage aircraft – but redesigns as close to the original visual and “experience” designs as possible, while improving safety wherever possible.
For instance, is it really necessary that if one were to build a new build Lancaster that it retains actual Merlin engines under the covers (of course we want to preserve the audible & physical experience).
The ME262 re-designs and builds are more along the lines of what I would like to see happen more often.
With many of the original designs to work from, and improve upon, would this be too expensive to contemplate, or could it be done? If it could, should it? Would there be enough support?
By: Flood - 25th July 2003 at 00:48
Flying replicas instead of the real things?
Like the idea – but it would take a big, big storm before it takes flight. Personally I would rather things were grounded now 😮 😮 😮 (pauses for gasps of shock and anger to pass before proceeding), much like the Dutch Dakota boys were trying to do, so that future generations would be able to see the 20th century’s finest where they should be – safely in the air.
But maybe you ought to ask how genuine the winged wonders we see before us are anyway. :confused:
I used to live near Portsmouth, home of the Royal Navy and the world famous reconstruction that used to be HMS Victory (for those of you too busy staring at the girl in the next aisle during your history class it was Nelsons flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar in1805). There were dark mutterings that the Mary Rose (aargh! Ok, she was King Henry VIIIs apparently favourite warship but sunk in the 16th century, bits of which got raised in 1982 and have been under preservation ever since) was more original due to HMS Victory being continuously under repair and replacement of rotting timbers. One day soon there won’t be a single plank of wood aboard which served at Trafalgar – much like (I have been told) Comet G-ACSS (Doh! Not that she served at Trafalgar!).
So, when a wreck is hauled out of the jungle and is sold on as being potentially airworthy just how much will really fly again? The engine? The panels? The main spar, perhaps? Or just the identity? :confused:
Lets face it, spending 50+ years out in the elements isn’t a recommended way to preserve anything manmade so in an effort to fly their new purchase the owners will start prefabricating like hell. Aluminium is a great metal but it decomposes eventually, so that gets replaced. Other parts of the airframe will get replaced straight off because they are out of hours or have been damaged or stressed. Every rivet or welded seam has to be replaced to satisfy the regulating authorities, as does the wiring. What are you left with when everything has been done to get a CofA; that can be called original anyway. :confused:
And even then the identity need not be real: there have been Mustangs stolen away from a dull life as a gate guardian in Latin America or the Philippines (I forget which and where, but probably both) and probably given the serial numbers of aircraft which had crashed long ago and scrapped or just disappeared into the paperwork.
Sorry but lets make it legal – sort out the design copyright and build a production line… Oops! Then who would want a knackered old aeroplane with a dodgy past and non factory-fitted parts? 😉
Think I’ll go back to FS2002 and just concentrate on getting my B737-400 up to 98,000ft again!:D Much more likely to happen…
Another late night rant from Flood – you’d think he didn’t have anything better to do!
By: Mark V - 24th July 2003 at 22:49
Agree with Damien B,
The raw material for re-builds is still out there, much of it untouched but not considered feasible or ecconomical 20 years ago. May I also suggest that whilst there have been some unfortunate incidents in the last decade it has become increasingly likely that an aircraft suffering major damage or even considered ‘destroyed’ will now and certainly, to an increasing extent in the future, be re-built to fly. The facilities and expertise to do this grow more numerous each as each year passes.
Undoubtedly there will be some virtually new aircraft on the scene in the future but today, in the case of certain aircraft types, we need only a small percentage of original structure to accept an aircraft as a re-build rather than a re-construction or replica. Future Mosquitoes, for example, will probably be ‘new’ wooden airframes with original engines, oleos and metal fittings but still considered original aircraft restored. No self respecting historic aircraft collector persues ‘replicas’ if something accepted as original can be obtained in flying condition. I cannot see this changing in the near future.
And yes RobAnt, we do need the ‘Real McCoy’!
By: RobAnt - 24th July 2003 at 21:46
Actually – I agree with you on every point – but we must recognise that even those bits and more importantly those specialists won’t be around forever.
By: Yak 11 Fan - 24th July 2003 at 21:41
I’m not sure I actually agree. Many people are working long and hard to ensure that the standards of originality in vintage aircraft rebuilds are as authentic as they can possibly be.
These days it’s possible thanks to specialists throughout the world to rebuild to stock condition an aircraft from the smallest of sections (I’m not getting into a real vs replica debate). Specialists exist for amongst others, the Spitfire (Historic Flying), Hurricane (Hawker Restorations), Mosquito (Glynn Powell) and Mustang (Bob Odegaard and others in the US).
Aircraft that were considered junk a few years ago can now be rebuilt to as new condition and I feel that the effort should be concentrated in this direction rather than something trying to replicate an original but using different engines etc.
Vintage aircraft in the UK and I’m sure the world over are maintained to incredibly high standards and are no less safe than the average modern aircraft, accidents do happen however but I wouldn’t describe the attrition rate as high, but incidents are very often highly public.
I would much rather see an aircraft rebuilt to original condition than a new build replica.
By: robbelc - 24th July 2003 at 21:30
We seem to be there allready in the case of some of the Spits built from ground up. Things like the Me262 are fine as you would not want to risk flying an original. I think it will be many years before we see a Stirling replica in the sky! What the airshow scene will be like in 30 years is anybodys guess. Will the WW2 mania for things of that era have subsided?
If I had a personal choice of what shapes I would like to be back in the air would be..
Handley Page V/1500
Cierva C30 autogyro
Avro Tudor(as long as they don’t reporduce its defects!)
Sign In
July 24, 2003 at 9:20 pm