Originality of restored aircraft

Doesn’t the Sanders 924 still have a Centaurus up front? Same with the old Santa Monica Museum of Flying N281L, and Chuck Greenhill’s Sea Fury just flew with original powerplant

Hi TJJ, you may well be right, my info seems out of date. Question is hours flown etc. Certainly seems that the US engines are preferred in the US either way. Would be good to get data on the a/c you mention, and Ellsworth Getchell’s (sp?)

Good questions!

Horses for courses David…

In the US, there’s only 1 Centaurus engined Fury now, maintained by its owner / operator. There is US support for the US engine(s) and not for the Bristol, one, hence cost, familiarity, servicability, etc.

HTH

Doesn’t the Sanders 924 still have a Centaurus up front? Same with the old Santa Monica Museum of Flying N281L, and Chuck Greenhill’s Sea Fury just flew with original powerplant. Saw some photos of the old Don Crowe N60SF now with Jerry Yagen, and it definately had the five bladed prop.

T J

Albert, I do so agree about the Gauntlet, it jars every time I see a photograph of it. While I understand the reasons for the re-engining, it has totally destroyed the lines of the original and therefore is not right.

It would be good to see the Gauntlet back with the “proper” engine, but a Gauntlet flying at all to me seems a fantastic thing. Of course, the Leonides isn’t totally unknown on British biplanes – a Bristol Bulldog had one installed in 1938!

The PRU Blue MK.XIX contra-rotating prop spitfire is not in stock condition, but it pressed all the right buttons at this years Flying Legends.

Not one of the UK restored echelon of Spitfires at Leg-ends and ‘adjusted’ in the US, but the conversion to contra-prop in no way precludes fitting the correct engine and propeller at some time in the future, should the then owner decide to go that route.

Mark

James, Steve

Thanks for your support, but I wasn’t fishing for compliments, just trying to add to the discussion with some actual examples.

The example of Peter Vachers hurricne R4118 is a faithful restoration. A substantially complete Hurricane Mk.1 entered the workshop, and an airworthy Hurricane Mk.1 left the workshop. It is probably the most original Hurricane rebuild that you will see, because it “replaced or repaired where necessary”, rather than essentially a new-build airframe to add a data-plate to. It took a 1946 time capsule and made it fly again.

On the other hand, I think that the P39 found in a Russian lake recently, and P47 found in a European lake, should be conserved in their current condition. As long as you could stop the corrosion, they would make fantastic displays just as they are. There are many of each type flying, so just leave these for future reference.

As many of you know, I am constructing a DH Hornet from the scant remains that are left. Say it takes me 10 years to essentially new-build just a fuselage (no wing, tailplane, fin, etc). If this project can hoover-up as many original parts as possible, reference original drawings, use original tooling, is correctly made, and much money and time is spent on it, it is still “just” a re-production. Even if it may become the only example of its type, many will not accept its worth. Should a substantial survivor of the type ever come to light, this will devalue what this project has made even further.

It’s a question of values. ‘Originality’ is one value. You can have an original machine with shoddy preservation or rebuilding, and in many ways it will be ‘worth less’ as an historic artifact or commercially, because of that workmanship. A careful, skilled and professional replica done with thorough and painstaking research has a great value; original parts or not. So there are different values to different criteria; workmanship and originally are different measures, and don’t replace each other.

From what I’ve seen of your work, your cockpit will be a great recovery of a lost piece of history, and is clealy an excellent job. There’s always a lot of knockers. The answer to them is always: “Thanks for your comments. What have you contributed?” 😉

David,

It does not matter a jot, and surely no-one would accuse your fabulous project of being “just” a re-production. Well done!

Back on thread!

As many of you know, I am constructing a DH Hornet from the scant remains that are left. Say it takes me 10 years to essentially new-build just a fuselage (no wing, tailplane, fin, etc). If this project can hoover-up as many original parts as possible, reference original drawings, use original tooling, is correctly made, and much money and time is spent on it, it is still “just” a re-production. Even if it may become the only example of its type, many will not accept its worth. Should a substantial survivor of the type ever come to light, this will devalue what this project has made even further.

It’s just the way of the commercial collectors world. This should not however, deter those who want to attempt such projects if your motives are not commercial.

I personally like seeing these aircraft in the air, where they belong, whether they be original or not. The PRU Blue MK.XIX contra-rotating prop spitfire is not in stock condition, but it pressed all the right buttons at this years Flying Legends. We can have this debate when fuel runs out, and everything is grounded!

Good questions!

Horses for courses David…

In the US, there’s only 1 Centaurus engined Fury now, maintained by its owner / operator. There is US support for the US engine(s) and not for the Bristol, one, hence cost, familiarity, servicability, etc.

I believe that the CAA won’t allow a non-Centaurus Sea Fury to operate in the UK, as there isn’t design authority (happy to be corrected on this…) hence the UK Furies being Centarii driven. In Aus and IIRC South Africa, they are Centaurii machines.

As you say, the F-102 brake modification is very popular – but most users state the British brakes are awful, IIRC.

HTH

Replacing engines to keep ’em flying.

My favorite aircraft is the Hawker Sea Fury FB.11.

Although I patriotically prefer the Centaurus shod airframes because of their engineering packaging and design qualities, I would guess that more fly with American radials now? I could open a can of worms here, and ask the question is an American radial shod Sea Fury, more reliable, potentially cheaper to operate, and has more power available?? This could be a transatlantic collaboration like the merlin powered mustang, hence making a better over all aircraft. Several former British aircraft now have changes to their braking systems too when re-built in the USA. Using hydraulic instead of pneumatic wheel brakes. Examples: Seafire F.47, Sea Furies.

Hi

Yes re engining is a bit of an issue

I certainly the appreciate the 20 plus Yak3/9s flying about with Allisons in them – I tend to forget they have the wrong donk shoved in there but I am glad I get to see them and they add spice to any air show – Naturally they don’t have a provenance and you can buy 7 for the price of a Spit with a Provenance but the Spit does have a very expensive data plate after all !!!!! But EEK !!! There are several of those feral Spits that look like the real thing but are made of wood and have an Allison up front – whatever is the world coming to – still at least they wouldn’t let em fly in blighty by god!! Not without a data plate, the correct tie and a s#@load of Pound Sterling provenance

Regards
John P

Fair enough. 🙂 Credit to them for putting a Gauntlet in the air at all – something the UK is yet to achieve.

No, of course not. Better a Leonides-engined Gauntlet than no Gauntlet at all, I just think it is a shame from an “original appearance” point of view that they had to do what they did.

Are we really saying that rotten* propellers, head popping magnesium alloy rivets, time expired* rubber and crazed* perspex MUST be preserved?

I refer the gentleman to my previous post. Original stable material is always better than new, from a historian’s point of view. And you are exagerating – most of the stuff I’ve seen (and you have, Mark) in bins in restoration shops could be used by static museums perfectly well. But many rebuild organisations have stopped even selling off the bits because of the provenance issue.

Not ‘must’, but ‘should’ – there is not a single flying Spitfire today that is worth as much as most of the static examples from the point of view of the historical record.

And there’s one Spitfire flying today, as is well known, which had its discarded skins built into another ‘Spitfire’. The hoo-hah over this is the best illustration of Setter’s point that I can think of. There is no harm in reusing the skins, and that skinning is potentially worthwhile to the museum business, while we also get another flying Spitfire. Surely a ‘win win’; but no, it’s regarded as a ‘mistake’ and an ‘aberation’ and those skins ‘should have been destroyed’.

To serve back into your court – ‘ripping*’ a new-build Spitfire apart to stuff* a spare* firewall into the middle to force* a history upon a new set of parts is as daft* as anything else I’ve come across… 😉

Incidentally, I enclose a photo of a piece of “time expired rubber” I was looking at on Wednesday. It’s going into a static rebuild. It’s a little piece of history (Dunlop, Australia). A flyer couldn’t use that item, as it’s not good enough. But a flying rebuild would have to throw it in the bin. That’s a real waste.

* * * *

Mr Bond, (always wanted to say that), Albert; What would you propose the Gauntlet team do instead? What if a non flyer was not to get the funding for a rebuild, but a flyer (with the wrong engine) were to? Give up?

*Emotive words being used to poison any response… 😀

Albert, I do so agree about the Gauntlet, it jars every time I see a photograph of it. While I understand the reasons for the re-engining, it has totally destroyed the lines of the original and therefore is not right. A much better example of using a modern engine but not spoiling the look, albeit on a new-build replica, was the much-missed Fairey Flycatcher.

Mark 12

“Five wrecks consumed! Would you care to tell us which continent this was on, Europe, US, Australasia etc?”

Not the UK – and no for obvious reasons I will not disclose where.

“If we are talking about the UK restored Spitfire echelon at Leg-ends this year, I am just not recognising this ‘historic vandalism’. Can you be specific to serial and let’s discuss? Are we really saying that rotten propellers, head popping magnesium alloy rivets, time expired rubber and crazed perspex MUST be preserved?”

I am really sick of the bulldust “Provenance” argument put up by self serving interests in the industry over the identity of an aircraft. Let’s face it I just went to Duxford and saw Leg ends, and a great air show it was too. There were all these “WW11” fighters there – fantastic – such a wonderful sight but I would be really surprised how much of each Spit airframe for example was “original” and for reasons stated above I am pleased they aren’t. But They all have an identity or provenance based upon a donor airframe which can be as small as a data plate or can consume major parts of a static airframe which is then often scrapped rather than being used in a static rebuild just so it doesn’t confuse the title/provenance of someone’s flying investment – pure vandalism of a historic artefact. Future generations will cringe at this travesty. We can have both so easily just tidy up the regulations to allow for title allocation and allow for incentives to preserve donor aircraft in museums – You know it makes sense – let’s do it.

As you can see fromthe FULL context of what I said I was pleased they had been restored and totally rebuilt – the more so the better – My POINT is that I think all flying aircraft SHOULD be full reconstructions – My other POINT is that

“Are we really saying that rotten propellers, head popping magnesium alloy rivets, time expired rubber and crazed perspex MUST be preserved?”

If they are historic and able to be preserved – Yes they should – it’s not all about the holy dollar/pound – history is important. Provinance is just Marketing bunkem by an industry trying to maintain inflated prices and thats why the past is scrapped.

“There has been no significant consumption of quality Spitfire engineered parts to the patterning process that I am aware of.”

I am surprised that you can say that, however the world is not just about Spits but I have witnessed large chunks of a Spit which could have been very high quality static rebuild material scrapped and there are pics to prove it – no I am not happy to display them here but if you must I will drag them out and send them over to you.

I really fail to see where you are headed on this or previous threads

Answer these questions

1) Do you want to see as many new build Spits in the air as possible – Ground up new builds.

2) Do you want to see as much historic material as can be salvaged from a wreck utilised in a static rebuild.

They are the basis of my discussion, and as I want both the answer to both from me is yes.

If you answer yes then there is no disagreement

Regards
John P

I do love a good boiling in oil!

The main issues here are that aircraft should be as safe as possible and not consume valuable historic artefacts in the process – I have seen 5 wrecks used as patterns for one airworthy rebuild and then all that material binned to ensure the “provenance ” of the “original” replica – Vandalism especially as 3 of those wrecks could have been restored as substantially complete original examples in historic collections….

….. I am really sick of the bulldust “Provenance” argument put up by self serving interests in the industry over the identity of an aircraft. Let’s face it I just went to Duxford and saw Leg ends, and a great air show it was too. There were all these “WW11” fighters there – fantastic – such a wonderful sight but I would be really surprised how much of each Spit airframe for example was “original” …John Parker

Five wrecks consumed! Would you care to tell us which continent this was on, Europe, US, Australasia etc?

If we are talking about the UK restored Spitfire echelon at Leg-ends this year, I am just not recognising this ‘historic vandalism’. Can you be specific to serial and let’s discuss? Are we really saying that rotten propellers, head popping magnesium alloy rivets, time expired rubber and crazed perspex MUST be preserved?

There has been no significant consumption of quality Spitfire engineered parts to the patterning process that I am aware of.

Mark 🙂

Well

As always this is a fascinating subject and one that brings out emotion. For me it is also a very topical one given the current explosion in the recovery and “restoration” of many airframes.
I propose to take a theoretical pathway for this discussion.
I hypothesise that there two core groups of aircraft rebuilds and that within them there layers or levels of rebuild. There are flying aircraft and there are static aircraft.
I am one who loves to see aircraft in the air – flying – that is after all their original purpose. However for reasons I will go into I am not a fan of largely original aircraft flying, at least those over say 30 years old.
To further subdivide the various categories of flying aircraft here are my categories
1) Restored/refurbished – a flying aircraft which is largely composed of the material that was present on the day it ceased service (say over 75%). Thankfully not a lot of these about over 50 years old but there are some. I am against flying these machines on two fronts. a) There is no guarantee that the structure of these machines is up to the job any longer. Flying around in a 50+ year old set of metal or wood is probably a little silly. b) From a historic perspective the value of such a machine is huge and it has a place in a museum as a valuable artefact, greater than the flying role.
2) Restored/rebuilt – a flying aircraft composed of some original material but mostly constructed from new parts built to original specifications – it utilises identities gained from source material so as to have a “provenance” but is largely “new build”. I have much less of a problem here as the aircraft is built with modern materials and processes and can be said in most cases to be better than original although as we all know there are cases of poor workmanship as there are with all flying aircraft. One major point at issue here is the current trend to vandalism that occurs when an historic aircraft is recovered largely intact and then the aircraft is used as a pattern and identity “mule” for an airworthy reproduction. This is happening a lot and should not be allowed to happen. Many historic aircraft are being destroyed needlessly to provide identities for brand new airframes. Easily overcome if some sensible changes were put in place at the regulatory level.
3) Reconstruction/replica – Same as 2 but an aircraft that is built to resemble an original aircraft but does not utilise original techniques or materials – again I have no issue here as long as the construction is sound and the result looks “right” why not.

The main issues here are that aircraft should be as safe as possible and not consume valuable historic artefacts in the process – I have seen 5 wrecks used as patterns for one airworthy rebuild and then all that material binned to ensure the “provenance ” of the “original” replica – Vandalism especially as 3 of those wrecks could have been restored as substantially complete original examples in historic collections.

Now to static aircraft
1) Time capsules – aircraft that are largely as they were the day they left service – perhaps conserved to inhibit corrosion and so on but much as they were – for example, the AWM Spitfire in Canberra
2) Largely complete restorations – aircraft that utilise as much of an original aircraft as possible and the rest is reconstructed utilising original materials and methods.
3) Historic Replica – aircraft constructed utilising original plans, specifications , materials and construction methods of an original
4) Replica – aircraft constructed to varying levels of accuracy to serve as a display /promotional product for museum/commercial purposes

In My perfect world all intact or substantial original aircraft pre 1948 say would be grounded and only airworthy new build aircraft would fly – provenance would not depend on Data plates but on allocation of a desired identity – only to one aircraft not multiples. This would help address the destruction of recovered machines for their identity. The Patterns argument is rubbish because once you have a pattern you don’t need to destroy 5 aircraft to get 5 patterns – lets face it a lot of recovered aircraft are destroyed to get rid of a duplicate identity when they could be handed over to museums once a project is finished (I know this happens a lot but not enough).

This would not change the current situation that much as most aircraft rebuilt now, certainly WW11 machines are new build. I just want to see more historic airframes being rebuilt/conserved/restored and going to historic museums than into smelters. There could even be Tax incentives to companies who donate their historic remanets to a Museum and incentives to even restore them for the Museum.

I am really sick of the bulldust “Provenance” argument put up by self serving interests in the industry over the identity of an aircraft. Let’s face it I just went to Duxford and saw Leg ends, and a great air show it was too. There were all these “WW11” fighters there – fantastic – such a wonderful sight but I would be really surprised how much of each Spit airframe for example was “original” and for reasons stated above I am pleased they aren’t. But They all have an identity or provenance based upon a donor airframe which can be as small as a data plate or can consume major parts of a static airframe which is then often scrapped rather than being used in a static rebuild just so it doesn’t confuse the title/provenance of someone’s flying investment – pure vandalism of a historic artefact. Future generations will cringe at this travesty. We can have both so easily just tidy up the regulations to allow for title allocation and allow for incentives to preserve donor aircraft in museums – You know it makes sense – let’s do it.

Now let the boiling oil flow !!!!!!!

Kindest regards
John Parker

A very good lecture … much appreciated … now I undersrtand better what I saw going on at NASM’s Paul E. Garber storage and restoration facility (in Silver Hills, Maryland) when I watched the restoration of a Japanese submarine launched floatplane (this was in 1995). NASM people explained to me that wherever possible they wanted to restore by repairing and reusing original parts (down to the nuts and bolts level) rather than to rebuild a part. Their restoration efforts are costly, slow and painstaking but look at the finished products (the one and same floatplane, Enola Gay, the AR234, etc.)

Hi Don,
As ever, it’s quite simple, really 😀 A museum’s job is to preserve, demonstrate, educate and entertain. We can argue about these, but preservation [b]must[/b] always be the first consideration, if not always the pre-eminent one.

So a user may do as they wish with the grandfather’s axe, or an aircraft. Once passed to a museum, their job is never, ever, to ‘use’ the artefact. They may choose to return it to an earlier state than the one received in – getting grandfather’s handle and head back for instance. Sometimes the later history is as important as the early history, so as later stage, or a compromise might be chosen – for instance the SS Great Britain ship, which has later features of its long, and historic service retained, rather than being returned to its original state.

So a museum must never, ever, change the artefact, unless they have to, and if they do, they must document any ‘post use’ changes; these are usually to stop degeneration, or to show the item complete, such as adding missing bits to a painting. Hence this is often called ‘conservation’ rather than ‘rebuilding’.

Of course, there are the other museum functions to consider. If a museum believes they have a mandate to either entertain or demonstrate (all museums with any artefact on show are doing this) then they accept some risk of damage or degeneration in the artefact, detracting from their primary task of preservation. In a sense, a ‘perfect’ museum will have all artefacts in safe, controlled storage. This ‘perfect museum’ of course does not exist! And artifacts un-demonstrated and un-shown are seen as of little use to society. This is where demonstration or entertainment come in, and the comprimise is required.

Some museums believe they have a greater mandate to demonstrate or entertain with their artefacts, and will then assess the risk versus benefits. A great example of this is the Shuttleworth Collection, who demonstrate the aircraft in flight, as they believe (and their founder’s mandate states) that demonstration is a primary task. Therefore it is worth some risk. They minimise that risk by their flying policy, but it’s there, and parts are consumed by this activity – a greater loss than if they were in store or only on static display. As ever, it’s a question of sensible compromise between demands.

However, they are not ‘users’ in the sense that they do not operate their aircraft for the purpose designed; therefore changes made are away from the originality of the object.

In this case, financial value is irrelevant – the item really is ‘priceless’ and the value is about its originality or authenticity. A private buyer is going to be more interested in the looks and completeness, maybe the possible operation of the item, than a museum. The values are different. A museum will pay more for an original item than for a pretty one.

Finally, there is always a difference between an original artefact and a restoration or a rebuild, however careful or faithful the modern workers are. A good example might be erratic rivet lines in an aircraft (a Spitfire, for instance) built during the war. Those tell a historian something about production methods, time pressures and competence of the aircraft company’s staff. A modern rebuild’s line of (non-magnesium) rivets shows none of these factors, and they have been ‘lost’ to the historical record, though that new work may allow the aircraft to fly.

Oh dear! It was meant to be one paragraph, and it’s a lecture! Sorry. 😉

For the discussion above, a ‘museum’ is regarded as a member of the International Association of Transport and Communications Museums (IATM).