Rebuild or Replica??

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

The Yaks? I tend to think with the number of American engines around as opposed to Russian ones…

.. and if you rebuilt a Russian engine some do gooder would come along and tell you its not a proper engine cos its rebuilt… 😉

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

You can just imagine the airshow commentator….

‘this Spitfire has been owned and flown by Rolls Royce since 1947, it suffered a mishap in the early 1990s, but was rebuilt and is, today, one of the british airshow scenes longest serving Spitfires’

‘a mishap’.

Could have been a wheels up landing.

As I’ve said before, I love watching and listening to old aircraft, and will delight in watching RM689 in the air again be it original or not, but I think it should be made clear to those that wish to know, that it is a fully rebuilt aircraft with a new airframe.

As for the Replica Yak3s, having an Allison engine in them is as bad as a Fokker DR1 replica having a radial engine instead of a rotary.
A Sea Fury is just not the same when it’s not Centuraus powered. So the same must be true of the Yaks, and yes, I know there aren’t any working examples of russian WW2 engines.

The Grumman F3Fs are a fantastic piece of work, but how many people at Legends 2001 realise that these were 1990s biplanes and not original 1930s biplanes.
The ‘WOW, isn’t it amazing that something so old looks in such good condition’ factor is very misplaced when used on these aeroplanes.

And yes, I did enjoy seeing them fly. But I appreciated them for what they were, not for what they were pretending to be.

Another thought…
How many Grumman Avengers throughout the world are painted to represent George Bush’s aircraft? How many people think they have just seen the ACTUAL aeroplane the George Bush flew operationally?

I’m not argueing that the aircraft shouldn’t be built/rebuilt/painted in whatever scheme. I’m saying that we should not pretend they are something that they’re not.

Willow

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

Just to add to the previous post,I wasn’t trying to knock the efforts of the people building the TD248 fuselage.I’ve only seen pics of it,but it looks fantastic.I was simply saying that you can’t compare it to the complete aircraft at Duxford.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-01-03 AT 00:46 AM (GMT)]I’d agree that the Spit COULD be flown in memory of the chap who was killed in her,but in reality I think it would be a difficult thing to do.You can’t really anounce the machine at an airshow and say that it’s flying as a memorial to a chap who was killed in it a few years earlier.
As for the question about RM689 having a long association with Rolls Royce,I think this is made void by the fact that nothing of the original 1947 machine will be flying as part of the ‘new’ RM689,so why attach a history to it that the new metal doesn’t have?IMHO,if you want something that has a true historical link to it,it would be better to have something like RN201,which has a fair proportion of original material and history to her,than a new machine that assumes the identity of one that has been lost in a fatal accident.
Someone made the point that a Mustang rebuilt from a fatal wreck was flown in France/UK without anybody saying anything.To my mind,this is because the fact that the aircraft was rebuilt has erased the memory of it ever crashing and of a life ever being lost.It simply doesn’t occur to the average airshow goer or even the majority of enthusiasts that an aircraft has had a previous accident,fatal or otherwise.When you look at a gleaming warbird,your first thought isn’t “When did this one crash?”.
I don’t really care whether an aircraft is a replica or an original or whatever.I don’t mind a Spit being built around a data plate,so long as it doesn’t have any ‘nasties’ associated with it.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

Sorry, guys, but I think we’re missing the essential point here. It seems many of us will take the aircraft by whatever means so long as it flies. For me, the real point is that these aircraft are a tribute, a memorial to those who designed, built, maintained, flew, fought and died in them. If, in sixty years time, the only airworthy Spitfire/Mustang/Lancaster etc., etc., is a replica, I would much rather that be the case than have future generations miss out on the joy of seeing them at all.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

I’m sure RM689 is very valuable to Rolls Royce, as it is very much part of the history of the company having been operated by them since 1949, whereas RN201 and the XIX don’t have the same historic attachment to the operator. With regard to the loss of life involved in the accident, as tragic as this was the aircraft could serve as a fitting memorial to the pilot. There are a number of Mustang rebuilds out there which have claimed pilots lives in the past, indeed one was based in France for a while and displayed at Leg ends however nobody raised the issue over that so why should the Spit be any different?

As for the Flixton ‘TD248’ the majority of the original skins have been used to recreate a Spitfire fuselage for a museum which at todays prices could not hope to obtain an original airframe and commemorate wartime Spitfire operations in Norfolk, had these skins not been saved and passed on for preservation they would have been destroyed.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

I get the feeling this discussion could go in any number of directions,but to my mind the most important is the question of human life.I don’t mean to get too ‘heavy’,but to my mind RM689 should NOT be rebuilt.It was destroyed in a fatal accident and that’s all there is to it.RR already have a Griffon Spit almsot identical to RM689,so why do they want to rebuild a fatal wreck?Is it worth erasing the chap’s memory for the sake of yet another Spit??What about buying HAC’s RN201?It’s ready to fly away and nobody got killed in it.RR’s decision makes no sense to my mind.
Just to be a pedantic sod,the TD248 fuselage is not done to original specs.It has wooden bits here,plastic there etc etc,with the cowlings from the original,so it doesn’t compare to the TD248 which flies at Duxford.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

I think pointless to argue over percentages to wether its a replica or rebuild.
For any of you that have watched ‘Only fools and Horses’ its like Triggers broom, its the same one he’s had for the last ten years,its had three new handles and four new heads but its still the same broom!!
I for one, think that the quality of the restoration counts for a lot Take for example the standard of workmanship going into the Beaufighter,Gladiator or P51C at the Fighter Collection every cockpit detail is taken into account, yet some would say ‘the’re only rebuild bitzers’ because most of the parts are manufactured from scratch.

I will be quite happy to watch any of the above when they fly without debating/winging/moaning on how much is original.

Two years ago at Flying Legends, Duxford had the rare sight of 2 Grumman f3f,replicas or rebuilds they may have been, but even so it was exellent to see them flying with the wildcat, hellcat etc;
I had the oppotunity to take some photos of the cockpit etc,and while I took them a member of the public said to me “Not interested they are only bl**dy replicas”
You just can’t please some people!!!

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

Well for me the whole thing we do in life is make things look like they should and make things look good. If it looks good and it sounds good then thats fair enough to me. I would however say that there has to be a certain percentage of the “genuine” airframe in the rebuild to qualify. Perhaps some warbird restorers could lets us know if there are any figures. But I guess it is the genuine article if it has any of the original airframe in it.

Merlin

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

> If it only takes a makers plate for a Spit to be a Spit, and everything can be made, then for Gods sake somebody please find or make some makers plates of more, of Typhoons and Tempests, of Stirlings and Wimpys, of all the others.

The irony of all this is that the makers plate would probably be the cheapest and easiest item to manufacture on the aircraft but it´s the last item that is deemed unfit for flight.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

When I go to Duxford for a show, I see ‘original’ aircraft in the museum part of it. I then step outside and see aircraft overhead. If I want to see something 100% original, then its not going to be up in the air. Or not up in the air for very long. If I want to see a Spitfire in the air, then I can. If I want to see a Spitfire on the ground, then I can. If I want to see a survivor, then I can. Lets look at it slightly sideways…..

The BF109E at Duxford. The straboard mainplane is in original paint, with damage and graffiti. The rest is restored. I am more fascinated by that airframe than any pther there, as a mix of what was, what is, and what it would have been. Now, if that were to fly, it would add the HOW it was, is etc.

If it only takes a makers plate for a Spit to be a Spit, and everything can be made, then for Gods sake somebody please find or make some makers plates of more, of Typhoons and Tempests, of Stirlings and Wimpys, of all the others. I WANT TO SEE FLYERS (as were). And before the show, i’ll look at the ‘originals’. I love them both.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

Sadsack, exactly what I said in my first post : “the question is: Do we want to see it fly or do we want to see it in original condition in a museum?”

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

> Spitfire XVI TD248 flies from Duxford in a silver and red colour scheme after it’s rebuild by Historic Flying and very nice it is too.
You would consider it original, as it has simply been taken off a gate and repaired so it can fly (that’s probably a great injustice to the craftsmanship of the people at Historic Flying).

Well, I discussed two different issues in my post, originality and the difference between rebuild/reconstruction/new build, and I was afraid that there might be a misunderstanding.
As I understand it, most rebuilds/reconstructions involve a lot of work. Disassembly of the airframe, checks and checks of the ckecks, rectifying what needs to be, anti corrosion treatment, reassembly and so on. All the different components not to be forgotten.
I didn´t imply that a rebuild of an airframe, reusing a large proportion of the original details would be simpler or less of an achievement. On the contrary, I would think that it´s more time consuming and expensive to do.

> The Norfolk and Suffolk museum at Flixton has, in its collection, a Spitfire fuselage. It is labelled as TD248 and it is all the original fuselage skins taken from the aeroplane during its restoration. It forms a complete fuselage.
So, who has the original, Flixton or Duxford?

Flixton has the 100% (?) original skins but Duxford has TD248 totally rebuilt to modern airwortines requirements and to a high degree of originality.

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

The skill and dedication of the people responsible for carrying out these projects should be applauded. So long as their work is not misrepresented to either the general public or a potential buyer then I see no problem. Most restoration groups will try to use original construction techniques where possible, parts can be remanufactured and engines overhauled and replaced, as they were when in operational service. If the aircraft is being restored to fly then by necessity some changes may have to be made to suit current regulation, although this is best kept to the minimum.
Some recent projects highlight both the good and the bad. A good example being Me-109G ‘Black 6’ well researched and done by a dedicated and caring team, for the love of it. The team that produced the Grumman Biplanes several years also deserve praise. Also good are the ‘late production’ Me262, Fw190 and Yak-3/9 these aircraft fill a desire to recreate a lost or missing part of history and for that reason alone they are good. The continued rebuilding of Spitfire, Hurricane and the more common USA fighters is down to a financial motivation which is not so good. Most of would agree that the monetary value of an unrestored Mk1 Spitfire with a genuine WW2 history (ie the one hanging in the IWM Lambeth) is far greater than yet another MkXIV rebuilt to fly.
On a different note WW1 aircraft should be treat with greater respect, I would doubt that any of the restored examples can be considered original as it is simply not possible to reuse their fabric covering. The Brussels air museum has several WW1 types in an unrestored state and they have an appeal all of there own. More ‘late production’ projects should be encouraged who would not like to see a Gloster Grebe or AW Whittly added to the collection at Hendon.

DOUGHNUT

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

My opinion…

A Spitfire 14 with full wepaons load flys overhead, and I hear theres an air display a few miles away. Do I check the manuals to make sure its authentic or do I get my ass to the show to watch it fly?

Um…

I guess the purists can allways stay at home if they dont like it, and watch their black n white footage.

Spitfire AB910 used, was it 2 or three airframes to restore it -what became of them?

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

Whether the Me262 is a newbuild or a rebuild after repair does not detract from the point that it is most definately a replica.

A further example..

Spitfire XVI TD248 flies from Duxford in a silver and red colour scheme after it’s rebuild by Historic Flying and very nice it is too.
You would consider it original, as it has simply been taken off a gate and repaired so it can fly (that’s probably a great injustice to the craftsmanship of the people at Historic Flying).

HOWEVER…..

The Norfolk and Suffolk museum at Flixton has, in its collection, a Spitfire fuselage. It is labelled as TD248 and it is all the original fuselage skins taken from the aeroplane during its restoration. It forms a complete fuselage.
So, who has the original, Flixton or Duxford?

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

This discussion pops up every now and then. I have taken part in a few but neither of them have reached a conclusion.

I think that the originality question can be viewed this way:

Total originality is gone when the aircraft is put through maintenance the first time but “originality for all practical purposes” is maintained if the aircraft is maintained and repaired according to manufacturers instructions.

This would mean that a fighter used in WWII, maintained and repaired for serviceability, is to be considered original. I think no-one will argue otherwise.

When the fighter transfers into a warbird, if the operator continues its maintenance and repairs according to the same specifications, then it´s still in original condition.
The only issue, so far, would be modern airwothines requirements dictating the substitution of modern details for inadequate original details.
I think that a considerable proportion of the systems have been modified to comply with modern airwothines requirements so, the question is: Do we want to see it fly or do we want to see it in original condition in a museum?

If the mentioned maintenance and repairs requirements lead to major work being done, then we are into the rebuild/reconstruction/new build question.

To be considered a rebuild, I think that a substantial proportion of the airframe would need to be re-used in the process – say 75% or more. This would mean that only airframes without major damage can be candidates for a rebuild.

I would consider the work carried out on an airframe after a major accident, or if the project otherwise is in poor condition, to be a reconstruction – less than say 25% re-useable but at least the data plate.

Then there´s the big grey zone between 75% and 25%. I´m not discussing originality here but the line between a rebuild and a reconstruction. A simple way to decide is the “more than 50% or less than 50%”.
How do we establish the percentage? By weight or by number of items? If it´s the latter then any re-riveted airframe would be a reconstruction ……

New build then, well, we have seen examples of new build aircraft with fresh serial numbers and the rest of the package so, there´s a thin line between a reconstruction and a new build, the thickness of an original data plate.

Finally the sad story about the Me 262 accident, when repairs are finished and it takes to the skies again, is it a new build or a rebuild?

Christer

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

I think “rebuild” is a bit of a stretch as their wasn’t much left of the airframe

That Woodford airshow was my first experience of an airshow crash, and unfortunately not my last

It seems that if they can get the original aircraft plates then it is considered a rebuild, even if they are rebuilding 99% of the aircraft

Maybe it should be considered to be a new build

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

I asked myself the very same question a month or so ago.
Either Flypast or Aeroplane had an article about a P40 that had been “restored” in the States to better than new condition.
They seemed very proud of everything they had replaced to achieve perfection.
It sounded like there were only a couple of fuselage frames that weren’t brand new.

If there’s too many bits left over we could end up with the same problem they have in the classic car world. For example, there are two Jaguar D-types with the same chassis number. It (they?) was originally crashed in the 50’s and fitted with a new front subframe, which carries the chassis number. 30 years later, the original subframe was found, straightened out, and fitted with a new back end.
Which is the original?

Ken

RE: Rebuild or Replica??

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-01-03 AT 11:22 AM (GMT)]This thread has, I think, been raised before, and very controversial it was as well.. IMHO there are “the purists” that would say that building an aircraft around the maker’s plate, in no way constitutes an original aircraft, however is there any aircraft that is 100% original? For instance if I found a nice shiny new spitfire encased in grease in a box that has a date stamp of 1940 on it you may say that it is original, however the moment I take it out and put new spark plugs in it and change the oil its not original any more….or is it? Everyone has there own rules. To me aircraft like the BBMF’s Mk II spitfire is “original” however seeing that it was shot down and crash-landed they must have changed some bits on it. I think that some sort of percentage has to come into play to determine if YOU (used in the general term) want to call an aircraft original or not. Now the magic question is what percentage? Don’t ask me cause I don’t know, maybe 25 or 50?, if indeed you want to call it original at all, having said all that I am just thankful that there are people with enough time and money to get / keep these aircraft in the air for us all to enjoy

Non-purist aircraft-loving Dezz 🙂

oh Damien Is it “looks like a duck – flys like a duck” 😀 😀 😀 😀 }>