Restoration enquiry

Snoopy – so in the case of a Tiger Moth then where you have no data plate -just a log book you couldnt clone it ??
I think its far easier than people think for two people to effectively claim ownership of a machine .

Yes, dead easy, it’s called a Flying Group….:D

‘A non problem for all the people that matter’

Do we now have an upper echelon of people are in some way more important than the average person who is interested in what a machine is ??

There are restorers who are very much interested in what a machine consists of . Indeed a long chat with one over the weekend was on the percentage of original material to be incorporated in a ‘missing’ U.K type . There are different ways to restore a machine -you can throw all skinning away and go for fresh or retain existing skins that can be made airworthy with further expense . The notion that there is one level of restoration and everything has to be done to that is nonsense.

You are, of course, choosing to misunderstand my perfectly clear meaning. Did I mention ‘upper-echelons’…? The people who matter are blindingly obvious, first and formost being the CAA. Does ‘..in some way more important’ include (Dare I mention it..) actually putting-up the money…? :rolleyes: Well, we’d all be ******** without them. Did I ever say ‘restorers who are (not) very much interested in what a machine consists of’. Of course they are, and they use every original bit they can – but it doesn’t mean they have fetish for judgmentally labelling every project. I happen to think it’s pretty pointless and rather corrosive. I look for the positives. Furthermore, no one has suggested there is ‘one level’ of restoration. Only insofar as it must be safe – and as accurate as practicable. I said in an earlier post, there is a wide spectrum. Most people messing with a/c seem to be pretty relaxed about this, it’s the ‘labellers’ who are more animated……:). I’m all for being a purist, it’s simply that airworthy a/c are not, as I’ve said before, preserved in aspic.

I’ll leave it to others to judge whether there is some comparison in the following:

I’ve just completed the restoration of a vintage sailing boat. I’ve removed about 70% of the original build for reasons dealing with improved technical performance and plain ‘wear and tear’.

Any attempt to source original replacement parts would be pointless – there aren’t any. All the new components are of recent fabrication /manufacture. The result is a vessel that has modern navigational equipment, fireproof interior linings, necessary but modest changes to the engine and far more efficient, waterproof ventilation. New 12vDc and 240vAc internal and external wiring plus new replacement standing and running rigging completed the job.

What I started with, was a vessel that looked like its well known description and class but, showed its years according to those changes listed above plus a few others. What I have finished with, is that same description and class but, with changes that make it fit for another 30 years service.

Anyone from the past, familiar with these craft and looking over this boat would instantly agree that it was, what it said on the tin !

Apart from the fact that this is a boat and we’re discussing aeroplanes, I do not see a lot of difference in the methodology. What I have finshed up with is still what it was umpteen years ago.

John Green

😀

Then I think it should be:

“Stalin would ban aerojumbles…..”

I was going to change my signature anyway, as the joke has worn a little thin……………. thin but robust!

Don’t get me started on Stalin and aerojumbles….

As my kids would say: “Random!”

You are half right, most of the comments posted on the internet would never leave the lips in conversation (should the chance occur where joe blogs engages with tycoon type) but they think them, and mutter amongst themselves at aerojumbles, (Stalin would have banned aerojumbles!)

OK, back to semantics.

Perhaps my choice of the words ‘what right[?]’ was unwise. Of course, they have a ‘right’.

Substitute: “Whilst those with a negative or positive viewpoint on the subject under debate have a right to express those views then, insofar as any of those views might be to the detraction of a subject aeroplane or genre of restorations/recreations, then those expressing such views should understand that whilst they have a right to those views they are of no consequence or importance to the restorers/operators. They should also accept that there is an alternative view, just as those with that alternative view should accept that others may not agree”…..!!!!!! :D:p;):diablo::):eek:

In simpler terms, and for sake of absolute clarity (I hope!), I was saying that I didn’t think anyone had a ‘right’ to come along and question/challenge/critcise those who have expended huge sums of their own effort and money to create something we all enjoy and to nit-pick over whether it is a re-creation or whatever, or whether or not it should be “allowed” (Ha!) or howling that it is a “a data plate rebuild” (To quote Knifedge..:”Why didn’t they make Spitfires out of the same metal they used on the data plates, as they seem to have survived better than the rest of the A/C....”) and to make an ‘issue’ by somehow presenting a case that the restorer(s) has/have mis-reprersented and cheated warbird lovers by what they have created when nothing of the sort is the case!!

But we keep coming back to the same point, dont we?

There is no point in the debate any more. As Bruce says…another thread on this subject will be along in a while!

What right or interest does a non-involved third party have to express their negative views?

the same right as they may/or not have to express their positive views?

Can it only be writers that can comment on books, or musicians to comment on music?

Lets face it, if you don’t want publicity, don’t publish!

Yes Andy, absolutely.

It almost seems to be a move to encompass all historic aircraft as de facto artefacts; to preserve them in as original (i.e. with largely original manufacture parts) condition as possible.

Fact is that there are many, many museums in the UK, and around the world, who preserve aircraft as historical artefacts. Many of them are much as they left service, with a few pieces of equipment missing. There is however, a finite number of aircraft of any one type that can be preserved (and indeed should be), and there should be no restriction on what happens to those that are left. It is only up to the individual what they do with their property.

Aircraft in flying condition, or those under rebuild are not historical artefacts; they are too open to interpretation by the restorer. It really doesnt matter what their origins are; we should be particularly grateful that we can see flying examples of early Spitfires, Hurricanes, P36, P40 and so on. In time, they may make the transaction to ‘artefact’, but their history will largely be in their recent operation, as representative of a breed.

I do feel the FW190’s and Me262’s are slightly different, as in both cases, they do differ significantly from the original design in some respects. That isnt to take anything away from the builders.

‘A non problem for all the people that matter’

Do we now have an upper echelon of people are in some way more important than the average person who is interested in what a machine is ??

David

Snoopy is absolutely right. Its something that has been emphasised before in this thread, too.

Your interpretation of Snoopy’s words (ie an ‘upper echelon….[who] are….more important’) is a case of rather skewing Snoopy’s meaning, or at least what he was getting at, which is, like it or not, a matter of fact; ie it is not a problem for the restorers and owners who are ‘the people that matter’. (And, as he rightly points out of course – the CAA!!)

That ‘the average person who is interested’ might have a view is quite frankly inconsequential to the restorers and owners who have invested their own money and time to such projects. What right or interest does a non-involved third party have to express their negative views? However, and whilst a bunch of anoraks sitting behind a keyboard pontificating about what should be ‘allowed’ or ‘not allowed’, or what the significance of the semantics of restoration/reproduction/re-creation might be,then it matters not one iota. That said, an e-mail to me from an extremely well known and senior player in the historic aircraft restoration and operating field expressed a view to me the other day (in relation to this and other threads) that just about encapsulates all that I, and the likes of Snoopy, Bruce etc have been saying. However, he ended by adding that he felt that many of the comments that have been and are being made are “…a huge negative to the industry.”

I think thats a shame.

Reminds me very much of that series of ” restoration” programs on Discovery chanel, hosted by Mark(I’m a vet really )Evans, where he takes a vehicle (which is not actually that bad) and replaces everything with new build panels, wheels, interior trim,etc; clearly there is more skill required to straighten and rework old metal, as opposed to replacing it wholesale and it will more time consuming, with a financial cost attached.

I think you’ll find that with a lot of owners: time, skills or even a reasonably higher cost is not an issue. As several people pointed out here (repeatedly), it is often necessary to replace parts and structure in order to ensure the safe continuing operation of the aircraft. An avoided funeral beats originality any time.

Museum aircraft are, as has been pointed out, a different story.

Reminds me very much of that series of ” restoration” programs on Discovery chanel, hosted by Mark(I’m a vet really )Evans, where he takes a vehicle (which is not actually that bad) and replaces everything with new build panels, wheels, interior trim,etc; clearly there is more skill required to straighten and rework old metal, as opposed to replacing it wholesale and it will more time consuming, with a financial cost attached.

Snoopy – so in the case of a Tiger Moth then where you have no data plate -just a log book you couldnt clone it ??
I think its far easier than people think for two people to effectively claim ownership of a machine .

‘A non problem for all the people that matter’

Do we now have an upper echelon of people are in some way more important than the average person who is interested in what a machine is ??

There are restorers who are very much interested in what a machine consists of . Indeed a long chat with one over the weekend was on the percentage of original material to be incorporated in a ‘missing’ U.K type . There are different ways to restore a machine -you can throw all skinning away and go for fresh or retain existing skins that can be made airworthy with further expense . The notion that there is one level of restoration and everything has to be done to that is nonsense.

The ‘provenance’ of an aircraft isnt an issue until someone throws you a curved ball! I can think of two aircraft where some skins and other parts were discarded during the restoration process -these have gone on to third parties and suddenly they acquire a value as effectively they are that aircraft albeit replaced!

That just shouldn’t happen. Continuity is embodied within the ongoing original identity. I have more original parts of one a/c than is flying. I couldn’t ‘clone’ it. I know there have been court cases with classic cars, but in aviation, it’s effectively impossible. Of course, if someone wants to use those parts on another identity, they can, if they are usable. None of that is confusing. 🙂

As with anything in life – Caveat Emptor are your watchwords.

If you buy an aircraft, and spend a lot of money doing so, the onus is on you to make sure what you are buying matches what you are told it is.

Not all aircraft are as well documented as P9374, but the information is certainly out there.

I used to think that perhaps there was a problem, but it really isnt so.

109 posts, and back just where we started.

Whoever would have thought it 😉

Are Those Tins Of Beans Lined Up..?

Andy is right again. Very circular….! I’m not really concerned with static museum a/c. They can be anything, the full panoply and everything in between. There are NO rules, none, zip, zilch. Would I lose any sleep over it? Absolutely not. I walked around Cosford recently, and this BS didn’t even cross my mind. I looked, I accepted and was pleased that it was there to be enjoyed. If it makes the anoraks feel better to play with an infinite number of terms for their pocket notebooks, – fine. I’m sure all their tins of baked beans are lined-up in the larder and they never step on the cracks in the pavement either. 🙂
For airworthy a/c there are rules. Real, not imagined.
I’ve just had some items made for a project. They are a 1930’s design. Same firm. Same owner. Same tools, same materials. Fantastic. Are they real..? Yes. Are they fake..? No. Are they ‘reproductions’…? Of course not. Just late production – just ‘produced’. Original, no, – real, very much so.
The issue seems to be that some people feel they are being cheated or decieved. For that one has to have suffered a loss, – which is a patently silly idea. Even if excessive claims are made – who has been cheated? Nada. What is all this tosh about ‘transparency’ too…???? Politicians may owe the public ‘transparency’ with their expenses etc, but why would the owner of an a/c ‘owe’ ‘transparency’ to someone sitting at home behind a PC..? It really doesn’t get any dafter than this, lol…!
Andy is right, this is a non-problem, certainly for all the people that matter….:)

The ‘provenance’ of an aircraft isnt an issue until someone throws you a curved ball! I can think of two aircraft where some skins and other parts were discarded during the restoration process -these have gone on to third parties and suddenly they acquire a value as effectively they are that aircraft albeit replaced!