To restore or not to restore (part IIMXLMCD)

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95547

And how about this restoration project to fly?
Cees

My over-simplified view: after some 30 years of intense interest in WW1 and WW2 aircraft, I have never known the museums to be so healthy, the magazines so full of the latest news, the sky so full of previously-extinct types and the events calenders so busy for the enthusiast.

A very good point.

The current situation isn’t perfect, but is more diverse, active and supported than vintage aviation has ever been before.

My over-simplified view: after some 30 years of intense interest in WW1 and WW2 aircraft, I have never known the museums to be so healthy, the magazines so full of the latest news, the sky so full of previously-extinct types and the events calenders so busy for the enthusiast.

Magic times.

While I agree with most of Malcolm’s points…

Any competent person can create a copy of something – and that is what most “restored” aircraft are.

I think that’s a bit of an extreme position, from my own firsthand experience. There are numerous highly original restorations and conservations (most W.W.II era multi-engine types are structurally very original) as well as dataplate-bearing-new-builds, and sadly it’s as fair to say (for the sake of balance) that many museums don’t achieve the standards of protection of artefacts or documentation as they should.

Most museums achieving accreditation have at least a standard to aim for, although, like Malcolm’s comments above, lifting the lid does show that many of them fail in many areas to some degree, let’s say a 70% job where 100% is expected. However the audit and sanction on museum performance isn’t tough enough.

On the other hand, for aviation restoration, particularly private restorations, there are (AFAIK) no agreed standards – so some do wonderful work, and some do wonderful work that’s not particularly accurate or appropriate, and there’s others.

Regards,

Any competent person can create a copy of something – and that is what most “restored” aircraft are. New parts and new paint all tied to the original by tenuous links like a data plate or a few token original parts.

But creating copies is not the goal of historians nor of legitimate museums – the goal is understanding the original and that can only be done through studying original items.

Conservation is about preserving what we have of an artefact in a stable condition not recreating it using modern made parts which are combined with the original bits in a seamless whole. Conserved items therefore are the preferred artefacts for serious researchers to study. Copies i.e. – that is repaired or restored items bought back to the appearance of their original state are not preferred by researchers for obvious reasons except to offer a broad overview.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the last type of object – it provides a quickly understood artefact for the public and those with amateur interests. And if they are done well provide suitable incentives for those with the curiousity to go further and become formally qualified researchers and authors in whatever field the artefacts represent.

The two states can exist side by side without difficulty or confusion and they mutually complement each other. There is and should be no difficulty with that unless adherents of either side try to start silly turf wars.

What would be their condition at the end of this century. Are we being selfish or do we have to preserve/restore for the future?
Cees

A properly conserved artefact will be stabilised and preserved and should degrade at the same rate as a properly restored one, all other things being equal.

This is one of the the basic requirements of museum work – recognising that halting decay completely is impossible (something about entropy and exploding suns, I think) the baseline objective should be to slow that decay as far as possible. Then the objective is to achieve a balance between intervention approaches (replacing stuff) or neutral (protecting stuff as it is).

Bear in mind that most W.W.II eara ex-military aircraft have dissimilar metals and materials in contact, causing decay (chemical and electrical) and a baseline item is that ‘eventually’ the zinc chromate and etch primers should eat right through the metal – in about 2,000 years or something.

Just because it looks nice and new with new paint does not mean it will last longer – in fact there are a number of restorations that have actually degraded at a greater rate than if they had just been left alone, and some of those have had to be re-restored again…

There are also quite a lot of aspects of a W.W.II aircraft construction we cannot replicate today, we can only substitute ‘equivalents’ – certain paint, asbestos protection, radioactive instrumentation, and not least certain grades of metal among other parts. Museums replacing these with modern equivalent parts should mark these as replacements so that future researchers and historians know that these are not original, but of course the replacement part has replaced the original one. Information that the original could give those researchers will therefore (by then, usually) be unavailable. Individually, these are minor issues, cumulatively they will distort future understanding of the war, and technology and human experience of the time.

For instance, when and where did the crosshead screw come into use around Britain, the USA and the Commonwealth, as well as France, Germany and Russia? Restorations done in the 1980s, say that replaced period slothead screws with available crosshead types confuse the understanding of that. The manufacturing requirements, not to mention differing skill requirements between the two would influence construction speeds, and thus an element of history of an aircraft type’s production and factory performance. Very specialised and minor, but a good symptom of how easy it is to distort the story by excess ‘restoration’.

Regards,

You always seem to pick on the Halifax example, I can’t think of a better way to display it, not only is it fascinating in its own way, but it serves visually the horrors that aircrew went through during the war.
I.

I’ve changed my view over the years on the Halifax and I agree with you. When I was last at Hendon last year with my son, I suddenly found it quite poignant, the atmosphere (Ok, or the lack thereof) in the museum helped, but I found myself seeing it as more of a memorial and less of a displayed aircraft.

In the case of the Short 184 IN MY OPINION:

Leave it as it is – seal it into an preserving atmosphere, basically a display case where temperature and humidity are controlled. In a suitable environment, the remains of this unique airframe could be kept in their current condition indefinitely.

It would probably be cheaper to commission a replica of the complete aircraft and display that next to the remains of the original . This way we get the best of both worlds – a complete example and the preservation of unique material.

Obviously this is only the case where a unique aircraft is preserved as a section or a wreck. I think Elvington’s Halifax replica would have been better if it didn’t include any of the original aircraft, but was displayed next to the fuselage section.

Forget W1048, Since she was recovered we had NA337 fully restored now and HR792 at Elvington as well as the cockpit of PN323. So the Halifax is better represented nowadays.
The Short 184 is another matter as well as the Buffalo.
What would be their condition at the end of this century. Are we being selfish or do we have to preserve/restore for the future?
Cees

The restoration was stopped by the museum management. That is from a sadly departed leading light of the appeal. There is little evidence to suggest that a full restoration would effectively result in a new airfraft. Certainly the engine restored by Medway and the turret by Wyton are original items .

Will bow to your superior knowledge – just was sure I had read that somewhere for a reputable source……. Clearly not!

Jon

I think to restore the whole airframe would definately loose originality (even if componants were successfully retored), I’m personally glad that the right desicion was made on the Halifax.

The restoration was stopped by the museum management. That is from a sadly departed leading light of the appeal. There is little evidence to suggest that a full restoration would effectively result in a new aircraft. Certainly the engine restored by Medway and the turret by Wyton are original items .

The RAFM Halifax only ended up the way it is because the restoration stopped due to lack of funds and a lack of direction .

Or the fact that a full resoration would remove virtually all original material…..

Which then begs the question would people have accepted what would ulitmately be a replica as genuine…???

Jon

Not relevant to the thread really but as G-ORDY has mentioned the Southampton I’d like to add it.

Several years ago I visited Hendon, only very briefly, accompanied by Doug, an extremely cantankerous ex-RAF engine fitter. When he saw the Southampton he said, “that’s not an aeroplane, it’s a piece of furniture!”
I agree it’s superb workmanship.

We intended to return another time for a proper visit but sadly Doug died before we got around to it.

I rather like the way in which the RAF Museum restored/conserved the hull of the Supermarine Southampton (N9899) which is displayed at Hendon and in which the new and original parts can be clearly distinguished from one another.

Much better than a waterlogged heap of wood.

I don’t have an issue with how the Halifax is displayed [I][I]if and it is a big IF, it is and will be conserved and stabilised so that any corrosion and deterioration is prevented. As long as the aircraft is in a stable condition which means no new corrosion can appear and any problem areas are dealt with appropriately then it should be fine for the long term.

On the other side of the coin though if you take an RAF F4 for instance or a Toronado. I would like to see an aircraft displayed in as flown condition with paint chips wear etc etc.

…I just wanted to restart this topic after having seen the pics of the Short 184…

Why not manufacture the missing pieces of the Short 184?

Wouldn’t it be possible to ‘align’ new-build wings, undercarriage and tail to the existing Short 184 without destroying any of the originality? The new structure could be left without its fabric covering so that it did not ‘overpower’ the original structure.

I suppose drawings may be the problem.

The issue is simply muddling conservation with restoration. They’re two different things.

A properly conserved artefact should be as stable as a properly restored one, all other things being equal.

Like restoration to static or airworthy condition, each requires a different path to a different result, correct for one, but not the other.

I could go on. 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_conservation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiques_restoration

Because of its recovered originality through a pioneering work of ‘paintwork archaeology’ the FAA Museum’s Corsair is probably one of the most important aircraft in preservation, acting as an unadulterated, full-provenanced historical document in itself.

HTH.

Thanks James,

Very interesting links.
There are some very interesting views in this topic as well, go on.:rolleyes:

Cees

The RAFM Halifax only ended up the way it is because the restoration stopped due to lack of funds and a lack of direction .

Regarding the FAAM Short 184, it’s not really in ‘original’ condition, and conserved as to how it looked in service as if it’s a wreck found in the back of a hangar etc – it only looks the way it does instead of being a complete airframe because it was bombed whilst in the IWM in 1940, so in my eyes it’s a shame they don’t rebuild the rest of it, for example using as many original parts as possible from it/other 184’s because it’s such an important aircraft, both in terms of Naval history terms, WW1 aviation and aviation as a whole – the FAAM Short 184 was the only aircraft to take part in the Battle of Jutland (at least, according to wikipedia)