What constitues a "preserved" historic aircraft?

Yes, you’re right, but you are thinking short term.

For the sake of argument, lets suggest that for whatever reason, we wake up on Monday morning, and the flying of all warbirds has been prohibited across the world.

What happens to the value – both in terms of monetary AND historic value.

For a researcher, which is now all they are useful for, the unrestored aircraft is king. A pampered restored aircraft, with leather seats and fluffy dice comes right at the bottom of the pile.

There have been so many restored aircraft as a result of a surplus of aircraft over and above that required for museum use. What happens to them when they can no longer fly (for whatever reason)? There is still a surplus…

Look at the number of Hunters, JP’s and similar that have entered preservation but are now starting to dwindle as it is no longer worth maintaining them in flightworthy condition, or indeed restoring them.

Hey, I’m being devils advocate here. I sit on both sides of the fence, but it is worth considering!

Bruce

IMHO, many more than currently reside in museums…..

Tom

Out of interest how many aircraft owe their current existence to the fact that they were restored by private owners who wanted something they could fly?

If you want to ! – the fact is just that – how you interpret it is entirely personal.

If you are looking for a ‘preserved’ and near time capsule warbird, I would suggest the London Imperial war Museum’s Spitfire 1a R6915 which is a Battle Of Britain veteran with three ‘kills’ with 609 Squadron then served with 602 Squadron, 61 OTU, 57 OTU and brief naval service in 1944 before being stored and joining the I.W.M.’s collection in 1946. It still carries it’s 1943 colour scheme. I remember seeing it hanging up in the I.W.M. over twenty years ago and a recent issue of Flypast shows it is still largely untouched, probably due to being hung from the roof, while it is wonderful to see ever increasing airworthy Spitfire’s this one should stay as is without being allowed to deterioate

That was the one I was thikning of but couldn’t remember the details. If you look closely you can even see the remains of fabric patches still on the leading edges of the wings over the gun ports.

Give up now then shall we????

The numbers of aircraft lost within the flying fraternity far exceeds aircraft lost in museum fires.

I think that strictly speaking, any aircraft that has survived past its original intended use can be described as preserved. There are however different levels of preservation.

In years to come, the most valid aircraft for researchers will be those that have been removed from service, and placed directly into the care of museums, where they have been correctly maintained, with a minimum of replacement or addition.

Perhaps the least valid will be those that have, in times past, been restored to flight with according loss of original fabric. This loss could be in terms of metal, parts, engine propeller etc. They will also have been open to the interpretation of the restorer.

There could be many levels in between. Replica or reproduction aircraft could never be used for research purposes in the same way; they would only be representative of a particular type.

Bruce

If you are looking for a ‘preserved’ and near time capsule warbird, I would suggest the London Imperial war Museum’s Spitfire 1a R6915 which is a Battle Of Britain veteran with three ‘kills’ with 609 Squadron then served with 602 Squadron, 61 OTU, 57 OTU and brief naval service in 1944 before being stored and joining the I.W.M.’s collection in 1946. It still carries it’s 1943 colour scheme. I remember seeing it hanging up in the I.W.M. over twenty years ago and a recent issue of Flypast shows it is still largely untouched, probably due to being hung from the roof, while it is wonderful to see ever increasing airworthy Spitfire’s this one should stay as is without being allowed to deterioate

I accept we have lost some aircraft to fire over the last few years but on the whole the losses are less than from within the airworthy catagory.

The museum/hangar fire incidents are fewer but the ‘total loss’ count is probably significantly higher than the number totally lost in flying incidents.

I am also not suggesting we should ground all the flyers or pull things out of meseums and try to fly them. The balance is probably about right as it is.

Agreed (although a good number have been liberated from museums).

Mark V
The point I was making was that for preserved aircraft, all possible effort should be made to seperate the airframe from risks. I accept we have lost some aircraft to fire over the last few years but on the whole the losses are less than from within the airworthy catagory.
I am also not suggesting we should ground all the flyers or pull things out of meseums and try to fly them. The balance is probably about right as it is.

Richard

For an aircraft to be considered ‘preserved’ it it must be in a storage condition that protects it from any damaging influences, ie humidity,sun light,fire,vermin,insects and vandalism. So that in 50 or 100 years time it will be substantially the same as it is now.
Any aircraft that is flown is not in this catagory as for one it is at risk of accidental destruction due to crash/fire.

I think that is a somehat ‘hard-line’ view. In stating that you imply that a static stored aircraft is somehow protected from destruction by virtue of it not being flown. So how do you protect a ‘preserved’ aircraft from fire? Beyond reasonable precautions you cannot (and there is a very long list of museum ‘preserved’ airframes destroyed in fires in recent decades).

For an aircraft to be considered ‘preserved’ it it must be in a storage condition that protects it from any damaging influences, ie humidity,sun light,fire,vermin,insects and vandalism. So that in 50 or 100 years time it will be substantially the same as it is now.
Any aircraft that is flown is not in this catagory as for one it is at risk of accidental destruction due to crash/fire.

Richard

Its a difficult one but let me see if i can explain how i see it without confusing anybody including myself.
For me i would term a preserved aircraft as one that has been maintained in a stable condition, It may have been restored to get it to its current condition but there after i has been kept in that order, It must represent as close as possible to how the aircraft would have been in service and where possible contain as much of the original airframe as is available. A airframe is not being preserved if its condition is not kept stable and its detorating or rotting.

Quiet often a museum airframe maybe more original than a flightworthy one but both are preserved, The difference being the flying one is lightly to be a representation of the type where its not always feasable to use all the original airframe, But it still is being preserved in that condition.

Putting it another way over the years buildings like the Tower of London have been repaired and had restoration done to them but they are still being preserved, I don’t see Aircraft as much different.

To me, a preserved aircraft is not about what condition it’s in, or indeed was its previous history is, but what its future holds. If it’s in a museum, with the intention of maintaining it in its original state and not letting it decay, its preserved. If it has been restored to a condition that it was once in e.g. factory fresh, then its still preserved. If its airworthy, its still a working aircraft and is not preserved. If its derelict, or left to rot with no intention of restoring it, its not preserved. My only conflict with the term is what if it is being used as a restaurant or similar purpose?

Andy

‘Preserved’ is exactly what the word says – ‘PRE SERVED’. I take it to mean any aircraft that has previously seen operational service and has not been scrapped after retirement. Regardless of how well an airframe may be looked after, it is still technically ‘preseved’.

When considering this question from a museum context another word comes into the equation – conservation.

This in reality is what separates many of the national museums from the large volunteer collections. In many respects this relates to the storage conditions and level of documentation relating to the whole process.

In my opinion the FAA Corsair has been ‘conserved’ and in doing so the original paint schemes etc have been retained [preserved?]

With specific reference to the Corsair would opinion of it being preserved, not restored, have been different BEFORE the more recent layers of paint were stripped off??

Roger Smith.

Are we talking here only about the actual ‘fabric’ (excuse the pun) of an airframe?

In a faithful replica, such as the Me262 replicas, a lot of design, manufacturing and operating knowledge is preserved, or rediscovered if you prefer (replacement engines excepted of course).

Ironically this knowledge, while it can possibly be rediscovered, may not be ‘preserved’ in the most original of originals.

Of course this knowledge is also preserved, without really thinking, whenever historic aircraft are flown.

me109 duxford

LL that is a good example. I thought about the corsair that was recently written about.