Wreck Vs Restoration

Hi Lancman,

I would suggest that your car was an authentic Morris Minor, ie: a real Morris Minor (perhaps without the ‘original’ prefix) and not a replica, reproduction or whatever. All machines that remain in service require replacement parts as they get older. many aircraft in service during the war were flying with replacement wings, tails, control services and certainly engines and props. This does not take away their authenticity in any way. The longer they remain active the more replacement parts will acrue.

I didn’t think that Hast-ifax sounded right:D 😀

We also once had a Morris Minor, but we had it put down, it seemed to be the kindest thing to do at the time.

Problem is, it had a split screen, if only we knew then, what we know now:(

LOL @ ‘Hali-stings’!!! 😀 😀 😀

My preference would be for “replica” components to be used for displaying wrecks but should any component be unuseable for rebuilding purposes, then why not utilise it in the display, once ‘masters’ has been made.

Better used in this method, rather than lost forever!

As for the RAFM Halifax, I personally feel that she should be fully restored due to her rarity. I have no problem with the Hali-stings at Yeovilton but it would be nice for a geniune airframe to stand next to R5868 and MF628 and create a better idea of the aircraft that were operated by Bomber Command.

Now if only a Stirling, Whitley etc, could be found.

As for the Hurricane and Gladiator wreck displays, I have no problem with the exhibition status of either. I suppose that this is due to the fact that both still have airworthy and static sisters, although should some disastor desend on all the other Hurricanes and Gladiators, would we all be suggesting that these two ‘frames be restored?

I also have a problem with the Me109 BoB diarama on display at Duxford.

It is not as if there are that many ‘109’s still extant (compared to Spits and P51’s) and even less that have the provanance that this airframe has. To my mind this aircraft should have been fully restored and displayed standing on, rather than sitting on, its undercarriage.

The Skua display at Yeovilton doesn’t really give an impression of the aircraft and only gives the visitor an impression of the condition many wrecks are found in.
This is no bad thing but would it be better to use the components for a rebuild and then use replica or unuseable components for display, as I mentioned first?

Ultimately, I suppose that the rarity of any particular airframe will have the greatest bearing. If sufficient airframes of any type exist, then many organisations may not wish to spend valuable money ‘on yet another XXXXX’ and thus allow restoration funds could be used on something much rarer.

Just my thoughts!

I had a Morris Minor car once-it should legally have had a ‘Q’ registration plate as it was comprised of over twenty different Minors; was that an original Morris Minor, or not?

God knows how many bits of Lancasters and similar comprise PA474 these days; does that mean it’s not a Lancaster anymore?

For aircraft, I don’t think there is one hard and fast answer-each case has to be viewed individually.

Also depends what you are calling an original part!! If you find an aeroplane now, do you count everything on it as original?

Many parts may have been changed in service. Has someone tried to restore it before?

It’s like Triggers broom ‘3 new heads and 4 new handles and it’s still going strong’.

Willow

Just a quick question, (before I go back in my darkened room) At what percentage of original part content does an aircraft restoration project change from being a restoration to become a replica??;)

Re: Wreck Vs Restoration

Originally posted by Ant Harrington
In the majority of cases, I would say that a wreck should be left as it is. The Hali at Hendon, and the gladiator fuselage they have on display make you think about not only the events which lead to it’s being in that state, but also the the fates of those people who flew in the aircraft. When you see a pristine, fully restored example, it all too often loses that personal touch.

Ant, forgive me for being slightly pedantic on this, but I wouldn’t leave it as it is as that would cause deterioration over time. I’d preserve it in ‘as found’ condition instead, carrying out whatever work is necessary to ensure the aircraft’s survival for future generations to appreciate.

Other than that, your statement above sums up my views on the subject perfectly.

Surely it is a very good idea to have if possible a complete example of all the available warbirds so those who have never seen them in the “Flesh” can see what thier grandfathers/fathers flew in.
But on the other hand having “wrecks” on display can stand as a very fitting memorial to those who lost thier lies protecting what they beleive in, these items shud be preserved enough to keep them in condition they are found in.

I think they – probably – should have enough maintenance to prevent corrosion etc, but when nearly everything would be replaced just to return a museum exhibit to flight – and how many exhibits are rebuilt to flight standard? – then I feel that the best way to keep things honest is not to do more than is absolutely necessary (need I mention the 1:1 scale replica of HMS Victory sitting in the dockyard at Portsmouth?). Sometimes I feel that those fibreglass replicas have more provenance than the majority of the flying warbirds we have – at least they have 100% original ‘airframes’!
Better say it is great to see them flying but I would love to know what the percentage of the airframe started life with that particular serial number.

The Gladiator and Hurricane at Hendon work the emotion for me, but I think the restoration work on the Halifax really needs hiding since it looks so out of place (um from what I’ve seen in pictures – never actually seen it in the flesh).
The Skua at Yeovilton doesn’t work for me – it is much too open (hell, I prevented a ‘lovely’ little kiddy from kicking it to bits in front of his parents and got a “Go forth…” reply from his dad:mad: ), displayed in ‘atmospheric’ darkness, and it doesn’t look like anything more than an misshapen pile of scrap (:( sorry). Is there enough to restore anyway?
The Shorts 184, as I recall, was also quite accessible to inquisitive fingers (been to FAAM at least 5 times and everytime seem to gravitate to the Shorts 5 minutes before closing time!). I liked what they had done to the Albacore and the bits of Barracuda that were on show but, and I would love to see these types return from the (full airframe) dead, unless there are lumps of wing out there these would need to be fabricated – would they then be regarded as partial replicas? (I have nothing against replicas – despite appearances – but has it happened yet that a museum has restored a wreck by making a new major assembly, a wing set maybe, and then dismantled that completed exhibit and rebuilt it using genuine parts when they have been sourced? Just a thought.)

Where else are there wrecks on display?

Flood

I think the I.W.M,s Short 184 at Yeolviton should be restored back to her former glory as it was reduced to an almost wreck by German bombs in WW2 so i,ts present state has nothing to do with any actual combat in service.
As for restoring other wrecks I think if there was any lose of life involved the aircraft should be left as found, take Hurricane P3175 at Hendon for example, a very emotive exhibit.

Personally if the restoration involves not using at least 90% of what is in the complete airframe then no. I want to see a genuine airframe that was how it was when it was last flown, not something that was produced from a few orginal parts with the rest discarded. This is ok in the cas of the Hendon Halifax as it is complete, not sure how I feel about something that is largely incomplete.

I guess I’m in the camp that would restore them all the way if possible. We’re talking about long term preservation here and some kid learning about a Halifax for example, would probably be more impressed walking into the RAF museum and seeing the Hali as it would have looked as it left that day it went down.

It’s representative of the men who flew it and to see it complete and looking like it did operationally better represents them I believe. And in 100 years, it isn’t going to matter if the metal used in the restoration was from 1945 or from 1999. That the basis for the restoration is the recovered aircraft is good enough for me, even if it contains new metal and parts.

Dan