Is that the one found in India a few years back?

I think it was mysteriously relocated to the UK (channel islands i seem to remember) and someone is restoring it there.

RAF Disarmament wing processed plenty of engines in 1945/46.

Piston engines = 13058.

Jet engines = 288.

Propellers = 2857.

Engine parts = 2835 ton.

Add 4810 complete aircraft and 391 airframes.

They should have found alternative use for them (the engines), rather then destroying them. Then we would have had the chance of finding some in old factories, or other places where powerfull piston engines could have been usefull.

My guess is, that some did find their way into civilian use and are still waiting to be found, but not many.

As mentioned above, seller also have a 600 years old cannon – Teutonic Knights – XIV century for sale.

If anything, that item is a mortar, and if that, then its a pretty lousy one.

With no explosive rounds, you would have to lop a rather big ball across. The caliber of the item is far too small for such a mortar.

Flowerpot/urn in the shape of a mediaeval mortar. Which was not uncommon.

My first bid would be the Focke-Wulf Fw 200.

Second bit would be something really big, like a Short Sunderland.

Slightly off topic, but the last post reminded me of a friend, who in the early 90’s build a custom Triumph motorcycle.

In addition to the authentic “Made in England” painted on the frame, he put “Rebuild in Sweden”.

Maybe rebuilders should display a higher degree of pride in their rebuilding skills. Its the building of aircraft, restorations and rebuildings alike, that keeps the fleet airborne.

There is no “shame” in having replaced 80% of an aircraft during the building, its actually quite an impressive feat. Even if the aircraft would have lost its “vintage authenticity”.

Maybe we should be talking about “descendants” at such a stage.

Personally I don’t think the “Experimental” catagory would change the identity of your Proctor.

Don’t most private military jets fly as experimental?

I mentioned it above and although it might sound somewhat corney, I find that the “soul” of the aircraft is what makes the difference. If I can “feel” the aircraft in question has a clear lineage to its historical identify, then to me, its the same aircraft.

I have no clear diffinition of which percentage of rebuilding makes the soul dissapear 😀

But its clear, that a name plate dont constitute the soul.

I would also consider the Bentley to have lost its soul, despite what legal ruling was made. Whereas “Glacier Girl” has kept her soul.

Please note that I don’t mean anything spiritual in the above.

It is indeed a can of worms….

The above terms are a good starting point, but there will always be aircraft that fall between the catagories.

You could easily end up with a replica, thats more “original” that a surviving aircraft. Due to the use of original drawings and manufactoring techniques.

You might also find an original survivor, perhaps museum stored for 20 years, that someone one day decide to make airworthy. It would be a shame to deem it a recreation, just because the process involved a certain percentage of new parts. Even more so, if the replaced parts, where damaged, or worn, before it went into museum storage.

Maybe we will just have to accept, that our beloved warbirds are getting older and less “thoroughbred” as time passes. Given the possibility of continued use, eventually every nut and bolt would have been replaced. That will eliminate the line between “true” warbirds, restored aircraft and recreations. Naturally we can choose to make that distinction already now, and move along the lines from the post above mine.

Saying that, I still think we should consider the linage of the aircraft, which always will devide them into actual warbirds and modern replicas.

If these were operational accidents, the AC would most likely have been scrapped before they replaced the wing.

But you have a valid point, if the AC have gone through these replacements over 60 years. I’m pretty sure most people would consider the AC to keep its identity.

So its a matter of perception. Replacing 75% components over 60 years is maintenance/repair, doing the same within 5 years is recreation :rolleyes:

I’m not sure the situation would ever arise (with a gradual 75% replacement), but its worth considering when talking about recreation, rebuilding and replicas.

Is it so philosophical now, that we are talking about the aircraft’s soul 😎