Any idea how many total 190’s comprised the first two batches? Any chance they may continue beyone the projected twelve airframes if the demand remains strong?

If you’ve ever taken a look into the variations of TBM water bombers, there were many interesting and very colorful examples operated during that time. It was a very unique chapter in the TBM’s history and I’m very pleased to see at least one outfit has picked up on the theme and taken the route less traveled. #24 looks very good IMO! 🙂

Would seem to be a great way to get two functional DB601’s in the air with far less chance of short term damage from botched landings and the like. Of course, you’d have to find and maintain two servicable DB’s! 😀

Here’s serial number 487627 at Barksdale AFB in Bossier City, Louisiana.

The plane flew with VF-10 from January though April of 1945. Not sure yet where VF-10 was operating from at that time though. It spent most of its post-war years on outdoor display / storage at the War Memorial Museum of Virginia in the city of Newport News. It was here that the main spar was cut to help facilitate the plane’s display.

In 1985 it was recovered by a member ofthe Confederate Air Force and spent the next ten years in storage at his house, with some restorative efforts made on the center section. Gerry Yagen bought the plane in 1999 and his crew invested about four years worth of moderate efforts on its refurbishment. As usual with the Corsair projects, the severed main spar precluded any substantial investment being made toward its long term restoration.

FWIW, John Lane (Airpower Unlimited), Greg Sheppard, and Murray Griffiths among others are in fact establishing a “co-op” that’s making efforts toward the successful remanufacture of Corsair main spars. It’s easy to imagine how such an achievement will change the scope of Corsair restorations. There are more than a few piles of “parts” lying around that will become viable projects once again. 😎

There were also rumors of a downed French AU-1 located at SE Asia crash site. I heard that J.B. Salis was supposed to have traveled to the area to make attempts toward its recovery back around the early 1990’s, though I’m not sure if anything definitive became of the effort. The wreckage was reported to be suprisingly intact – leftovers from the French conflict at Dien Bien Phu.

If your restoration is centered upon the partial remains of an existing airframe, then its a restoration. If you began your project with nothing but a set of blueprints and some raw materials (i.e. Flug Werk), then its a reproduction IMO. The line is such a fuzzy one in many cases that you almost have to draw from where the mindset of the restorer was when the project began. People have been trying for some time to establish some type of sweeping terminology that can be applied to all warbirds, and it simply can’t be perceived that way. Each aircraft that you might ask this question about has to be sized up on an individual basis.

The threshold between a particular plane’s “artifact” years and its “restoration” years resides in the eye of the beholder. Some people consider any modifications made to the plane following its retirement from the military as “non-original”. Others consider the immediate post-war years for some aircraft (i.e. air racers) to be just as important, thus the crude modifications made to some aircraft during that time fall into the “artifact” category.

With all of the variables in play, you can see why the arguments on this subject will never be truly resolved. The final determination has as much to do with the perspective of the person making the judgement as it does with the particular aircraft being judged.

What it comes down to is this. If there is a particular airframe that you are curious about, the best thing is to inquire with the community here and draw your best personal conclusions from the myria of feedback that you receive. There simply are no easy, broad-sweeping answers that can be applied across the board.

We’re well acquainted. 😉