Fine! And let’s say the Omega watches that you see for sale at car boot sales, and the fake Constables that fooled the art world some years ago, are the real thing! I think that you’ve misssed the point.

No-one is critiscising fine recreations of classic aeroplanes. It just that some want their recreators to tell it as it is. If, in the course of that work, the majority of the parts used are new, just call the finished result a recreation or a replica. It doesn’t make it any less worthy. If the industry does not seize this nettle then, eventually, the legislators or the courts will do it for them.

The bottom line is – does a register plate make a genuine period aeroplane?

See OldSpitty’s last post, a register plate is not 20% of the airframe even with providence on the plate. I realise legally that may be all that is required, but I don’t think a narrow legal view is what we are searching here.

With reference to the watches and paintings – do they have more than 20 % of the original in them complete with proved providence – I think you will be easy able to answer your own question

cheers

PS it hasn’t rained here in Brisbane, Australia for about 4 weeks, bright blue skys and a winter temp getting up to about 22 degrees C in the mid afternoon, perfect for flying.

We have a couple of things here that give a chill whenever I handle them because of their provenance. But for the most part I get the greatest amount of pleasure from new parts that are made better – the engine mount or main spar that is exact in terms of dimensions when compared with the original but stronger because of modern material technology and (to an extent) construction. Don’t get me wrong, provenance is important and I agree with almost everything written here but in the air, most pilots don’t want anything to fail on them.

good point, in my case I am using a modern epoxy glue (K134) if I used the original casein then I would duplicate the problems that lead to a lot of wooden aeroplanes being grounded in Australia in the early 1960’s (including my proctor) – glue seperation and structural failure reading to a number of crashes.

cheers

Mark

Thanks for putting up the photos, they are very useful and help answer a number of questions. I have included a recent image of progress, I have been working the nose area. As you can see still a long way to go, however I need to think ahead. (The thinking and planning takes more time than the actual work).

I will be concentrating on the nose/instrument panel area for a while.

The cockpit area behind the centre section will be next on the list (ie the floor mainly).

I am still looking for more images of the cockpit area if anyone else can help. I have a number of images various cockpits that were civilianised and they all look slightly different. I am guessing but I think that may stem from if they were MK1 or MkII or MKIII’s.

Do you remember Ken Beard, the rebuilder of AUC about 20-30 years ago, I saw him recently.

cheers

Ross

Avion Ancien

The first image of an aircraft that almost always attends, it is own and flown by a mate of mine, Des Porter. The second image is of an aircraft type not familiar to me, maybe someone can help out with a maker and type. The nameplate on the engine is in German. Both images were taken at Watts Bridge Feb 2008 at Watts Bridge at a QVAG Fly-in

Just another thought….

Here in Australia amongst QVAG members, the term is “rebuilding” not “restoring” and aeroplanes are referred to as having had a “Total Rebuild” or being “Rebuild in 1982” for instance.

I think that is a much clearer way of expressing ones self.

My project would constitute a “Total Rebuild” – fuselage, wings, tail feathers

Engines seem to get “overhauled”

And another thought about the percentage. Is that measured by weight, volume, or by number of parts, or by effort in remanfacturing. Bit tricky in using the percentage rule. I can understand what people are aiming to determine, but its a bit tricky. The two aeroplanes from one original is a bit tricky. In the case of a Proctor, I can’t see the $$$ gained in doing it, however with a Spitfire certainly there is the $$$ incentive.

cheers

Great and interesting feedback to my original posting. Consider this, you start with a 100% “genuine” aeroplane and a fuel pump packs it in, so you do a repair by replacement, you have a ground loop and write off an undercarriage leg and a wing so you do a repair by replacement, a year later and a groundloop and the other wing is replaced. An altimeter backs it in, so you do a repair by replacement and so on ………..

After a while there is a muched reduced “genuine” aeroplane left.

So if you rebuild an aeroplane and put in those same components in it is it now a restored aeroplane or a recreation?

PS. you had to build the replaced wings and undercarriage legs fron new.

I wonder why it is that so many old British built aeroplanes seem to have migrated to New Zealand over the past half century. Maybe one day I’ll go there and see for myself one day!

It always seems to be the other way from here in Australia, aircraft seem to be going somewhere else.

I think in reality credit is often due to a small number of far sighted individuals who laid the ground work back in the mid 1970’s.

Where I live in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia the vintage aeroplane group (QVAG) was founded to arrest the departure of aircraft from the East Coast of Australia to Southern Australia (Victoria) and more importantly going overseas. One individual in particular stands out, Graham Orphan (Now publisher and editor of “Classic Wings Downunder”). Graham, was in his late teens in the mid 1970’s however had the foresight at that tender age to ge instrumental in the formation of QVAG. That in turn put the few rebuilders in the area in regualr contact with each other and gave them a focus and encouragement that was needed. People in that early group included Nick and Greg Chalinor, John Sinclair, Noel Branch, Mathew Denning, Pat Harrington and Ernie Clarke all of whom went on to complete restoration projects, in some cases many restoration projects.

QVAG still exists and has grown in size and influence. The East Coast of Australia has grown from a backwater of the vintage aircraft scene to what is arguably the major area of activity (and the great climate helped).

The threats to the future of vintage aviation in the area are the lack of affordable rebuild projects. This in turn has meant that young people have limited opportunity to become involved. The projects that are available now are ones similar to my Percival Proctor – complex, expensive and requiring a high degree of skill both in project management and technical areas such as wood working.

What is the future? Graham Orphan told me years ago when we were discussing this question, that he saw replicas of WW1 aircraft as being the answer. I don’t have any answers, maybe the answer lies in the new generation of ultralight aircraft and that these will all eventually age and require rebuilding (but they just don’t seem to have that same charisma as aircraft from the early days of aviation).

What do others see as the ways of attracting young people to the restoration/rebuilding side of vintage aviation?

cheers