John, I can think of one specific instance of this insidious practice that still galls me to this day… the restoration by Evergreen Aviation of Bf 109G-10 WNr 610937. This aircraft, when it entered their shop, was a virtual time capsule. It still carried not only the paint which it wore in Yugoslav service (a rarity in any event), but beneath that were the markings it wore while serving with II./JG52… we think.
I say “we think” because the “restorers” (and I use this term very loosely) simply stripped the original skins (which still carried the proof stamps from the manufacturer) from the frame and tossed them straight into the recycle bin, without a thought or care to try and establish any kind of history for the aircraft. Adding insult to injury, there was no effort made to preserve originality in the interior spaces; a modern grey lacquer was used in the fuselage interior for preservative purposes, some odd light grey shade was used in the cockpit, the main fuse panel was replaced by a simple plate with switches, the fuel piping was painted red instead of yellow, etc, etc etc. And to top it all off… the aircraft was painted in an interpretive scheme which it could never possibly have worn it since a) it didn’t serve with that unit, and b) it’s not even the right subtype to represent Erich Hartmann’s last Gustav.
They did a similar job to the Air Force Museum’s G-10 (Wnr 610824), with this aircraft being painted in a JG300 scheme at the specific request of the Museum Director himself, pleas from respected members of the aviation history field to paint the aircraft in an accurate scheme falling on deaf ears because he wanted the aircraft to represent one which flew against US bombers. I guess he forgot that JG52 scored many victories against the 8th AF during shuttle raids, as well as the 15th AF… grrrr 😡 😡 :mad:.
I have to agree with you that there should be some sort of industry standards here. We are, after all, talking about the recovery and restoration of historical objects and to simply discard substantial sections after using them for patterns is downright irresponsible on the part of both the owners and the restoration shops.
I should keep out of the “data plate” restoration discussion, mainly because I’m thrilled to see ANY 109 extant. The latest JG51 example for Paul Allen would certainly fit that description… considering what Charleston had to start with, that Emil is essentially a new-build aircraft.
Lynn
Sign In
