Further to my last post and nothing to do with Hurricanes, M’lud, I would cite as further evidence to support my argument regarding the star on Torch aircraft as being applied simply to aid minimally trained allies identify friendly aircraft the instance of Seafires and other British carrier naval aircraft operating in the Pacific which carried a marking of a blue and white roundel, with, and I draw the jury’s particular attention to this feature, bars of the type applied to American markings.

These were not overpainted original US markings but British applied markings – the bar provided an added recognition aid. As further evidence, albeit a little tangential M’lud, bars were not applied to the special roundels used on British aircraft in the Indian Ocean where the US presence was minimal.

And if I might crave the indulgence of court once more M’lud, I introduce into evidence the example of the markings carried by Royal New Zealand Air Force aircraft operating in the Pacific which also carried the added bar, even in roundel positions which were not present on US aircraft, such as above the starboard wing and below the port wing. From 1943 onwards US aircraft carried no national markings in those positions.

Inexperienced they may have been but I’d not heard the explanation you’re putting forward, before.

In fact it is the only logical explanation – the Vichy French may have been many things but completely stupid was not one of them so attacking them under an American flag of convenience would not in any fashion deter them from shooting back. The Vichy Governnment was an ally of Germany, and was a very pro-fascist and pro-Axis government (they had no qualms about reaching accommodations with the Japanese) whose political outlook was firmly rooted in the pre-war anti-communist and anti-socialist elements of French politics. Germany had declared war on America so if American marked aircraft attacked them they would logically respond in the same fashion as they would have against British marked aircraft.

Simply put the US marking was adopted to prevent US friendly fire – the subsequent events in Nth. Africa after the Torch invasion (Kasserine Pass etc.) demonstrate how poorly trained and prepared, although brave, the US forces were. Eisenhower came perilously close to losing his military career during that fighting. One should not expect that their anti-aircraft gunners were any better prepared. After all their previous military experience had been the annual Louisiana war games.

However as events showed both the US and Royal navies maintained their traditions of shooting at any aircraft that came near them regardless of nationality. This did complicate matters even more. There was a multi-sided war being fought. The Americans and British against the Vichy French and Germans, and the US Navy and the Royal Navy against the Vichy French and Germans as well as against all aircraft regardless of nationality. This private naval anti-aircraft war had begun at Dunkirk, continued through every European battle and culminated at Normandy. I suspect that the Navy had never ever forgiven the British government for taking the RNAS away from it and their US brothers-in-arms were stoughtly supporting the tradition to show solidarity. 😀

United States Military Aircraft Since 1909 by Swanborough and Bowers (1963) mentions a Hurricane used by the USAAF in a support role in Italy. The Profile booklet on the Hurricane IIC has photographs and a profile of a Sea Hurricane flown during Operation Torch with US insignia and ROYAL NAVY in tiny letters. These might account for some of the stories about American Hurricanes.

A lot of RAF and FAA aircraft (Hurricanes, Fulmars etc.) wore the US star during Torch – it was adopted as a temporary marking to prevent the Yanks from shooting down friendlies.

I suspect that this Hurricane’s provenance and restoration will be as genuine as modern science and materials can make it.

Thank you Mark 12 and Mark Pilkington for those comments, with which I agree.

Obviously this is a very complex subject where the clash of historical provenance on the one side, and the desire to see flying examples on the other cannot comfortably exist together without concessions. Personally I have no problem with flying reproductions as I see these as protecting the dwindling number of historically provenanced examples.

But I do. as a historian, have a slight frisson of ethical disquiet when I see that in the public mind the reproductions and the provenanced examples becoming melded. Like Mark Pilkington I hope a truly transparent process allows easy differentiation, because as the years go by there is a historically demonstrated tendency for the definitions to become blurred then forgotten. It happens in all fields where reconstruction/reproduction of existing structures is undertaken, and there is sadly no reason to suspect that it will not happen in the relatively new world of aircraft restoration.

It’s not the fault of the regulators. If you wish to rebuild an historic aircraft there is no problem. If however you wish to start the contruction of new aircraft essentially you are going through the various processes which a manufacturer would of an esentially new machine. This would involve testing of proof aircraft and all the other details to determine the types airworthiness. Basically time consuming and expensive.

But so much of the structure of these “restored” aircraft is new build anyway, which logically rather extinquishes the “originality” as indicated by a salvaged data plate. That replaced material is surely subject to the same rigorous standards as would an acknowledged new build copy.

In the case of the Skua whatever the composite nature it will fit well in a museum as a static example. There are no plans to fly it are there?

I am not trying to divert the thread into the debate like that on the Spitfire one – my view is that there is a place for both static museum restorations, flying originals and flying restorations/reproductions. The problem lies with the polite fiction of the data plate, not the aircraft themselves or their restorers.

It would be lovely if the process was simpler but any flying piece of machinery is a danger unless it meets required standards so I quite sympathise with the official view – so long as it doesn’t become another plaything of rampant OH&S bureaucrats. 🙂

I don’t mind if you agree with me or not – I’d hope you’re smart enough to revise your opinions in the light of additional information

Umm…. James you didn’t actually give any additional information at all, you simply disagreed with the points I made which could be summarised as reproductions are a good thing because hopefully they will prevent the destruction of originals in museums.

The best example of this philosophy is in another area in which I am interested – antique firearms.

In the 1950s with the upcoming centennial of the American Civil War there was a huge interest developing in America amongst shooters who wanted to shoot the cap and ball blackpowder longarms and pistols of that conflict. Most soon discovered that this was not so easy because the by now nearly a century old originals were either rare, or expensive or not in safe firing condition. No one was eager to shoot examples in top condition because this would lessen their value, and the cheaper examples were generally in not so safe condition and one risked injury.

So an American collector and dealer Val Forgett took examples of originals to the gunmakers in Northern Italy and placed orders for them to make reproductions. Certain discreet alterations were made in areas of shape so that these would not be mistaken for the valuable originals, and they were all heavily stamped with Italian proofmarks. Sales of these rocketed and since the 1950s they have remained popular with blackpowder shooters. Ironically they also appeal to collectors of the real ones, like myself, because for a few hundred dollars I can fill a gap in a sequence of pistols with a reproduction, the original of which would cost me many thousands of dollars instead of less than two hundred. Experts and afficianados know that they are reproductions and they are treated as such.

Now there is little difference between these firearm reproductions and many of the “historic” aircraft magically called into being from a data plate and a few minor bits of metal. And there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is good because both reproduction industries are serving to ensure that the real things are preserved free of danger from actual use. And importantly they are providing jobs.

By all means lets have more of these reproduction aircraft, and let’s have, if the market can bear it a move to more complex types, but also let’s make sure that they are adequately documented and marked as reproductions just so that in a few centuries’ time they don’t get mistaken for the originals.

[QUOTE=merlin70;1336075]

And I hope that crowd who keep building and wrecking Blenheims finally get their act together with the current Mk1 reproduction and treat it with a bit more care.
QUOTE]

That’s a bit harsh isn’t it?

Nope just citing their track record.