dark light

Beermat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,836 through 2,850 (of 3,326 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Beermat
    Participant

    Rather than any kind of legislative function I was thinking quite informally, as an aid to discussion – as things currently stand, there is so often noise generated by calling aircraft “original” or “replica”, where if these aircraft were described as Type 2 or Type 7 then conversations could move on..

    BTW, although no-one on this thread is guilty of it, there is elsewhere some confusion between provenance (previous ownership) and originality – something to guard against in this debate.

    Beermat
    Participant

    Not complete either. Despite being a BAPC member, the CBFS Hurricane L1639 isn’t in there.

    This would be a Type 7 🙂

    Beermat
    Participant

    Nice idea but can I suggest substituting ‘Type’ for ‘Cat’.
    Maybe because I’ve been around the RAF for too long but any metion of Cat 5 and I start looking for the smoking hole. It also used to give me palputations every time the SMO told me my hearing was Cat 5.

    Haha – yes, fair enough!

    Beermat
    Participant

    Yes, I guess it would have to be from when it came out of service – and as this puts BBMF aircraft out of the equation, maybe LF363 doesn’t need a category 🙂 But seriously, I guess if substantial parts had to be re-manufactured, it would move from Cat 2 to Cat 6 under this imaginary system, yes. But I guess this raises the issue as to where maintenance of an original becomes recreation with original parts. No idea – mainspar, perhaps? Certainly not dataplate!

    in reply to: Australian Buried Spitfire Claims – Outcome? #940280
    Beermat
    Participant

    I’ve seen this argument over and over when it comes to aircraft escpecially Spitfires. I’d like to offer my ‘opinion’. So if you’ll all indulge me a bit.

    I believe it comes down to one word ‘provernance’. For anything to be a genuine anything be it a boat, car or aircraft the only way to say it is original is that the provernance of that item, that being it is in the condition in which it was manufactured, with all parts being as it was assembled in the factory….

    Not entirely in agreement with your definition of provenance. I believe provenance is a known history of ownership, and not necessarily anything to do with originality of parts.

    Still, your post does provide a basis for thinking about some new words to define builds based upon levels of ‘originality’.. to avoid misrepresentation in either direction. I like Andy’s ‘re-creation’ for the likes of P9374..

    in reply to: Australian Buried Spitfire Claims – Outcome? #940393
    Beermat
    Participant

    Not at all.

    This isn’t a sales pitch, but have you read my ‘Spitfire P9374’ book?

    If not, drop me an e-mail via link below with your address and I will mail you a complimentary copy so that you can see how I have presented the case of the ‘re-creation’ (note carefully my terminology) of that Spitfire.

    It would be my pleasure to do so!

    Just in case I am not 100% clear on the case – may I have one too? :eagerness:;)

    Beermat
    Participant

    ..and taking it seriously – FAA Anthorn, in Cumbria, handled Hellcats at the end of the war. The FAA museum’s example was stored there – http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/grumman-hellcat-ii-ke209/2-4-17.aspx

    in reply to: SZ-9D Bocian at Glastonbury #942481
    Beermat
    Participant

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]218353[/ATTACH]

    Near-complete Westland Whirlwind found in a field near Yeovil!!!

    Oh, hang on…

    in reply to: SZ-9D Bocian at Glastonbury #943367
    Beermat
    Participant

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]218307[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]218308[/ATTACH]

    Every year they have interesting airframes at Glastonbury – I’d love to know the source, but it’s a secret..

    in reply to: Spitfire Radiator. #958348
    Beermat
    Participant

    Interesting.. for me the question becomes why an asymmetric design was chosen to begin with.

    in reply to: Goodwin Sands Dornier progress thread #964753
    Beermat
    Participant

    Re the negativity.. It’s not so much ‘whinging pom’, its more a phenomenon related to the well known effect whereby products and services always get lower ratings than they deserve because fewer people are moved to go online and be positive when something works/looks as expected than are moved to complain if it doesn’t.

    Similarly, there is a general and unspoken sense of approval towards any aviation archaeology/preservation/restoration activity (after all, it’s what we’re largely about on here) – maybe outsiders are thrown by the lack of ‘wow, that’s amazing’ comments on here, I don’t know, but there’s less point constantly vocalising positivity because we all know that the majority are also thinking it by virtue of what we do.

    in reply to: Seen on eBay – 2013! #970212
    Beermat
    Participant
    in reply to: Seen on eBay – 2013! #970224
    Beermat
    Participant

    Looks Harvard / P40 to me

    I thought Harvard too.

    Hmm.. P-38 tailwheel … How to break it to the seller, that there’s something distinctive about the P-38’s undercart arrangements…

    in reply to: Hornby (Airfix / Corgi) Reports Big Loss! #970408
    Beermat
    Participant

    I don’t think it is as bad as it looks – the actual article describes a huge one-off ‘write off’ that accounts for much of the loss.

    in reply to: Seen on eBay – 2013! #970425
    Beermat
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 2,836 through 2,850 (of 3,326 total)