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.
Not complete either. Despite being a BAPC member, the CBFS Hurricane L1639 isn’t in there.
This would be a Type 7 🙂
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!
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!
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..
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:;)
..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
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218353[/ATTACH]
Near-complete Westland Whirlwind found in a field near Yeovil!!!
Oh, hang on…
[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..
Interesting.. for me the question becomes why an asymmetric design was chosen to begin with.
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.
Any thoughts on this ‘Spitfire’ propeller? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ww2-propellor-Spitfire-Mrk-1-2-/251284005156?pt=UK_Collectables_Militaria_LE&hash=item3a81b1a124
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…
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.