By definition a replica shuld be something that has been either sanctioned by the original manufacturer or follows the plans to the degree that it’ identical.
Fair enough David but these definitions do not really hold much sway in the warbird world today. An example of a ‘replica’ is now generally considered to be something such as the so called ‘Spitfire Mk 26’. In other words the definition of replica has become so watered down as to encompass something which really only bears a passing resemblence to the original article. ‘Reproduction’ is not a term commonly used either, maybe it is because it so readily acknowledges a lack of any originality or provenance (and consequently value). There have been moves to push for a set of acceptable definitions in the past but in reality few wish to have their aircraft so conveniently pigeon-holed.
Lets face it, an engineering item that so closely resembles the original in terms of its most minute detail is, when we are talking in the context of say a Spitfire or a Hurricane, so expensive and time-consuming to produce that to de-value it by voluntarily proclaiming it a ‘reproduction’, ie: something less than the original item, would be financially unwise to say the least.
Sign In
