Tell that to someone who has paid a fortune for an original work of art only to find out it has been refurbished to such a degree it actually has very little of originality in it.

I think you’ll find that with airworthy aircraft any work done on it is well documented, and owners know exactly what they are buying. My point is: if you’re committed to fly a restoration, there’s completely different limits as to what can be reused. And replacement or rebuild is not a bad word. It is what was done to aircraft in a previous service life too. Part of its history, and flying it is what gives owners the motivation to keep putting their money in it and ensure survival for future generations.

At the moment i am rebuilding substantial sections of wing in my workshop for a wooden aircraft, to original specs. If this is not done, it will not fly again. It has no future in any museum as it is not sexy enough, and there’s a fair few preserved. Shall I ask the owner to not have the work done and keep it as is, original ex factory in all its authenticity? I can assure you the aircraft is then going to end up as a spares ship due to low value and end up as a bonfire.

ProvenanceIn the cases you mention, there won’t be the wreckage of the original hidden somewhere (or at worst, scrapped), while a replica meanwhile pretends to be the original.

There is no replica pretending to be the original in the above. Yet in one case there’s enough original non-airworthy material left in storage to justify another aircraft ressurrected were it to have sufficient provenance on paper…

Again: there’s no such thing as balck & white in aircraft restoration, use and rebuild. Classification is useless, the aircraft’s paperwork will state to what extent it has been repaired or rebuilt.

Just enjoy the aircraft being flown for all to see…

Is this a non-starter or could it work?

It’s a non-starter. I have a flyer in my workshop now I did a survey on recently. The only component I have traced that was fitted to it when it left the factory in 1952 is an aileron. All other components were replaced. Some by new, others by old stock and original over the years. Yet this has flown continuously and is considered an original aircraft.

The aircraft sitting next to it has had the wings, stabilizer, front fuselage and tail section replaced in the 1950s and 1970s. Yet this is considered original.

The aircraft next to that is rebuilt with 40% new structure, yet is registered as an original aircraft.

There’s a lot of grey in the field of aircraft restoration, use and rebuild, no black and white. Even no black cat 1 or 5, and white cat 1 or 5.

Instead, why not appreciate the aircraft kept in flyable condition? Doesn’t matter hwo much if it is original, as long as it feels original and has a provenance one can count on…

Hard to believe it’s twenty years ago since I flew on this aircraft! Wishing you all the best!

Looking forward to that!

I agree, but for a Government to kick up a fuss about it is happening to Dutch vessels in the Far East, while ignoring the blatantly obvious occurring in their own Country is very narrow minded.

The company in question is not operating ‘in their own country’ but in international waters. That is a big legal difference.

BTW: I applaud any government kicking up a fuss about violation of war graves in any circumstances, anywhere. Even more so when it acts on it.

https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/9339569-altimeter-used-in-the-early-aircrafts-at-the-beginning-of-the-20th-century-made-in-germany

Not eBay. German WW1 altimeter.