Its great that an enthusiast can get such an complex engine running again without formal training and expertise, but hopefully they do research enough information to operate it safely?

There is a comment above about the rig being securely concreted? but from my view of the U-tube it seems to a stand on wheels with no visible restaining other than tyre chocks?

I enjoyed the video but found one adjoining it to be even more educational, on the risks of approaching turbine engines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GF3Iz7b95-8

regards

Mark Pilkington

There has been local moves to close Essendon airport for many years, also supported by past State and local MP’s but rejected by the Federal Government which own it, and leased it out for a 50+49 year lease.

I’m not aware of any “supersonic” warbirds operating from the site currently? although the airworthy restoration of an ex RAAF Mirage is occuring at the site.

I suspect this will not amount to anything at all, I dont know of many airports that dont have some local group wanting to “close it down”?

regards

Mark Pilkington

There are previous debates and threads on all of this, as posts above have alluded to, that refer to definitions quoted from the RAF Museum or the NASM.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=715050#post715050

Ask an expert.

The RAF Museum conservation centre, Cardington quoted by Ray Rimmel in ‘World War One Survivors’, in a photo:

“The museum defines reproduction as an exact or nearly exact example of an original.

A replica is merely a look alike of different construction to the original.”

Robert Mikesh, former Senior Curator of the National Air & Space Museum, in ‘Restoring Museum Aircraft’ gives six categories: original; restored original; replica; reproduction; look-alike and mock-up.

Briefly, he defines them as follows:

“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” He gives Spirit of St Louis as an example.

“Restored original (Restoration): An artefact composed of at least 50% original components (by surface area or volume) and the remainder returned to accurate early condition made with the same materials, components and accessories.” – He quotes it as a USAFM definition.

“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artefact in part or in total.” Another USAFM definition. Interestingly he gives the example of the Gee Bee Super Sportster build by the New England Air Museum with the technical supervision of the Grandville Bros Chief Engineer Pete Miller. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.

“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”

I’m bored of typing, so we’ll leave look alike and a mock up is often regarded as a full scale model (FSM)

You’ll note financial or sale value (here) is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

Homespun logic regarding “grand-dads axe” and “if it looks like a duck” are fine if you dont start wanting to claim “provenance” and claiming “significance” which are both “cultural heritage” terms relating to “historic” objects, but I thought this was debate about the use of such terms in an “Historic aviation” forum?

No Snoopy, I didnt “invent” the word “reproduction” nor was I the first to apply it to an aircraft created “accurately” from original drawings and to original specifications with an original engine, but many years after the manufacturer’s own production ceased.

Fractured logic about everything subsequent to a prototype being a “reproduction” is a rather silly argument, and ignores that they are all developments of the type as each model and modification is incorporated into the design, and yes operational aircraft quite often had components and structure swapped or replaced over their life, typically using period components and structure provided by the manufacturer, or scavenged from a damaged example for spares, I dont see anything in that which parallels the “construction” of new components or structure 40 or 50 years later by someone other than the original manufacturers.

Simply constructing something “new” to the original specification and original drawings doesnt make it an “original”? I understood that DH Support who held the type certificates would not sell copies of DH drawings to manufacture reproductions, and only provide them for repairs and restorations of existing originals?

Bruce posted in #35 much earlier about the the two ends of the debate from Airworthiness regulation to museum curators, and clearly the debate rattles between the two views of the world, as I acknowledged in response.

Andy above describes a project as a “re-construction” transparently and openly apparantly? and elsewhere there is a thread discussion the RAFM’s acquisition of a FE2b Reproduction that uses a portion of spare original fuselage frame but is still acknowledged as a “reproduction” by John McKenzie, the person who created it, as well as the RAFM who acquired it, so it seems to be an acceptance of the use of labels there?

Equally I have previously mentioned the FW190’s , F3F’s and Me262 reproductions that transparently and openly trade on the warbird market with those labels and acknowledgements.

There are serious aircraft restorers, who even describe themselves as committed supporters of “authentic restoration” yet seem to dislike anyone trying define whats meant by such terms?

“Warbirds” cover the gambit of post war surplus military aircraft of little or no historic importance – effectively just “toys for the boys”, and rare, unique and significant historic aircraft, the same is true of Vintage and Antique “historic” aircraft.

As commented by others, this thread has started going round and round, as have other previous threads on the same topic, and it wont be the last, in fact I think such issues and aspects will become more scrutinised rather than less scrutinised as time goes on.

If you have to shoot the messenger because you dont like, or cant debate the message itself, theres a message in that as well, clearly there are strong opinions out there on either side of the fence, and thats “allowed” too, – to return to the theme of the original post of what “is” and “isnt” allowed?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Life is both funny and full or twists and turns ! When, primarily in the interests of longevity, I had the gall and temerity to suggest to anyone with deep pockets that for a new build Mossie, metal was the way to go, certain people on this Forum became quite enervated !

It seems that what – for certain particular reasons – is good for the Anson isn’t good enough for the Mossie. I knew that I wouldn’t have to wait long!

John Green

John,

I dont think your proposals for re-engineering and building a new mosquito in metal rather than to its existing design in wood are in anyway comparable to the fitting of an existing metal Anson wing in place of a failed wooden Anson wing in the 1960s, or retaining one in place of a non-existant one in the 2010s?, other than support your basic proposition that metal is more durable against the elements.

Unfortunately DH never created a metal wing Mosquito to create a similar outcome for rebuilders to ever consider as an option.

The Peoples Mosquito thread details the arguments made against that proposal and I dont think there’s a need to repeat them here.

This particular mark I Anson used, and is re-using, an Avro designed and built metal wing from an Anson mark XIX, the design, development and certification issues of that metal wing were sorted out by the manufacturers long before the involvement of either of the two teams of rebuilders involved in this aircraft.

The first rebuild in the 1960s accessed an orphan metal wing in Australia that had little other likely outcomes, I’m sure it cost Brain and Brown something to acquire it, but probably well below what it was originally worth, and certainly well below the cost of building a new wooden wing from scratch at the time, hence they did so.

It seems they considered the same modification for other mark I Ansons in their fleet, and therefore would have needed to acquire further wings in the UK, the costs of that might have played a part in only this one ever being completed?

In Bill Reids case, it then came as part of a formerly airworthy aircraft that had already been certified and flown in Australia for many years in that form, again far simplier and cheaper if it was in good condition to simply re-use it than to build a new wooden wing from scratch.

A reasonably pragmatic and efficient compromise to make.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Hello Mark, nice definitions.

As for the Anson I, in my opinion the change to metal wings was as much a part of the type’s long history, since with MH120 in any rate, it flew as a civilian machine longer than it did a military aircraft, not only that, but from 1962 (in Australia as you know) all Anson Is had to have them fitted if they were to continue flying. Yes, the wings were an Anson C.19’s, but that doesn’t mean they are not authentic, as that was very much a part of the type’s service – i.e. civilian career. Anson Is weren’t fitted with constant speed props either, but they were clearly fitted to MH120 – again a retrofit, .

Nuuumannn,

You are absolutely correct that MH120 has spent more time sitting on its metal wing than its original wooden wing, which was a very appropriate compromise to keep it flying in the 1960s, and more than appropriate compromise to get it flying again in the 21 Century as against the cost and work to build a new one piece wooden wing.

As I think we would all agree, Bill Reid has done a wonderful job with his Anson in returning it to as close as possible to an accurate early mark I Anson configuration removing the later model engines and props from the mark XIX and other obvious retrofits of a military nose, turret and early sloping windscreen, and of course much more internally.

However I’m not sure there were many other Mark I’s that ever flew with metal wings elsewhere as this example did, to my knowledge it was the only one to so in Australia despite plans for others, this was the only one completed, (but there may have been others in the UK?), and today is still only one of two at this time doing so that I am aware of, the other being a static display mark I at the RNZAF Museum also on a metal wing. So I’m not sure it was a common practice? to consider it was in anyway a formal sub-type of the mark I model in civil service?, I suspect its more of a one-off?, it wasnt a Factory or or Airworthiness requirement to replace the wing, just a certification removal of the wooden winged Anson’s approvals to keep flying in Australia, and an innovative solution to get around it.

I think there are enough posts above that already debate the various terms such as “authentic” to avoid the need to repeat my views and opinions again, and clearly there are strong views for and against expressing such opinions or using such terms.

smiles

Mark Pilkington

I’m not going to get sucked back into this, :p but I would observe that this obsession with semantics can get very anal. I used the word ‘accurate’, because to me, adherrance to facts (Drawings and spec’s etc) is paramount. It’s a simple, honest word and concept.

‘Replica’ is a very dodgy word. Some would call a brand-new Spit a replica. 😮 Some would call a plastic movie macete a ‘replica’ too. It’s a vastly vague term which merely tells us it’s supposed to ‘look like’ something. To use the word ‘replica’ for a 100% accurate Spit’ for example, is thus effectively an insult. It’s a Spit’ – rebuilt, – late production, – call it what you will, – just don’t call it a ‘replica’, because if it’s ‘accurate’ (To Drngs etc) it ain’t….

Scaled-down facsimilies are usually referred to as ‘replicas’ too, but equally, these are confusingly, often referred-to by the original names. Huge fun they may be, but a pint-sized ‘replica’ isn’t a real Spit for example… :diablo:

Absolutely agree, an accurate but recently constructed reproduction is far more than a replica, its a technical achievement in research, templating, patterning, constructing and engineering, as well as sourcing and finishing, they are a work of art and are well worth our admiration and gratitude especially if providing a static or flying example of something that no longer exists, and most often exceeds the efforts and expense in restoring an original of one of its contemporaries. There is a place for both authentic originals, and accurate reproductions.

A replica “can” try to be accurate externally, but most compromise more than just the materials or construction, and engine, and then move to scale and size variations and become little more than flying mockups with little relationship to the original design other than shape and colour scheme.

However the focus on using and applying the correct terms helps avoid the suggestion of “misleading” claims being made?, or “insulting” the efforts undertaken, from the extremes of calling something a replica as against a restored original, when it might clearly be something in between, thats why words have definitions in the first place.

There seems to be a suggestion questioning the detail or placing a particular outcome in one category as against another, somehow questions or insults the quality of the workmanship?, I dont see it that way?, I see it quite appropriate and fair to apply a relevent term or label on an outcome reflecting its true and transparent origins.

Anyway it seems some of us from either ends of the argument have some common ground?, and in anycase we are all entitled to our own opinions, as they are all “allowed” to exist.

smiles

Mark Pilkington

Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary :

Spade
noun
· a tool with a sharp-edged, typically rectangular, metal blade and a long handle, used for digging or cutting earth, sand, turf, etc..
· a tool shaped like a spade but used for another purpose, especially

shovel (shovel)
noun
a tool resembling a spade

Confuse yourself ….. “Take your pick” 😀

Smiles, the question is if a shovel resembles a spade, does that make it an authentic and original spade, or a reproduction, or a replica?, or still a shovel to be marvelled at in its own right, and deserving of its own name?

Of course I could take a pick, or a hoe, or a mattock too
– so many choices to pick from?

as I said its a silly debate isnt it.

smiles

Mark Pilkington