Why put obstacles and hurdles in the way?  So one guy says we need 70%, another’s say 5% original material, they will never agree, but then again, they don’t need to, because it doesn’t matter a damn.

Recreations?  restorations? Take your pick. The pilots love to fly them, the public love to watch them, owners are privileged to own them. 

I don’t see a downside.  As to the question of ‘Where are the original  remains?’ they are no doubt carefully stored in a shoe box somewhere, safe and sound.

I have no problem with the reconstruction of these into flying warbirds, and admire the engineering efforts to do so, and the efforts of the owners and their teams to recreate missing structure and even in some cases to reverse engineer designs from patterns in the absence of design and manufacturing drawings. (I have been involved in that myself)

I am not sure anyone is “putting obstacles and hurdles in the way”, as has been stated, CAA/FAA accept these as originals, and authentic to the original designs, they are not forced to be type certified as “replicas” and of course they are largely exact and authentic to the original designs other than perhaps some compromises on engine type or avionics or brakes, wheels, tyres?

CAA/FAA also accept the claimed or allocated identities, giving rise to the urban legend of finding a data plate and building a new aeroplane underneath it.

My opinion, and its only that, is that these “restorations” then do not hold much if any of recovered material that has been “restored” and is hence largely new material and new construction.

You can call it a “restoration” I prefer to call it a “reproduction” but either way they are authentic reconstructions not “replicas” in the way that term is applied to aircraft.

I  am always pleased someone wants to construct a reproduction, but not so excited by the hype the applied to the outcome being the “this is the original that Wilbur Wright flew in combat over Berlin”.

And more to the point, the CAA/FAA and various international governing authorities seem to be satisfied with the current rules…so unless you’re a masochistic or just like complaining about the laws and bureaucracy we all live under….the point is moot.

The matter has been decided.​​​​

The end result is we have 300+ warbird fighters flying instead of a fraction of that.Is that a bad thing?

Yes, that means more toys for the wealthy, but in a practical matter do you really want to go back to the ’60s when there were <20 Spitfires?

If the snobs insist on calling them recreations fine, let them. They don’t have to go to Duxford to see them or pay for a flight in one. They can spend their time commiserating  with like minded people about what heathens of history the rest of us are.

Of course there are plenty of disputed identities, a restored “CAC Mustang” was recently imported into the UK, and repainted. Its well known locally not to be the identity its claimed to be, the original CAC aircraft was scrapped in Australia at the end of the war, the project originated from the USA before it came to Australia for “restoration” – it clearly has lots of original NAA Mustang parts in it, but little that was made in Australia by CAC.

A few years ago a UK restored P51 could not be registered in the USA following its export there, because the FAA already had that identity registered and flying in the USA, and you can’t have “two aircraft claiming the same identity and provenance.

All of a sudden the UK restored airframe was magically re-identified from being a former European Theatre combat veteran/ Ace aircraft with “kills” to being a totally different identity but amazingly that of a former Pacific Theatre combat veteran/Ace aircraft similarly with confirmed “kills” (that had been scrapped in the Phillipines at the end of the war).

This debate was originally intended to be more about “provenance” and “identity”, and what happens when there is an original wooden fuselage or wing left over from a Mosquito (or even from a DH Moth Restoration).

Not so much about “Reproductions” / “Reconstructions” / New builds when there was little or no original remains left over to worry about (and often very little found, recovered or incorporated in the finished outcome in any case.)

You can consider it “snobbery”? – I simply call it being transparent and honest?

In Australia there is a project to “restore” the Mk I Spitfire X4009 of Australian Battle of Britain pilot Pat Hughes.
 

Paterson Clarence Hughes, DFC (19 September 1917 – 7 September 1940) was an Australian fighter ace of World War II. Serving with the Royal Air Force (RAF), he was credited with as many as seventeen aerial victories during the Battle of Britain, before being killed in action in September 1940. His tally made him the highest-scoring Australian of the battle, and among the three highest-scoring Australians of the war.

Born in Cooma, New South Wales, Hughes joined the Royal Australian Air Force as a cadet in 1936. After graduating as a pilot, he chose to take a commission with the RAF. In July 1937, he was assigned to No. 64 Squadron, which operated Hawker Demon and, later, Bristol Blenheim fighters. Posted to No. 234 Squadron following the outbreak of World War II, Hughes began flying Supermarine Spitfires as a flight commander. He shared in his unit’s first aerial victory on 8 July 1940, and began scoring heavily against the Luftwaffe the following month. Known for his practice of attacking his targets at extremely close range, Hughes is generally thought to have died after his Spitfire was struck by flying debris from a German bomber that he had just shot down. He was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, and was buried in England.

The remains of the aircraft’s engine, cockpit and instrument panel had been recovered from a crashsite dig in the UK, and is now in Australia, these original artefacts, which I do consider to be of some historical significance, are to be preserved and displayed in a case, which I applaud.

The “restoration” then will not hold much if any of this recovered material, and will clearly then be largely new material and new construction, a reproduction of his aircraft in my view, authentic to the Supermarine Spitfire design, but not really a restoration of the original 1940 aircraft.

I think its great that this wreckage has been acquired and brought to Australia and is to go on display, I am pleased someone wants to construct a reproduction of Pat’s aircraft, but not so excited by the hype being used to fund raise for that reproduction.

But I am particularly pleased that the original remains are to be preserved and displayed, rather than “consumed” so as to imply, or attempt to incorporate them physically into the airworthy outcome.

Some would argue this is no different from building a new wooden fuselage for a DH60 Moth and discarding the unserviceable fuselage to be displayed as an artefact.

I guess from my view its got to do with “what and how much original material” you start with, and “how much of that original material” remains in the finished outcome.

If I go to an impact crater of a WW2 crash, scrape out some unusable and unidentifiable scrap metal from the hole, and then role out a restored P40, Spitfire contructed of all new materials and some NOS / 2nd hand parts, but adopt the identity etc based on simply visiting the site and collecting that scant handful remains then I personally don’t really believe that can be considered a restoration as against a reproduction?

The Pat Hughes Spitfire | Hunter Fighter Collection (hfcscone.org.au)

hypersonic said: “I’m sure the surviving relatives, of the crew, would have been very happy to provide DNA samples. For him/or a specialist working with him to carryout a DNA check against the human faeces and bones he claims to have found in the past. You can’t argue with real science!

i would need to go and check the Tighar-Pedia but its my recollection that they did test and find some DNA on the faeces log recovered from the sand at Nicu, unfortunately it turned out to be Ric Gillespies DNA covered all over it due to ham fisted “scientific” handling of the object.

By: dhfan – 29th January 2024 at 10:12 

“Reams of evidence?”

From what limited interest I’ve taken, I gather there isn’t a single shred of actual evidence.

Its a typo

Its meant to read “Dreams of evidence” lol

John, there are plenty of examples of aircraft being returned to flight where they have very few parts of the original machine. The key is that there is only one aircraft claiming the identity.

With regard to TV959, we need to think of the original wooden pieces as no different to the skins of the Spitfire I mentioned earlier; unserviceable parts removed and replaced during the restoration of the whole. As I teased in an earlier post, it is possible, that with work, that these parts could have been rehabilitated, but if one is being pragmatic; the first thing one would do if building a Mosquito to flight status is to commission a new fuselage and wing, as it becomes a known entity.

It is noticeable that there are not queues of wealthy people looking to have these aircraft built at the moment. From what I can see, we may be able to look forward to the former Glyn Powell aircraft being completed at AVSPECS, and we have the TPM project being built in the UK. After that? If we are already at peak Mosquito (hopefully not), the argument becomes a moot point!

 

Bruce

I think its clear that the legal identity of TV959 has transferred from these surplus original but unserviceable parts to the restored flying aircraft. 

Of course you can be semantic about if thats a restoration or a reproduction given the volume of new material put into the finished outcome, but legally its holds the identity.

That however doesn’t remove the provenance or history of the original wooden pieces, they will forever be the original unserviceable fuselage and partial wing of TV959.

I personally wouldn’t have much issue with some museum acquiring it and restoring it in that identity, its clear its an artefact and not an aircraft in terms of airworthy potential.

I recently acquired the original unserviceable fuselage of the 12th built DH60 Moth G-AUAE, c/n 192 built in 1925.

This fuselage was discarded by the Bunn Brothers during a 1980’s restoration of VH-UAE with a new fuselage being built, and that aircraft continues to fly in Australia today, but the original fuselage was restored and placed on static display at Drages Airworld rather than being consumed by the restoration/rebuild process or worse, destroyed.

Clearly the legal identity sits with the flying aircraft VH-UAE (formerly G-AUAE c/n 192.

But that doesn’t diminish or extinguish the provenance of the discarded/unserviceable original fuselage, or its historical value as an artefact.

The two can survive and co-exist, one as a restored and flying aircraft, and one as a static display item.

Sadly a complete but “unserviceable” DH89 Dragon Rapide Fuselage was scrapped in NZ following construction of a replacement new airworthy fuselage, apparently partly due to this fear of a duplicate airframe existing, and I have heard others express similar fears.

It could have made an excellent static display fuselage for a museum, and was likely an original DH built structure – an historical artefact.

As long as the restoration process is transparent and publicly known there is no risk of confusion over the legal identity and the shared provenance.

Clearly, the surviving unserviceable original fuselage cannot be used as the basis of a second airworthy restoration as c/n 192, nor should it be allowed to do so.

I describe it as c/n 192A  / Tugan 8, (it was rebuilt in the 1930s by Tugan Aircraft whom gave it their Tugan 8 c/n)

I plan to re-install its original ADC Cirrus Engine, and present it in its original G-AUAE markings and configuration, celebrating that stage of its long life and presenting a different form to that of the flying VH-UAE which, now fitted with a Gipsy engine now presents as a DH60G, all without undermining or challenging the legal identity of VH-UAE, they have a shared provenance, and one is now an un-airworthy artefact, and one is a flying aircraft.