Eddie,

my comments regarding the Yorkshire Halifax FSM, or the IWM Cockpit was not intended to ignore the existance of either the Trenton restored original, or the RAFM conserved original, but simply to discuss the role of using rare relics in mockups or recreations.

Of course the Trenton and RAFM examples are both better benchmark examples of the type, but those other two displays’ do provide their own experiences and contributions.

Peter,

yes you are correct, the cockpit from the Lincoln RF342 is indeed a Lancaster cockpit, but still the “Lincoln’s own cockpit” as it did operate with that cockpit for most of its operational life, perhaps longer than the Lancaster that originally had it?

Had that cockpit been available, it would have been likely that the aircraft could have been restored and displayed in that form to avoid destroying heritage to create it. With the likelihood of a replica cockpit being created, an Australian GAF configuration is expected, but without any modification to the remaining RF342 components other than restoration and a foreign paint scheme.

With that Lancaster cockpit on display in its own right, and the expected future display of the Lincoln with a recreated externally accurate cockpit, (unseen by most othere from the outside), and representing the extinct Australian built examples, the two items may be performing more value in their individual displays, than if combined?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
The original Stirling relics, are exactly that “original”, and given their rarity, should not be consumed to create reverse engineering drawings, if the cost is at the loss of those relics.

It is beyond belief that anyone would contemplate an airworthy “recreation” of the Stirling, engines, cost etc would be prohibitive?, the realistic objective can only be static display.

But the reality is that unless a substantial wreck is located, we are unlikely to see a Stirling re-constructed due to the significant missing parts to reference, and if drawings and/or suitable patterns dont exist, why not simply construct an external Full Scale Mock-up and be done with it?

While the Yorkshire “Friday the 13th” Halifax offers some inspiration, this was made viable from the ability to re-work Hasting wings into the resultant outcome, due to the Halifax heritage in that later design, and the incorporation of a portion of original fuselage, but much of the rest is mockup, the cockpit/forward fuselage, the engines and props, the undercarriage etc.

Its not an original Halifax, its not an “accurate” recreation, it will never be used by future historians as the Benchmark example or technical evidence of a Halifax, but it is an excellent 3 dimensional display of the type just the same, and plays an important role in “preserving” and “displaying” the type just the same, and is currently the only opportunity to see a full scale Halifax on its gear in factory fresh condition.

It was probably quite appropriate for the IWM to resist calls to release the cockpit section of PN323 to be incorporated into the FSM, instead the mockup cockpit built in its place is externally accurate and fulfilling its task of filling the hole and completing the image of a complete Halifax.

Certainly the original cockpit of PN323 provides more hands on access to a real Halifax cockpit in its current role at the IWM with its current walk through display, than it would sitting @15 feet of the ground, and its internals out of view.

In the end the Yorkshire FSM and the IWM cockpit both contribute to the preservation and display of the type.

A Similar display has been achieved at the Boulton Paul collection by creating a “second” full scale Defiant display, largely without any original structure, thereby augmenting the sole survivor on display the RAF Museum.

A similar outcome can be achieved for the Stirling, using the RAF Museum parts as a source of extenal dimensions, without dismantling them, or consuming them, or even incorporating them in the finished outcome, where original, re-usable, and available parts exist, they could be incorporated into the FSM, and the rest of the aircraft scaled up from general layout drawings, and photos etc, not unlike the full scale model of the Arrow built in Canada.

This could still leave the original rear fuselage/tail section held by the RAF Museum to be restored and displayed to allow close up inspection of a real Stirling section, in a similar way to the IWM Halifax cockpit.

A similar issue faces the future restoration of the Lincoln RF342 in Australia, with its own cockpit unavailable, now restored and on display in the USA, an alternative solution will be required, and while an original Australian built GAF Lincoln cockpit does exist in Australia, it is unlikely to be available, and would have reduced public and researcher access if bolted 15′ up in the air.

With the drawings available, and a number of examples of accurate mockup Lancaster cockpits created, a recreated Lincoln cockpit will fill the hole and complete the picture without the need to compromise the heritage of an authentic relic.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Not the way I would put it.

There is a well known Stirling underwater, and whilst IIRC its in fresh water, its very deep – again IIRC 400m plus down – I dont think its been properly surveyed and even if it were, the cost of a recovery operation would be enormous I’m sure. The Stirling is helluva beast to bring up intact from that kind of depth.

Never say never however.

The DH.9 at DX is proof of that – ie no-one knew of its /their existence. The Trenton Halibag shows it can be done. The 109E in Canada shows that these things can even be made airworthy.

One of the most exciting aspects of our hobby for me is learning of new discoveries year on year…

TT

TT that well known one seems to be a well kept secret??

can you elaborate at all?

is it a ditching or an ice lake melting or hard impact crash?

were there crew survivors, eye witnesses to the aircrafts condition?

located UK or where?

come on smiles – share !!

There is one I am aware of, listed on a european wreck website, that crashed “on the banks” of a fresh water lake in Europe with “wreckage” in the lake, but to my understanding that is not an intact submerged Stirling but simply a totalised and fatal crash site, with some smashed remains in the water, with little expectations of major sections being recoved?

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
It is disappointing to see a room full of sceptics distrusting its authenticity smiles.

Surely you dont think someone has just mocked this thing up, with faded paint and corrosion?? and placed it on ebay in the hope someone is gullable enough to pay the US$10,000 starting bid?

How could you distrust the seller?, I mean, who WOULDN”T buy a used car from this fine looking fellow?

medium-muffin ( 146)

smiles and smerks

Mark Pilkington

.
Its interesting what the law “can define”, and what “interpretations” we can take from legal judgements.

Its possible for a male to have a “sex change” operation and be “legally” certified to be a female.

Its equally possible for a woman to have her breasts removed, and other sex change operations and then “legally” be certified to be a male.

That same person can retain “their” ovaries and womb, and later give birth to a child, creating the “legal” first of a man giving birth to a child.

Legally perhaps?, but perhaps not genetically or biologically?

Many refer to the court decision on this Bentley linked above to argue the new handle and new axe position, to any level of aircraft “restoration”

In this case an historic racing car was modified or repaired at various times into different forms but retained as a “complete” car in all its forms and times, at the end of its racing life it was stored, and later then modified back into one its more famous forms. The court agreed the car in question was “the Bentley No.1”, ie no other car could claim to be that car other than the restored car in the dispute.

There is no other Bentley either
extinct or extant which could legitimately lay claim to the title of Old Number One or its reputation. It was this history and
reputation, as well as its metal, which was for sale on 7th April 1990.

Interestingly as a side issue another replica “car” had tried to claim the Bentley No.1 Provenance?

In somewhat strange circumstances, the original logbook was produced in court. It had fallen into the hands of a Mr. Llewellen
who apparently had built a car around the registration number and sought to register it. The DVLC initially granted the request
but it came to the notice of the Bentley Drivers Club. Their authentication committee reconsidered the matter and
recommended to the DVLC that Mr. Llewellen’s car should be de-registered and that it was appropriate to re-allocate the
number to the car which was in the process of being rebuilt by Mr. Hubbard

However the details of the Court’s decision that Mr Hubbard’s car was entitled to claim the provenance of “Bentley No. 1” it also included:

The car is not and cannot be considered to be, or be known properly as the “original” car which won either the 1929 or 1930
Le Mans

It cannot properly be described as “Genuine” Old Number One. This is a broad and practical description but more befitting a
racing car which has had an active continuous life with no occasion when it disappeared into limbo or changed its character in
any way.

It cannot properly be described, as the defendants in effect contend, as a mere “resurrection” (another of the Jenkinson
descriptions). Neither after the 1931 rebuild nor after the crash in 1932 did it reach the end of its useful life. The car in its then
form (on each occasion) did not die, was not abandoned nor cannibalized, nor gradually dismantled and used as a source of
spare parts for other cars. It did not reach the stage that such components as existed were gathered together to form the basis
of a new car “from the bare bones or ashes of the original another one appeared . . . a resurrection from the dead, or from the
graveyard”

The point made in the last paragraph is important to the application of new build airframes, isn’t the use of a data plate from a wreck where all the remaining parts are new built from new metal exactly a situation of an aircraft identity that has

“died, been abandoned and cannibalized, and gradually dismantled and used as a source of spare parts.”

Hasnt that same ‘recreated” aircraft

reached the stage that such components as existed were gathered together to form the basis
of a new aircraft “from the bare bones or ashes of the original another one appeared . . . a resurrection from the dead, or from the
graveyard

and if that IS the case with a new build aircraft, regardless of logbook or data plate, then this Bentleigh decision would definately determine that outcome would be determined to be a mere “resurrection”.

A “recreation” in my mind is a far nicer and appropriate description as it acknowledges the very significant engineering and construction work actually achieved by the restoration workshop, it really is a qwork of art, birth of a wonderful aircraft, a creation to be honoured, why not admit and celebrate it?

Many of the “new” build aircraft we are debating have little if any original parts in them from the nominated identity, let alone any siginificant content from other original examples of the same type, to be able to invoke the “Bentley No.1” Defence, in fact that case clearly undermines their claims.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
well put Arthur, blunty and brutally, and well put.

Aircraft preserved in museum’s are attempting to preserve history, the “Warbird” movement does contain people and aircraft trying to achieve the same objective, but many more who just enjoy flying heavy metal, the proverbial “toys for the boys” not unlike a sports car etc (not that there’s anything wrong with that)

The balance needed is to recognise the significant historical airframes both in static museums and flying collections, and manage and protect those for future generations.

The production of limited run “recreations” of F3F’s, ME262’s, Oscars and FW-190’s, in the most engineered from accurate drawings or templates but perhaps with some compromises to engine, undercarriage and prop components are forfilling both objectives, of adding to the preservation and display of the type, (particularly airworthy display) (but through an accurate
reproduction rather than original), and also meeting the desire of a well funded owner to enjoy and fly such a machine.

The builders of those aircraft happily record transparantly the “recreation” that has been undertaken, and obviously gain both financial return and proffessional / industry acknowledgement of their fine efforts, without the need to “fabricate” an original identity to their creation.

Obviously there is a point in which the original and authentic content of an aircraft ‘restoration” (either containing parts from a specific identity, or even parts from a composite of original identities) is so low as to not honestly consist of any provenance other than a shadow on the floor.

While acknowledged and transparant “recreations” exist in the “extinct” or rarity end of the “warbird” market (its hard to explain where you found 4 complete Me262’s lying around previously undiscovered) there are now such an extensive source of new manufactured parts to support restorations of Spitfires, P40’s and Mustangs that it is possible to largely construct a new “recreated” example with little original manufactured parts, and no originating identity.

The issue often argued “for” adopting an identity is that the finished product inherets the flight certification of the original type, and does not have to run the gauntlet of airworthiness assessment as a new type, and I have some sympathy for that.

However that allocation of an identity also brings with it the provenance of the original, and its history, ie “this spitfire shot down 5 enemy aircraft of day X” where as it might be far more correct to say “the paintscheme of this aircraft shot down 5 enemy aircraft of day X”.

Like the art world, our recreations, reproductions, replicas or even composite restorations should be recognised as such so as not to devalue the true conserved, preserved and restored originals.

regards

Mark Pilkington