‘A non problem for all the people that matter’

Do we now have an upper echelon of people are in some way more important than the average person who is interested in what a machine is ??

There are restorers who are very much interested in what a machine consists of . Indeed a long chat with one over the weekend was on the percentage of original material to be incorporated in a ‘missing’ U.K type . There are different ways to restore a machine -you can throw all skinning away and go for fresh or retain existing skins that can be made airworthy with further expense . The notion that there is one level of restoration and everything has to be done to that is nonsense.

You are, of course, choosing to misunderstand my perfectly clear meaning. Did I mention ‘upper-echelons’…? The people who matter are blindingly obvious, first and formost being the CAA. Does ‘..in some way more important’ include (Dare I mention it..) actually putting-up the money…? :rolleyes: Well, we’d all be ******** without them. Did I ever say ‘restorers who are (not) very much interested in what a machine consists of’. Of course they are, and they use every original bit they can – but it doesn’t mean they have fetish for judgmentally labelling every project. I happen to think it’s pretty pointless and rather corrosive. I look for the positives. Furthermore, no one has suggested there is ‘one level’ of restoration. Only insofar as it must be safe – and as accurate as practicable. I said in an earlier post, there is a wide spectrum. Most people messing with a/c seem to be pretty relaxed about this, it’s the ‘labellers’ who are more animated……:). I’m all for being a purist, it’s simply that airworthy a/c are not, as I’ve said before, preserved in aspic.

The ‘provenance’ of an aircraft isnt an issue until someone throws you a curved ball! I can think of two aircraft where some skins and other parts were discarded during the restoration process -these have gone on to third parties and suddenly they acquire a value as effectively they are that aircraft albeit replaced!

That just shouldn’t happen. Continuity is embodied within the ongoing original identity. I have more original parts of one a/c than is flying. I couldn’t ‘clone’ it. I know there have been court cases with classic cars, but in aviation, it’s effectively impossible. Of course, if someone wants to use those parts on another identity, they can, if they are usable. None of that is confusing. 🙂

Semantics.

Mark P. The core issue here seems to be that you have a bee in your bonnet about ‘reproductions’ – another wonderfully vague term. Isn’t EVERY a/c after the prototype a reproduction….? The fact is, if a/c type ‘B’ is built to the drawings, it’s a type ‘B’. Period. Drawings and material specs aren’t vague, – they are precise, – they have to be. This term ‘reproductions’ is actually completely meaningless. Strangely, the people who build, certificate and fly them all agree. Think about it. During the war, most a/c weren’t even built by the parent company…!
As I said, years ago, I used to agonise somewhat over this rubbish myself. Then I realised just how much sections of a/c were swapped, exchanged and rebuilt, even back when they were current a/c, and the last-ditch definition seemed to be that the Firewall, with it’s dataplates and mod-plates was the defining ‘heart’ of the a/c’s identity. Then I found-out that in the field, engineers, for reasons of expeditiousness, would even swap these… This was my moment of clarity. The age of a bit of metal, the number on a dataplate etc…it’s all complete balls. Is it to the drawings? – That’s that is the acid test. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and has a fascination with trouser-legs…it’s a dog….!
Stan Smith is right. The obsession with labelling is annoying. It’s also nice if folks make sure they get their facts right.
I was talking to an aviation luminary recently, and he was relating how, after giving a display in his recently restored vintage a/c a few years ago, a fellow called him over from the crowdline. On approaching, he was rather brusquely told;-
“You’ve got that wrong”…silence…no explanation. Rather nonplussed, but exercising a level of patience that neither I nor Joab himself could never aspire to, he enquired, “Well, – I’m terribly sorry, we have taken years to rebuild it and did our very best. What IS it that’s wrong with it..?” replied our nonplussed flier.
“The colour” came the reply from the poe-faced assassin. Pause…..
“How so?” replied our stoic hero, fearing he’d committed an irredeemable and very public faux-pas.
“It’s red, it should be blue” said Charon, pointing a gnawed and tobacco-stained digit towards the shining a/c ticking contentedly a few feet away.
Our old and bold, breathed a sigh of relief, told him he was mistaken and ambled-off to savour the day.
I confess that I squirmed as this little tale was related, complete with some very uncharacteristic expletives by the restorer. The point is, our hero had not only gone to great expense and extraordinary lengths to get every detail right, he’d researched not only the original colours, but the exact shade of that Titanine red, down to obtaining colour samples and eye-witness referrals and documentation.
Of course, the restoration was spot-on. The ‘expert’ only knew the a/c from pictures of a later guise, and his depth of knowledge didn’t extend beyond that. He did however, feel filled with sufficient messianic zeal to bestow his ‘revelation’ upon our Biggles in a misguided effort to – inform/embarrass/show ‘superior’ knowledge – who knows. HGAF.
It does, however, highlight the fact that restorers are subject to a sort of mediaeval ‘Trial by Fire’ when they wheel out their handiwork. The last thing one wants is for any unnecessary deviations to be highlighted. Probably 90% of those viewing wouldn’t spot errors. Perhaps 9% are pretty clued-up, and would spot a major whoopsie. A tiny fraction, perhaps 1% will be hard-core enthusiast who are clued-up enough to point a finger at the finer points. Today, this scrutiny has been hugely increased many times-over by the web. Nonetheless, this impels restorers to be, more often than not, their own harshest critics. I’m sure Stan will know exactly what I mean.
In and around the search or ‘accuracy’, agonising over semantics simply doesn’t figure in the equation, – unless it’s on the drawings. 🙂

Oh Bloomin’eck….

You’re right, but this isn’t entirely the preserve of the wealthy. Historic a/c top-out at the likes of perhaps the Vulcan (Unless Bill Gates plans to get a Space Shuttle flying again..!) and has a hard-deck down at the £10-20k bracket, which, especially within a Flying Group, is pretty-much within anyones reach to get involved, – and they should, it’s fun and it’s a legal high. 🙂
Actually (He dons his tin-hat and cricket-box at this point….) operating in groups, enthusiast can do pretty-much anything they like. Rather like aviations Levellers….

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk

I think that many enthusiast just do not realise just how many a/c are restored & operated as a group, whether on a CofA or an LAA Permit to Fly. If they did, I think they get involved more in greater numbers. A Cub or an Auster may not be a Spitfire, but they can have served in the war and be a genuine ‘warbird’. Oh, – and you can get your harris off the deck too. Given the prices that some noses chopped-off old a/c sell for, I know where I’d rather spend my lucre. (Ouch…!) :diablo: Now, where’s that door gone?:)

I’m Relaxed.

Tangmere is exactly right in post 47. Mark P’ is however rather missing the point in parts. Most restorers really aren’t really claiming anything as much as he suggests. They are simply making type’X’ airworty – for all to enjoy. Take it or leave it. A type will have history – and so will it’s individual ID. No one is claiming every part is THE original rivet or washer. THAT is the point – it’s the very essence of historic a/c. Chill. Get used to it, it’s reality.
At this point, I have to confess that I used to harbour some of these anoraky sentiments myself. Well, the news is – lifes short, far too short. After years of struggling against the sands of time I was cured…:p
Neither are things ‘concealed’, rather, folk just do not have the hours in the day to detail the history of every split-pin. I think it’s best for enthusiasts to just assume everything has been replaced or re-worked…then…perhaps they will enjoy seeing, discovering just how much original material lives-on. A far more positive take I think.
In his later post Tagnmere points-out what I’ve said above…..specific ‘claims’ of detailed provenance are between vendors and buyers. Rebuilders are not setting-out to deceive the ‘public’. Owners simply pointing-out an a/c’s history is in no way a claim that every rivet was present, except in the minds of the terminally naive. By implication, neither are buyers fools, you may rest assured on that..! 99.9% of them accept the realities I’ve alluded to, and are pretty chilled-out about it. They are more concerned with the ‘quality’ of the rebuild.
KnifeEdgeTurn makes a point I’ve made often before, – generally, the real 100% gems are the ideal statics – to preserve the data – the rebuilds are better candidates for flying – but it’s not always clear-cut. That P40 in the desert would make a nice accurate static rebuilt with mostly original parts available.
My own peccadillo is accuracy. Even if I’m the only person who sees it or knows the issue – I have the personal satisfaction of knowing it’s accurate. An arcane pleasure…! I think ‘we’ as enthusiasts, should interest ourselves in that, rather than the exact dendocronological age of the material, which in a living aircraft is to some extent, an ever-flowing river (To the compost-heap..!), especially as Eric Munk has said, in wooden a/c.
As for a/c that ‘appear’ – well, again – everyone with any knowledge already knows the score. Honestly, it doesn’t really matter. Chill, smile and enjoy…! 🙂

Misnomers et al.

Post No4 by Tangmere hit the nail on the head;- ‘Allowed’ -‘permitted’…??? The very concept doesn’t exist except in the mind of a few anoraks. Replacement of airframe or parts are, in reality, ‘required’ or ‘necessitated’ (For Airworthiness.), so these terms, or similar, should be substituted.
It’s worth reminding folks that a/c in service often get any and all parts exchanged. This was particularly the case during the last war. Some ID’s had very chequered histories, with little but the firewall being original. If part ‘X’ is made today 100% to drawings & spec – is it ‘original’…? I have replacement parts that were made after the war, but which have flown for years longer than the originals did….. The legendary Tommy Sopwith had a good angle on this, he referred to a 100% correct modern Camel as ‘Late Production’. Clarity indeed from an icon of aviation.
Quite why some wrecks deserve to be pickled in aspic as a sort of 1:1 scale Airfix diorama perplexes me. The P40 recently found would make an ideal resoration to either static or airworthy. Far better than many, and doesn’t deserve to be chucked in a heap on a pile of sand, especially since it’s been got-at by the Skinnies now. 🙂

Paddy’s wheelbarrow…..? :p

Happy Days.

Flack attended the GWAD’s at West Malling in the early ’80’s. His was one of a number of fighters with their tails right up against the crowdline fence and did several very wet, fiery starts, much to the pleasure of all the Prop-Heads standing a few feet behind. RH was there with ‘434 with many others. One display ended with a small formation around the then silver-painted Sally-B whilst some old wartime music played over a very rough PA. All this as low cloud and mist closed-in. Very moody and evocative. Those displays had a wonderful informality about them too. Happy days, – gone but not forgotten. I have zillions of photos on slide. I’ll put some up when I get a suitable scanner. 🙂