Well

As always this is a fascinating subject and one that brings out emotion. For me it is also a very topical one given the current explosion in the recovery and “restoration” of many airframes.
I propose to take a theoretical pathway for this discussion.
I hypothesise that there two core groups of aircraft rebuilds and that within them there layers or levels of rebuild. There are flying aircraft and there are static aircraft.
I am one who loves to see aircraft in the air – flying – that is after all their original purpose. However for reasons I will go into I am not a fan of largely original aircraft flying, at least those over say 30 years old.
To further subdivide the various categories of flying aircraft here are my categories
1) Restored/refurbished – a flying aircraft which is largely composed of the material that was present on the day it ceased service (say over 75%). Thankfully not a lot of these about over 50 years old but there are some. I am against flying these machines on two fronts. a) There is no guarantee that the structure of these machines is up to the job any longer. Flying around in a 50+ year old set of metal or wood is probably a little silly. b) From a historic perspective the value of such a machine is huge and it has a place in a museum as a valuable artefact, greater than the flying role.
2) Restored/rebuilt – a flying aircraft composed of some original material but mostly constructed from new parts built to original specifications – it utilises identities gained from source material so as to have a “provenance” but is largely “new build”. I have much less of a problem here as the aircraft is built with modern materials and processes and can be said in most cases to be better than original although as we all know there are cases of poor workmanship as there are with all flying aircraft. One major point at issue here is the current trend to vandalism that occurs when an historic aircraft is recovered largely intact and then the aircraft is used as a pattern and identity “mule” for an airworthy reproduction. This is happening a lot and should not be allowed to happen. Many historic aircraft are being destroyed needlessly to provide identities for brand new airframes. Easily overcome if some sensible changes were put in place at the regulatory level.
3) Reconstruction/replica – Same as 2 but an aircraft that is built to resemble an original aircraft but does not utilise original techniques or materials – again I have no issue here as long as the construction is sound and the result looks “right” why not.

The main issues here are that aircraft should be as safe as possible and not consume valuable historic artefacts in the process – I have seen 5 wrecks used as patterns for one airworthy rebuild and then all that material binned to ensure the “provenance ” of the “original” replica – Vandalism especially as 3 of those wrecks could have been restored as substantially complete original examples in historic collections.

Now to static aircraft
1) Time capsules – aircraft that are largely as they were the day they left service – perhaps conserved to inhibit corrosion and so on but much as they were – for example, the AWM Spitfire in Canberra
2) Largely complete restorations – aircraft that utilise as much of an original aircraft as possible and the rest is reconstructed utilising original materials and methods.
3) Historic Replica – aircraft constructed utilising original plans, specifications , materials and construction methods of an original
4) Replica – aircraft constructed to varying levels of accuracy to serve as a display /promotional product for museum/commercial purposes

In My perfect world all intact or substantial original aircraft pre 1948 say would be grounded and only airworthy new build aircraft would fly – provenance would not depend on Data plates but on allocation of a desired identity – only to one aircraft not multiples. This would help address the destruction of recovered machines for their identity. The Patterns argument is rubbish because once you have a pattern you don’t need to destroy 5 aircraft to get 5 patterns – lets face it a lot of recovered aircraft are destroyed to get rid of a duplicate identity when they could be handed over to museums once a project is finished (I know this happens a lot but not enough).

This would not change the current situation that much as most aircraft rebuilt now, certainly WW11 machines are new build. I just want to see more historic airframes being rebuilt/conserved/restored and going to historic museums than into smelters. There could even be Tax incentives to companies who donate their historic remanets to a Museum and incentives to even restore them for the Museum.

I am really sick of the bulldust “Provenance” argument put up by self serving interests in the industry over the identity of an aircraft. Let’s face it I just went to Duxford and saw Leg ends, and a great air show it was too. There were all these “WW11” fighters there – fantastic – such a wonderful sight but I would be really surprised how much of each Spit airframe for example was “original” and for reasons stated above I am pleased they aren’t. But They all have an identity or provenance based upon a donor airframe which can be as small as a data plate or can consume major parts of a static airframe which is then often scrapped rather than being used in a static rebuild just so it doesn’t confuse the title/provenance of someone’s flying investment – pure vandalism of a historic artefact. Future generations will cringe at this travesty. We can have both so easily just tidy up the regulations to allow for title allocation and allow for incentives to preserve donor aircraft in museums – You know it makes sense – let’s do it.

Now let the boiling oil flow !!!!!!!

Kindest regards
John Parker

Mark P

Why would we need a sub assemblies diagram ?

To assemble what ?

John p

Hi Mark

Yes that’s half the fun with the big format kits – finding all the parts and doing all the sanding – you wind up with a real stunner from what looked like a pile of old rubbish !

I think you have some very nice kits Mark and you will have lots of fun putting them all together with the other kiddies. Don’t forget though that you need a very big cupboard to put all the finished models in especially in Australia as they fade in the sun when it comes through the window and you certainly can’t leave them out in the rain just because they don’t fit in the house and your mum says she won’t have them in the lounge room.

Regards
John P

Well here we go

I would never argue with Bruce in matters mossie. I would venture however that there is very little chance that this airframe has survived in airworthy condition – such is the nature of the beast that the delamination which has almost certainly occured or rot/drying out of the airframe will see to it that it is grounded.

So to what to do with it?

It could well be used as the basis for a donor airframe and utilising metal and a Glyn Powell airframe thus fly again. On the other hand believe it ofr not there are enough sets of metal “bits” around in NZ/Aus to build a few without resorting to this.

My choice would be to restore her as she is as a static rebuild for a museum and just repair damage as found and as my old friend Mk12 would stay keep her full provinance – she is after all a complete Mossie with a high content of original material so why not keep her that way and this could well be what is proposed. Plenty of opportunity now thanks to Glyn to see some new build mossies in the air why risk aircraft and lives flying around in 60 plus year old ply wood. I also think it would be tantamount to vandalism to dismantle her to provide “metal bits” when they already exist “sans airframe ” in suitable quantities.

Let the barbecue begin !!!!
Regards
john P

Hi Folks

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO I don’t think I should start this all over again – Space is being cleared in Brisbane as I speak…………..

John P

Hi all

I have tried to book a flight but I just can’t make the funeral, everything is booked solid – I am so sorry please convey my sadness about this and I really wish I could get there. I will happily contribute to the flypast and the memorial.

There will be a Chippy in the air here on the day to remember him and a wreath will be dropped over the side to comemorate his passing.

John P