Apply the criteria - that specific aircraft, or that type of aircraft?Originally Posted by Tom Downey
Interested - how did it serve?
Apply the criteria - that specific aircraft, or that type of aircraft?
Interested - how did it serve?
The Airventure judging definition is honest, but that doesn't mean that it is dishonest to paint a plane in military colors. I own an O-2A and I try my best to keep it looking like it should have looked in service. On the other hand, if I owned a regular civilian Skymaster, I would want to paint it up in warbird colors, maybe with a little imagination (like a current USAF paint-scheme.) I think it would be fun and of no harm to anyone. I just wouldn't try to tell people that it is an O-2B. I have seen that.
Just to add another facet, What about replicas? There is everything from the Tora Tora Tora replicas using parts from T6s and BT-13s grafted together to the magnificent ME-262 scratchbuilt replicas. Another example would be the recreated Potez 63-11 in Texas. The B-29 Fifi is not technically flying with engines that are original to B-29s, so I guess engine change is ok... I think when these good folks taxi up at OSH they will be herded to the warbird section without second thought. And there are some pretty darn good WW1 replicas out there, some built mostly as original. Where do they go? There was an SE5a at OSH recently that was as much a warbird as the ME-262s. For me the line can be very clear, or it gets very fuzzy when the first 'exception' is made; and oddly enough, I am ok with exceptions as long as certain basic intent is met to accurately represent a military aircraft, but as M. said above, not try to represent it as something it is not..
I laugh and think back to a certain Supreme Court Justice's definition of pornography: "I'll know it when I see it".
Fun discussion.
Last edited by snj5; 05-04-2012 at 05:30 AM.
For replicas, there is the replica fighter association, which has its own parking area at AirVenture. There are some real interesting airplanes there, to include scaled versions of WW2 aircraft and some very well done WW1 airplanes. I think that the "new" FW 190's are awesome. In some ways better than the original run. But they are not the original run. When does replacing parts on a warbird make it no longer "ex-military" (the term Warbirds Association uses)? I don't know. Is the USS Constitution the real USS Constitution? Over the course of its history, I believe that EVERYTHING has been changed...each and every piece of wood and brass fitting (the bell might be original.) I don't think anyone doubts that it is still the original "Old Ironsides." That is probably also true for some of the older serving USAF aircraft. I read some time ago that the FAA will allow an aircraft as a being the original plane (eligible for rebuild or "major airframe repair") as long as the original data plate is there.
For everything else, paint your airplane however you please. Have fun. That is what flying is all about. Be happy that we live in a country where we can fly and we can dress up our planes as we like. Please, however, do not try to tell people that your painted up Sia Marchetti is a warbird -- unless that particular plane is, in fact, a veteran (retired military service.)
Yes, but I don't think the new replica FW190s, Me262s, Tora birds or the like will be there at RFA....although technically that is where they belong. Obviously, the 600 pound gorilla in the room is money, BIG money. But that's OK. My replica Sopwith Camel has an original data plate and original parts and is as much original Camel as Glacier Girl is an original P-38. But, I don't think I'll be escorted to Warbird show center.
Last edited by snj5; 07-23-2012 at 03:48 PM.
It is not a matter of if any and how much of the parts have been replaced. It is a question of the origin of the plane.
Glacier Girl is a P-38, it was built by the factory during the war and used by the military. Of course when it was restored many parts were renewed or replaced, but it was a genuine P-38.
If your Sopwith Camel was built as such by the factory , then it is genuine. But if instead it was built in someone's modern shop , it is a replica, no matter how closely it looks like the real thing.
Many replicas are very cool, and great to have at shows and flying.
No one is likely to fly an original Me 262 or a FW190 like the one from Arizona, etc.
The replica may be better than the original, like the much better engines on the new 262s, but they are not the real thing.
And why worry so much about if it is genuine. That only matters so much if you are trying to sell it , like some fine copies of works of art are attempted to be passed off as genuine.
It was donated to the War effort in 42, and operated as coastal patrol until end of war and then given back to the DuPonts in 46.
Great discussion. We see this same argument a lot with vintage Ferraris, another high dollar historical toy. Just how much of the original item is left? There are more 250 GTOs, etc, than ever left the factory, many claiming to be made from enough original parts to be a "Ferrari". Provenence is a sticky issue and affects value which affects lots of money. For example, Glacier Girl is really more of a re-creation using many original parts from mostly one original plane, which is cool. It is not the plane that rolled out the factory door during the war. I know someone that rebuilt a very famous Ferrari racing car from a few components after the car crashed and burned during a race. Ferrari, SpA, say the car was destroyed. But this car does have components marked with the factory serials. Is it that car just repaired? It's arguable. Glacier Girl is much the same - she was totally crushed and destroyed under ice for decades, and now it has been painstakingly recreated using as many salvagable parts as possible. Very wonderful, but it's not the original plane.
The supposed Spitfires in a box in Burma - that's original.
We all basically agree, here, it is just how much is left. Well, the CAA/FAA is clear enough - in the USA after 1926 it's the data plate. That's all it needs from the original factory to be certified, even if precious little else originally came with that data plate through the factory door. A lot of P-51s have had un-original back seats put in, engine mods, etc., and they are still P-51s. There are many warbirds cobbled together from many separate planes. Entire F3Fs have been built around not much more than a data plate, and are legally F3Fs is what I read. It is a spectrum. My point is that we can't be too exact about the whole issue, because every argument breaks down. As long as each is clear about what it exactly is, people can say what they want. Originals, replicas, recreations or whatever are all wonderful testaments to history and the men that flew them, and can all be enjoyed, admired and appreciated for what they are. Best to all.
Last edited by snj5; 07-24-2012 at 03:51 AM.
snj,
Personally, I think that your Camel should have been right there in Fightertown! Maybe next year? And in the airshow, too?
Where was it?
I was told that of all the Navions parked in the L-Bird area, only one was a real L-17. On Thursday, a C-337C, painted up similar to an O-2B was parked out there as well. In that case, the operator was trying to sell his deceased father's plane and thought it might generate more interest in Warbirds than in Vintage. Good logic and hard to be anything but supportive for that.
You are very kind. I am planning on 2014, the 100th anniverary of the Great War. Although overshadowed by WW2 types, the full size WW1 replica aircraft have a lot to offer. Fun and challenging to fly, they really give an insight and appreciation into the first men to go into war in the air. They cost about as much as a nice car to build or buy, and are quite inexpensive to run and maintain. All the while replicating the feel and characteristics of WW1 flying, which is much more pure and edgy than later planes. After you land, you really feel like you've done something amazing and been to a very special place, that nowadays few people really know. I loved my SNJ and T-28, but the Sopwith is sheer magic. At 8 gallons an hour.
Well, off to do battle with the wily Hun over Ypres....
Last edited by snj5; 08-03-2012 at 07:53 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote