WIX Archives

Re: No one wants to talk about it.

Posted by Scott WRG Editor on Sun Jun 16, 2002 07:14:33 PM

In reply top No one wants to talk about it. posted by David M Jameson on Sun Jun 16, 2002 12:43:24 AM

Okay, here's my two cents/euros worth...

The big difference between replicas and restorations comes down to how you view these aircraft. On one hand you have those that are interested in history and view the aircraft as a historical object, something that replicas--No matter how well built--just aren't. On the other hand you have those that view these aircraft beautiful collection of metal and wood that soars through the sky and gives you goose bumps when it flys past, basically they love the technology of the aircraft. In this case, an accurate replica has the same thrill as a restored aircraft.

The problem is that history sells. A person looking to buy a P-51 Mustang is probably willing to pay more if it has some sort of history, combat history preferred. Replicas are basically new built aircraft and can't really garner a premium no matter what design they are. In that case your paying for materials and labor and the design is secondary.

Personally I would like to see more replicas fly, replacing some of the more historical aircraft in the air. In some cases (and this is another discussion entirely) certain warbirds shouldn't fly, specifically those with strong and defines combat histories, these should be placed in museums. But thats my opinion.

Scott





: Why doesn't the EAA, CAF or others want to discuss the iss
: ues of whether an aircraft is an restoration or a replica?
: It appears that they only want to "brand" aircraft witho
: ut a bill of sales as replicas. What reason is there beyo
: nd which classification the FAA denotes it.

Follow Ups: