WIX Archives
Re: No one wants to talk about it.
Posted by David M Jameson on Sun Jun 16, 2002 09:54:51 PM
In reply top Re: No one wants to talk about it. posted by Scott WRG Editor on Sun Jun 16, 2002 07:14:33 PM
: 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 aircraf
: t as a historical object, something that replicas--No matt
: er how well built--just aren't. On the other hand you have
: those that view these aircraft beautiful collection of me
: tal and wood that soars through the sky and gives you goos
: e bumps when it flys past, basically they love the technol
: ogy 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 a
: re 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, replacin
: g some of the more historical aircraft in the air. In some
: cases (and this is another discussion entirely) certain w
: arbirds shouldn't fly, specifically those with strong and
: defines combat histories, these should be placed in museum
: s. But thats my opinion.
:
: Scott
:
:
:
:
:
: : Why doesn't the EAA, CAF or others want to discuss the i
: ss
: : ues of whether an aircraft is an restoration or a replic
: a?
: : It appears that they only want to "brand" aircraft wit
: ho
: : ut a bill of sales as replicas. What reason is there be
: yo
: : nd which classification the FAA denotes it.
I understand your thoughts Karen & Scott.
This question still begs to be asked.
Aircraft A & B were in the war and both saw action.
Aircraft A survived the war.
Aircraft B crashed during the war.
Aircraft B was written off the books by the military. Aircraft A was sold as scrap after the war.
Both were later purchased and restored, now, are they both restored aircraft, or only the one that carries the documentation for the FAA.
This is my question. My opinion is they both have verifiable history and should be considered as restorations.
While people want to equate real and history to dollars, I feel that this should be secondary to whether the aircraft is real or not first, but again, we have to get past the first question.
Most aircraft flying, but certainly not all, are not or were not the aircraft that actually flew in the war, but they too, still have a "history". Why does this make them any different.
As Mr. Coggan has stated earlier in the day, this topic has been debated before, and it appears that it will certainly be again; does not change the fact that it apears to be perception instead of all facts.
Karen, you stated earlier that your family would have been happy to donate a part to complete another aircraft. Does this change the mix any. How many parts are needed.
Many warbirds that survived the war, were rebuilt many many times to maintain their flying status.
A warbird is a warbird is a warbird; crashed, survived or restored.
I agree that the new FW190's are made in the spirit of their past, and for their enjoyment today. The only difference is, the builder has made no attempt to conceal his aircraft. If these aircraft had been made with __% of actual combat parts, how would you feel about their authenticity; replica or restoration.
While the comments run the gamut from agreeable to not, basicially it seeems either yes and no, depending on who answers i. But as this discussion ends, hopefully the thought won't. That could be the greatest tradigy.
David