WIX Archives

Re: Ushering in a new age of understanding

Posted by David M Jameson on Tue Jun 18, 2002 12:00:44 AM

In reply top Ushering in a new age of understanding posted by Rob Mears on Mon Jun 17, 2002 11:15:21 PM

: I look at it this way. There will never be a "line of per
: centage" that can be agreed upon where an authentic warbir
: d becomes a replica. That's kind of like trying to determ
: ine where the atmosphere ends, and outerspace begins. The
: ultimate answer will always fall prey of speculation.
:
: "Intent" on part of the owner/restorer is part of the key.
: As best I can outline, the two following examples portra
: y the type of fine line we are trying to paint, and how mu
: ch of that line is based on matters of the heart:
:
: Imagine an avid restorer locating the wreckage of a famous
: P-51 and dragging that wreckage to his private hangar in
: hopes that it could some how be saved and returned to its
: former glory. In this person's heart, his efforts are bei
: ng put forth to promote the lineage of the original plane.
: I have no problem with this situation as long as two res
: ponsibilities are adhered to. In the end it would be the
: owner's responsibility NOT to claim his plane was in fact
: the original, and the historian/enthusiast's responsibilit
: y to confirm and document the restoration and which items
: WERE in fact retained from the original wreckage. Both th
: e owner and the historian would have to take on the respon
: sibility of relating the identity of the plane more in ter
: ms of an essay rather than any convenient one-word definit
: ion.
:
: People who create a new-build P-51 (whether they register
: the plane using a data plate purchased off of eBay or not)
: should hold themselves accountable for representing the p
: lane simply as a custom built P-51. It is in the end stil
: l obviously a P-51. To claim the plane to be "43-23556" i
: n the owner's eyes might be just their way of relating the
: plane's registry number, but to a historian its blasphemy
: ! :)
:
: The two examples above are one example of the very fine li
: ne we're dealing with in regard to promoted identities. A
: P-51 is a P-51 is a P-51 in my book, but with the extreme
: nature of this whole debate we're asking ourselves to for
: evermore take on the task of splitting hairs in regard to
: identifying historical aircraft. I'm here to define and h
: and out the responsibility ;)
:
: If we as a community are intent on ushering in the next de
: gree of identifying 'true originality', then we're going t
: o have to agree that it will involve more than just a gene
: ral term like "replica', 'custom', 'original', etc. More
: than likely the answer in regard to each plane's originali
: ty will be composed of more of an 'essay' rather than a on
: e-word response. People who are enthusiastic about going
: this far are going to have to invest in researching the de
: tailed lineage of each of the planes that they are compari
: ng to each other.
:
: Regarding Corsairs for example, the XF4U-1 located at the
: New England Air Museum in Connecticut is the most original
: , unrestored Corsair in the world as far as I know (100% a
: s it sits). I doubt any other operational Corsair in exis
: tance could claim to be more than 80-85% original in compa
: rison to this plane. To "nit-pick" each aircraft through,
: body panel by body panel, and paint chip by paint chip wo
: uld be an extremely exhaustive (if not impossible) process
: , but it seems to be a new understanding that's in growing
: demand by the historian/enthusiast population. At this c
: rucial point in history we are about the only clan of peop
: le who will ultimately have had the resoruces to discover
: the truth about most of these planes from the time they we
: re surplused to today. Today most people could care less,
: but in 100 years I believe the truth will be in high dema
: nd.
:
: There is no general 'fashion plate' against which all warb
: irds can be judged as more or less original. Many hundred
: s if not thousands of modifications and upgrades were put
: into effect at the assembly line level with all of these p
: lanes, and there is no telling in what precise disposition
: each of these planes emerged from the factory. Also, som
: e people begin their perceptive origin of originality with
: a particular famous aerial battle a particular plane was
: involved in. Immediately there is no way to understand wh
: at parts a particular plane was comprised of at any point
: in time, especially if it was operated for another 200+ ho
: urs before war's end, undergoing two military overhauls in
: the process.
:
: Bottom line:
:
: Due to the varying assumptions of what "originality" actua
: lly is, the determination of such will never be agreed upo
: n in any definative ultra-critical fashion. I think the p
: opular new desire to label each plane's originality level
: is simply a crude prelude to the future of this hobby whic
: h will utimately entail the detailed documentation of airf
: rame lineage on a PLANE-BY-PLANE basis (as it should be).
: No broad sweeping single-sylable terminology, no debatabl
: e buzzwords, and definately no quick answers. Pick your f
: avorite airframe and dig deep. It seems were headed towar
: d a degree of regard where we will have to investigate the
: intensive work of researchers to determine how to compose
: an estimation of a particular airframe. I'm all for this
: as it makes our relationship with each particular warbird
: more profound rather than referring to them as just a num
: ber in a book.
:
: So, how many of my fellow nit-pickers are prepared for som
: e ultra-intinsive research, beginning with "surviving Spit
: fire airframe number XXXXX"? :)
:
: Rob


Rob;

While I understand your example, why would the P-51 NOT be the restored aircraft it once was?

You are right though, it IS the responsibility of the restorer etc. to verify and document this process. But beyond that, is the restored P-51 no less of an aircraft than others, just because it was not flying for the past 20 years or 60.

Not withstanding all the AD's by the FAA. Not taking into account that most of the flying aircraft of today, are 50 to 80% new. Most of the flying aircraft of today are rebuilt, as they have been crashed how many times before.

If the new discovery P-51 utilized as much of the frame work as possible, but it was re-skinned, rebuilt engine etc. why the difference in perception. To some it is the same, others not.

The point remains, I feel, who wants to be that one person who stands up, and takes the heat for expousing their view.

Does that make that person right because they stated their opinion? Do we obtain a general consensus on each, as a case by case basis; maybe? Vote among the membership?

That may be the best way to resolve it in the minds of most, but I fear never all.

Hypothetically speaking, maybe this is a way for the sanctioning bodies to take a stand, without making hugh waves.

David

Follow Ups: