WIX Archives

What's a "survivor"

Posted by dumaresqc on Mon Sep 23, 2002 02:17:26 PM

In reply top Presentation Spitfires posted by dumaresqc on Mon Sep 23, 2002 11:40:19 AM

Thanks very much for the replies.

Of course, all of this, in my mind, begs the question, what do we mean by "survivor"? And I don't mean the TV show.

I guess if some pieces of an airframe are in storage somewhere, or under under restoration, then you could say that airframe is "extant", but something that crashed and was destroyed, then buried somewhere for 50 to 60 years can't really be called a "survivor", or can it? The Canada Aviation Museum Spitfire II is a survivor, since it was never shot down, never destroyed.

I don't really care so much what status they attach to their example. I'm more curious about where "restoration" ends and "re-creation" begins. And I know there have been plenty of discussions on this in the past. Not really trying to open the can of worms again, but I guess I am.

I am curious to hear other people's views. I guess the bottom line for me is that I am happy to see a vintage plane in the air, as long as it is authentic. Once it is in it's element, it doesn't really matter to me if the airframe has survived 60 years intact, or if it is 95% new. Or if just the data plates are original (which I would call a replica at that point). If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it flies like a Spitfire and sounds like a Spitfire, it's a Spitfire, no matter what adjective you attach to it. And I'd happily see it.

Now, if I had the money to buy one, my opinion would surely change. I would also have to think about this a little more if I was a museum curator. There are many shades of grey on this issue.

Just my 2 cents worth, however uncomfortably I am perched on the fence.

Charles

Follow Ups: