WIX Archives
I think a "survivor" is...
Posted by Mike Henniger on Mon Sep 23, 2002 02:38:42 PM
In reply top What's a "survivor" posted by dumaresqc on Mon Sep 23, 2002 02:17:26 PM
If an "airframe" is pulled out of a swamp and restored, even with a high percentage new, then I would consider this a survivor. This is really the same discussion that has taken place here before. I consider a data plate restoration authentic, because it is as you said "If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...". The only thing I would add is that it very much preferable to document the "history" of the airframe (this is clearly an enthusiasts point of view). For example... The aircraft was built in 19xx as s/n XXXX, was shot down in 19xx, majority of fuselage recovered in 19xx, restored in 19xx using left wing from s/n YYYY and right wing built new and other replcated components, registered with original serial XXXX.
I suppose I wouldn't consider it a survivor until the majority of it is recovered and prevented from further deterioration.
My two cents.
Regards,
Mike
: Thanks very much for the replies.
:
: Of course, all of this, in my mind, begs the question, wha
: t do we mean by "survivor"? And I don't mean the TV show.
:
:
: I guess if some pieces of an airframe are in storage somew
: here, or under under restoration, then you could say that
: airframe is "extant", but something that crashed and was d
: estroyed, then buried somewhere for 50 to 60 years can't r
: eally be called a "survivor", or can it? The Canada Aviat
: ion Museum Spitfire II is a survivor, since it was never s
: hot down, never destroyed.
:
: I don't really care so much what status they attach to the
: ir example. I'm more curious about where "restoration" en
: ds and "re-creation" begins. And I know there have been p
: lenty of discussions on this in the past. Not really tryi
: ng to open the can of worms again, but I guess I am.
:
: I am curious to hear other people's views. I guess the bo
: ttom 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 r
: eplica at that point). If it walks like a duck and it qua
: cks like a duck, it's a duck. If it flies like a Spitfire
: and sounds like a Spitfire, it's a Spitfire, no matter wh
: at adjective you attach to it. And I'd happily see it.
:
: Now, if I had the money to buy one, my opinion would surel
: y 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:
- Re: I think a "survivor" is... - Christer Tue Sep 24, 2002 10:00:16 AM
- Re: I think a "survivor" is... - Mike Henniger Tue Sep 24, 2002 03:58:51 PM
- Re: I think a "survivor" is... - Christer Tue Sep 24, 2002 07:03:51 PM
- Re: I think a "survivor" is... - Mike Henniger Wed Sep 25, 2002 07:14:12 AM
- Re: I think a "survivor" is... - Christer Tue Sep 24, 2002 07:03:51 PM
- Re: I think a "survivor" is... - Mike Henniger Tue Sep 24, 2002 03:58:51 PM