WIX Archives

How we describe warbird projects -long - views sought please

Posted by Paul Coggan on Tue Dec 04, 2001 08:18:09 AM

Many times there have been a long discussions (on several forums) about the terms we use to describe airworthy historic warbirds. In 1987 a much respected Historic racing car specialist, Dennis Jenkinson, published a book called ?The Directory of Historic Racing Cars?. It contained some very valid points and a glossary of terms used in this sector. So, using Dennis Jenkinson?s terms as a basis I suggest the following for use in the vintage aircraft world. These are personal opinions and I respectfully seek your views.

Apologies for the length of post and I hope you will take the time to read it and make some considered posts in response. When I first read Mr. Jenkinson?s terms I wasn?t sure they could be adapted for use with vintage aircraft, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. The words ?entity? and ?continuous history? are all key here.

Original: It is unlikely that any vintage aircraft or warbird will fall into this category. To meet these criteria the aircraft would have to have been rolled off the production line straight into a museum. Just as with ?old cars? the warbird restoration industry has often used the terms ?almost original?, ?restored original? and these are useless because they are unquantifiable.
Genuine: Where a warbird has had an active and continuous life and has ?not disappeared from public view? or ?changed its character in any way? the aircraft should be considered genuine as long as its basic character and purpose has not been altered. Even if the aircraft has been in continuous use and has had worn out components replaced or new tyres or a new engine/s it should be considered genuine.
Authentic: This is applicable to an aircraft that has never been lost from view and is an ?entity? which is best described as the sum of parts, has always been around in some form or other but has now been reworked back to the specification that it was in when it was first built or some subsequent point in its history. May have been restored using genuine parts or reproduction parts in the case of minor items.
Resurrection: Lacks a continuous history as an entity. Some military aircraft, when phased out of active service were scrapped, dismantled, or robbed for parts. Eventually so little of the aircraft remained to form an acceptable entity even though most of its component parts were scattered around. This is classed as a resurrection.
Reconstruction: This can be an aircraft reconstructed from a single component or a collection of components from a variety of aircraft but generally there is little left of the original airframe apart from its history and character. From this small collection of minor parts a new aircraft is constructed.
Facsimile: Simply a warbird that now exists where it did not originally. As an example if an aerospace company builds eight aircraft and there are now nine in existence the ninth can only be a facsimile, reproduction, clone or copy. If the same people or factory built the ninth aircraft then it could be argued that it is a replica. (I personally don?t go for the ?this is original because it is an extension of the original production run?. By attaching an identity to an airframe that runs on from the original production run doesn?t cut the mustard with me either).
Duplication: This is a problem that is starting to raise its head in the world of vintage aircraft and the reason why we need to look at how we describe new projects. There have been instances where aircraft have been ?written off? and only minor components used in the reconstruction of ?new? aircraft and on more than one project. This leads to duplicate identities and unfortunately the disease is spreading. Genuine enthusiasts, collectors and owners frown on and disapprove of this practice. At best this borders on fraud.

Would appreciate your views on this ? and please remember these terms are for airworthy aircraft.

Paul Coggan

Follow Ups: