WIX Archives
Re: How we describe warbird projects -long - views sought please
Posted by Steve Young on Tue Dec 04, 2001 02:20:14 PM
In reply top How we describe warbird projects -long - views sought please posted by Paul Coggan on Tue Dec 04, 2001 08:18:09 AM
As Christer says, it's all a bit complicated. The danger in trying to define an aircraft's "status" is that the more we try to pigeonhole it to the point of absolute accuracy, the more complicated it becomes because there will always be individual restorations which don't quite fit exactly into one or other of the definitions.
On the other hand, we have Jim's view that there should be three categories; Original, Replica and Authentic, but I feel that even these become restrictive because to a degree we still have the same problem.
Of course, much of this is theoretical, and I'm intrigued to see what people's views would be if faced with a choice to make about their own project, so out of interest let me offer an example for people to mull over;
An aircraft is withdrawn from service in wartime and has her tail and outer wings removed, yet the wing centre section, engine(s), centre and forward fuselage survive intact and in good condition for many years, all as the original identity. She is later dismantled and stored, and you acquire her some years later with the intention of rebuilding her to airworthy condition.
Imagine this is your project, and you have to decide how you classify it. You have the parts mentioned above, you have the aircraft's identity, and also it's history. But you are missing certain original parts (which presumably have since been scrapped), and so out of necessity, you will have to either rebuild or source these elsewhere, and many other smaller parts.
How do you describe your project, and what is your reasoning behind your decision? And will your description of the project change when it's completed?