WIX Archives

Re: Is this what you read, Rob?

Posted by John B on Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:57:10 PM

In reply top Is this what you read, Rob? posted by Dan K on Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:46:01 AM

It probably is a correct statement if taken to the absolute letter of the definition. I say it's the most ridiculous item of the day. I guess in their eyes I, as a person, am considered a rebuild because I've had surgery that removed original parts (Not any of those parts thank you!). I have to ask what the difference is if an aircraft contains components made of aluminum smelted today, as long as those parts made from today?s aluminum, are built in the same manor as old and meet the original specs? Are they going to carbon date every part on a given airplane to determine if its not original? Let?s put their definition to the litmus test: -Hypothetical example- A Mustang built in Mar 1944 saw combat, belly landed in July '44 and was then repaired two weeks later to flying condition for squadron hack duty. Is it an original or is it a rebuild? Keep in mind now, to the letter of their definition, it no longer contains all the material it was built with at the factory and that it fought in combat with. Even though the look and feel is identical to the original it's not...like Kermit Weeks "C" model Mustang, it's a rebuild. Gimme a break! Thought processes like theirs are damaging backwards!

Follow Ups: