Restoration, Rebuild, Replica or what??

[Omega]

Gents,

We have all seen the recent Greek Sopwith Camel find and I can’t help but wonder what would happen if it were made to fly again. This seems preposterous but where is the line drawn. Is there a line? Would you call it a “fake?” We have bantered around this topic on other threads and I felt this as good a time as any to give it its own thread. This project would require all new wood, fittings, engine … pretty much everything yet you are restoring a wrecked aircraft. The WWII lot just need a data plate and run with that. Look at the P-38 Glacier Girl, not allot of the original plane it. Two what extent are the 7 remaining authentic Camels original.

OK, I have stirred the pot, now go at it!


Koz

[franzkait]

you talk about England ? Or is there another country with a fake aircraft production ?

[Makhpiyaluta]

I wouldn't call it a "fake" (It would be a real airplane) but certainly not "original".
I think I would call it a new made "replica" or "reconstruction" including original parts. What the WWII guys do is this.

P-51 Scat VII wich crashed several years ago.



P-51 Scat VII as she is flying now. it's supposed to be the same plane.



Willem

[Omega]

Originally Posted by franzkait

you talk about England ? Or is there another country with a fake aircraft production ?

Any country Herr Udo. How much of the actual aircraft do you need to make it a rebuild as opposed to a replica? It appears the P-51 above may have the same left wheel. Seems to work for them. How far can you go??

Koz

[franzkait]

some original Hawker are made in England with an original Data plate.

aircraft actually have too low value. So to build a fake is not worth . How much can you get for an " original " Camel ?

you can go so far , as somebody pays for .

[John McKenzie]

Originally Posted by Omega

Gents,

We have all seen the recent Greek Sopwith Camel find and I can’t help but wonder what would happen if it were made to fly again. This seems preposterous but where is the line drawn. Is there a line?

Koz

Hi Kos ...Obviously , this is never going to happen in reality ...

However , supposing the Holy of holy's ,.. the Data plate ,.. were found :-
What one definately can say , is that it, meaning those parts that constituted the Original aeroplane , could Never be made to fly again ...

A whole set of All New or other parts could , ....attached to the Original Data plate .

However , the only Original part would be the Data plate ....and that itself is not really actually part of the aeroplane in strictly aeronautical terms , any more than any other Document / paperwork is ....These are things that only RELATE to the aeroplane in question ..., ownership , mechanical history etc. ,....in a descriptive & legal way , But in No way contribute to the actual machine itself .

It is unfortunate that this "Data Plate" stuff has come to take on such prominence , but Sadly , this has come about due to the great sums of money involved , and profits to be made out of the simple term " original" as oposed to reproduction etc. .

As to the actual airframe ,.I would say that things such as Paint , Fabric , Tyres , and other Consumables do not need to be original , although Musee del'air have with their Spad 7 carried this out (almost) as well to a high degree .

Sure also , Engines & MG's , and posibly some other things may not stay the same actual part , throughout the service life , however , notwithstanding those parts replaced within its service life , the major part of the machine should be composed of those original parts .

A similar machine , composed of Original parts from a variety of machines would be a Composite of Original parts ....Often , the owner will give the whole machine the ID from details found on some particular component , of which there is some provenance ....This is often accepted as fact by the authorities , but is really a faulshood .

Great effort is often made to make out a machine is composed of X %age of Original Metal & Y% of original wood ...This is mostly for reasons of getting the best price at a later sale & should be seen as such .

At the end of the day , Original or what , its all only relevant to the sum that the buyer/seller agree or has some other financially connection .

Most enthusiasts & the General public , couldn't care less !

.................................................. ............................

If Someone has a fragment of a Leonado painting , but with the authentic signature ,..then splices it to a new canvas & paints the rest himself using authentic methods , (using a photo or drawing ,) ....

Is the result now an original Leonado ??.

Most would say No .

However , if the big auction houses said "Yes it is an original " ( as per FAA .& vintage car world thinking ) ....
Then it will be worth a fortune .$$$$$$$$$$

.................................................. ..................................

Now ,....Representations , Replicas , Reconstructions , Reproductions , Recreations , etc....

That's a whole new discussion .

JM

[hector]

It seems to be down to the individual building/rebuilding the aircraft, as to what constitutes a repro or an original, as long as the CAA or FAA, can be convinced that there are enough original parts remaining.
Unfortunately a lot of skullduggery & flim flam tends to be involved in such rebuilds, for instance there are a number of non servicable Spitfire parts that are doing the rounds, being passed from one rebuild project to another, non of these parts ever get incorperated into the rebuilds, but are used to convince the CAA "& the potential purchaser", that enough original parts exist from the aircraft, to enable it to be classed as a rebuild rather than a repro. As JM has already said, it is mainly about the value of the aircraft once it has been built, an aircraft whose airframe is 99% new build, but can be given a genuine serial number & history, will fetch a lot more than one that contains say 60% original material, but non of which can be linked to a specific aircraft.
There is a WW1 type currently here in the UK, which is at some point going to be rebuilt to fly, at the moment it consists of a fairly complete airframe, which is in poor condition, by the time it flies, it will have non of the original timber, only a handfull of original metal fittings, an original engine & instruments etc, from other sources, but it will be called an original, by the owner & the vintage aircraft press.

Bob T.

[j ferguson]

Koz,
I wondered since you mentioned the P-18, what the FAA thought it was. Will Kerri Anne's J-3 be a Piper?

There is a Goose out there somewhere that was assembled from parts after Grumman left the water.

[franzkait]

In the Smithsonian Museum is the original 1903 Wright Flyer , nice dream , but all belive it . Carillon Historical Park , there is the original 1905 Wright Flyer , again a nice dream . After some time a replica is an original .

[snj5]

Mr. McKenzie cuts to the chase. The issue is most important when the "....." is for sale, and then what the buyer is looking for and what he can be convinced it is.
The keys are provenence and accurate description.

There are currently more near perfect Ferrari 250 GTOs than were ever made. Which are the real deal? Which are not? All about $$$ and the buyer.