Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
I'm not sure I understand this, but what I'm saying is that I'd rather have a replica flying than a unique original plane, there's simply no need to risk a genuine plane if you can have a flying replica that is spot on. It's safer and wiser.
|
The problem with flying replicas is that you have to get a lot more things right then with static ones. Static replicas merely require to capture the look of the craft. A flying replica has to catch not only the looks, but also the sound and flight performance. I can't think of a single WW2 repilica to date that really manages to capture all of those.
Quote:
I didn't know at the time, a friend of mine, who's passionate about the Macchi, found out by sheer chance in a manual and technical drawings!
Sometimes the documentations is missing or lost (or worse, in the hands of a collector), that' why we need to keep and preserve unique originals as much as we can.
|
But that is the point! If you have that original, you also have all the stuff coming with it. How often do you have to recheck that particular aircraft to get it right?
If a certain aircraft has a very specific history behind it, like the aircraft bringing Roosevelt to Yalta, or the the Stuka that sunk the Marat, then I am all on your side. But when it is just a generic warbird, then it does more justice to the plane, the pilots that flew it, the mechanics and producers to keep it in the air, imho, even, or especially, if it is rare.