[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Ha! Man, again, no offence, but it's evident that you've never been around a restoration workshop. I have witnessed with my eyes horror stuff done to these poor machines: the wing of the aforementioned Spad received a "restoration" in 1968, you know how we found out? Because we found a paper wrap from a newspaper of the time in the wing. Not to mention replacement spars made of solid, thick plywood..

The work done by more or less competent people can alter the originality forever, and if not recovered and corrected, it can cause a lot of damage on the long run.

Professionalism in preservation of aircraft is another topic completly. So you basicly argue that we should preserve those aircraft in museums because the people working on these airplanes are amateurs? I dare say that is rather more of an argument for making them airworthy in the first place, simply because then ppl are "forced" to get the job right unless risking lives and the aircraft itself.

with all due respect, the fact that you never heard of it doesn't mean that it's not an important piece of aviation history.

The one point does not negate the other. I completly agree, it is a very important piece of aviation history. But that despite it's importance the news never spread around is rather disheartening and typical of museum pieces.

here's how it was when the restoration was started (wings and prop were in place):


The plane was rumoured to be the original mount of Italian Ace Fulco Ruffo di Calabria, but because of the aforementioned "restoration" it received a spurious "Baracca style" paint job.

During the restoration we found the original serial numbers on the airframe and other components, which were registered as Fulco's aircraft, so we could finally determine the true identity of the machine, which was subsequently restored and given its actual looks of the time.



so restorations can indeed be a vital part of aviation history.

...or they can be a disaster, as this particular aircraft's history shows. Undoubtly preservation of aircraft has to be done by pros, that is a given anyways. Good work, btw!

I think we need to make a defining differentiation here:
One thing is being an aviation enthusiast, another is being an aviation history enthusiast.

One can be either or both, but whichever the case, different rules apply. For aviation enthusiasts, keeping a historical plane "alive", flying it at airshows etc.. is a good thing if:

1) it's a safe plane to operate (Go229? No thank you..)
2) there are an adequate number of spare parts available
3) it's not an "endangered species".

The world of warbird operators changed dramatically in the last 20 years: there are way less Wild Bills out there, tumbling about in the sky while hollering "check this out guys!" on the radio. This is good, because when this sort of people are airborne we lose precious machines (see what happened to the P-38 in Duxford or the Bf109 G-2 "Red 7", whose pilot almost killed himself several times..).
Nowadays there are different standards and above all more serious training, still, we do have the random accidents (see what happened at Legends this year), mostly again not because of faulty machines, but because of pilot's error.

Accidents happen. Also see the King Cobra that crashed. One rare bird lost there as well added to your examples. Howerver, it is easy for us to condemn those accidents as we are in the lucky position to have seen those birds fly and know how they look and sound like. Future generations won't have that privilege. More, If you put those birds in museums, you take that chance away from the start. The question at hand is rather if to only see or actually "expirience" them. The latter will give a much more profound impression and that is what it is all about. The mechanical aspect you put so much focus on is just one of many aspects of these aircraft but imho, not the most important one.

Shall we keep these planes in the sky? Hell yeah!

first sentece I can agree on undisputed, hehe

Shall we allow for rare or unique machines to fly, especially "time capsule" ones? Mmmh not so sure it's a good idea, mainly cos they need extensive rework and alteration of the original layout (CoG reworking just to name one), rewiring, substitution/inspection of moving parts (bearings, actuators, landing gears etc..). But above all, under a piloting point of view, these beasties can be a leap in the dark, hiding performance and behaviour quirks that can show up at the most unexpected or critical situations (whilst coming down for landing for instance). Bending a prop on a Hurricane is a costly job to fix, which can bear catastrophic damage to the engine as well, having the same thing happening on a wooden VDM prop could probably cause enough of an imbalance to tear the engine off its mount.. not nice.. (see what happened to the Spit in New Zealand lately..).

Time capsule..not so much. The thing with time capusles is, they rest unnoticed for a long time until they are opened, and with that their purpose ends. You do not reopen them all the time to recheck whats in there on a constant basis. Money is the all deciding factor here, there I agree, and I am more then willing to accept that money is the limiting factor in this debate when it comes to restaurations. When I argue pro flightworthyness, then it is on the basis of enough money being available.

Bottom line? Keep em airborne if they already are, or rebuild them to be airborne, but don't confuse them with original wartime salvaged machines.

That argument implies none of the, by now, restored 109s or 190ies should take to the skies, including the recently restored FHC 190.
You also should take one thing in mind...a couple of those planes never had any propper sound or video recording done. So in the case of the 190D, nobody born after 1945 has ever seen one in the air, nor taken high quality recordings of one to be preserved for the future. You basicly have a hulk sitting there without anybody having any idea how this craft expressed itself.
It is a matter of priority, first you have to know what you are actually dealing with, as a second prioritiy it would be nice to know the specifics.

Again, I think we need to differentiate between warbirds circuit and aviation history, just because they have wings they're not the same thing.

What?
An aircraft is an aircraft. It was build as aircraft, used as aircraft and quite obviously, still is an aircraft even after a century, no matter what logic you apply. Over time you may add other attributes to it, but that never changes it's original purpose.

Letting it sit around may be interesting to the geeks, but without the greater connection, even the geeks will fade away and the only ones left will be the hardcore geeks. I am not talking about converting any single plane into a flyable version, but each aircraft should at least have "one" example up to flying conditions, at least as long we have the technical and material capability to do so.