[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

lol no man, don't bend the concept it's important to preserve genuine planes in museums using adequate personnel because they're an invaluable resource of information, simple as that. They can be used as blueprints for flying replicas (which can be made to factory standards if need be), which can incorporate all the features that you like and being safer.

Museums are an invaluable resource of information. Some months ago I was helping a friend at Daidalos to retreive info on the Re2000, I got in contact with a friend in the Flygvapen museum who by sheer chance found info regarding a thought to be lost gunsight. He found it in the storage depot, took pictures and even managed to lit up the reticle for me! This feature can now be implemented in a sim, or used as documentation, because an original (for which there are no manuals) has been preserved. Museums need to be the custodian of this scarce or rare stuff, and a plane like the FW190 D-13 is the classic example of this: there's no documentation that can substitute the value of the original.

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.

it was quite a bit of news in the WW1 circle, which is an entity per se in the world of aviation. Do you know of the fantastic work done by Peter Jackson's firm? If you don't, have a look at this, it's simply stunning!

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/

...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!

yep, and that's why we need to be very careful and preserve originals. For a restoration project that goes well I can mention at least 20 that went monumentally wrong unfortunately

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.

yes, everybody has different approaches. I know crew chiefs that never went for a flight in the machines they serviced, but man, they can tell you which of the cylinder is misfiring by just hearing it run at idle!
The flying bit is only the ultimate result of a whole work of love and passion, done by skilled engineers, mechanics, riggers and technicians. To be a valid and complete warbird pilot you need to be a bit of an engineer yourself, understand your machine, not just jump in and take off.
Turns out that 90% of the time pilots are the weakest link, and as one of the crew chief I used to hang out used to say "we can't all be pilots, there are just not enough pr***s on the planet!". So some of us are techies, some of us pilots, some are spectators, and others are a combination of all or some of these aspects. But whatever the nature of our passion, we need to understand that sometimes it's better to let go for the sake of preservation. Just like you, a part of me would love to see that FW roll and zoom in the sky, but I know that it would be an unnecessary risk, both for the machine and the pilot. Alas, we can't have it all in life!

first sentece I can agree on undisputed, hehe

hehehe it's not that I don't agree with you man, I used to be the same and have the same attitude as yours, but being in the circuit helped me understanding a lot of stuff about this crazy world of aviation.

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.

yes, but there's no money that can turn a pile of smoking, burning aluminium into what it was before, so if you destroy it, it's gone for good.
I'd rather use spare fuselages that are around to do a restoration and take those back to the sky, than risking a complete genuine warbird.

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.

It's all down to the conditions in which they were when they were restored.
The 109s and 190s we have flying nowadays were all in pretty tattered, rotting conditions. Even the FW190A5 from Russia wasn't in much good shape. It still remains that the FW190D-13 was in the same conditions in which it was stored at the end of the war, and it's unique.

If given the possibility, would you fly the Bell X-1 or the Spirit of St. Louis?

As per sounds, they managed to reconstruct the sounds of dinosaurs, I don't think they'd find it hard to reproduce sounds of a plane!

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.

ah, please pay attention here. My first restoration job on a T-6 was for the Italian Air Force. We checked two T-6 used as gate guardians and decided to go for the one that was in better conditions. When looking into the documentation to make it airworthy again, I was surprised to say the least: although still having its military serial number, the T-6 wasn't considered an aircraft anymore, but an "inventory item", since it lost its airworthiness certification after it was radiated. Now me and you know that's an aeroplane, but bureaucracy couldn't care less about it, so it had to be certified again in every necessary component.

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.

Well within limits of practicality I would say. Flugwerk is making a FW190D replica, which will fly and surely will make a lot of us happy

What I would love to see flying again would be something like a Short Stirling, or a BV138, but that will have to stay a dream :-/