Fantastic FW 190 video

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by drewpee

Totally agree. Keeping vintage AC in the sky as long as possible is great but 60+ year old parts will eventually fail. Only way to keep them flying is to continually replace the with non genuine parts. At some stage they will no longer be genuine.
I would personally give my left nut to be able to see as many original vintage combat AC in museums. I'd give my right nut to fly replicas.

lol you'd be the first flying castrato

joking aside, I understand the passion and will to see old planes flying, but there's a line to be drawn.
I think that the future could be what Flugwerk does, remaking planes from original plans and where possible using original components, giving both the looks and feel of the original machine, but with today's standards of safety.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

As long as it just sits around to be stared at, it really does not matter what is under the hood as people won't see it anyways. For a museum a replica does just as fine. Flying comes with a risk, but it is the only way to actually get a real impression of a machine that was made for solely for this, flying. But that is just my opinion.

I'm sorry, but that is a very narrow minded idea of preservation, and a dangerous one.

A plane is preserved in a museum not only to be "stared at", but also as research material and tangible evidence of specific technologies. A plane in pristine original conditions is an infinite resource of information, and, being the real thing, is accurate. Putting such information to risk by flying it regularly, changing components and risking to crash it anyway, is an irresponsible attitude.

You want to fly a P-51 mustang or a Spitire? Fine, there's hundreds of them, both flying and in museums. You want to recover a long lost Pacific wreck and take it back to the sky? Great effort, carry on! You'll recover a wreck with history and take it back to its best standards.

But altering a unique, genuine ww2 airframe in such remarkable conditions for the sake of flying it, I'm sorry, but it is madness.

[drewpee]

+1
There are very accurate replicas being produced now days. So good most of us would never know the difference. The ME-262 replica for example. It uses modern jet engines, covered in authentic looking covers. The only way to know an original from a fake is , an original will probably end up as a smoking hole in the ground,(if it makes it to the ground).

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry, but that is a very narrow minded idea of preservation, and a dangerous one.

A plane is preserved in a museum not only to be "stared at", but also as research material and tangible evidence of specific technologies. A plane in pristine original conditions is an infinite resource of information, and, being the real thing, is accurate. Putting such information to risk by flying it regularly, changing components and risking to crash it anyway, is an irresponsible attitude.

You want to fly a P-51 mustang or a Spitire? Fine, there's hundreds of them, both flying and in museums. You want to recover a long lost Pacific wreck and take it back to the sky? Great effort, carry on! You'll recover a wreck with history and take it back to its best standards.

But altering a unique, genuine ww2 airframe in such remarkable conditions for the sake of flying it, I'm sorry, but it is madness.

Now that is what I am talking about "fetishizing". An aircraft, even one as old as this one, is not some magic artifact from the past like for example the antique computer found in a greek ship wreck in the mediterrianian. The blueprints are all available, there are still a few engines left over and some airframes still exist. There is nothing in there not put to paper and preserved for future generations in it's original timeframe and long after. It's simple mechanics, no "historical" secrets attached. In fact, given the money available, it would be no problem rebuilding this and other aircraft. Also, replacing parts simply is routine for "every" active aircraft out there. That simply is part of an aircrafts service life, old or new. Added to that, there is nothing stopping you from taking these old parts and storing them for future reference or putting them into the aircraft again should it ever lose airworthyness again for wahtever reason.

It comes down to this, there is a huge, huge difference in perception and impression between a plane sitting around and one flying around. I dare say future generations will get a better appreciation for these machines seeing them in action instead in a corner of a room. It's the difference between being alive and dead. How much attention does an airframe get sitting around in a museum compared to one in the air, recored and spread on youtube around the world? What is the diffeence you think in interest generated and thus ultimately, funding and preservation potential?

Now if you prepfer to just let it sit and rot around like what is done with the Do335 or the Ho229 in the US, feel free to do so, but we will have to agree to disagree here. What defines madness here obviously is a matter of perspective.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by drewpee

+1
There are very accurate replicas being produced now days. So good most of us would never know the difference. The ME-262 replica for example. It uses modern jet engines, covered in authentic looking covers. The only way to know an original from a fake is , an original will probably end up as a smoking hole in the ground,(if it makes it to the ground).

The replica 262 is quite different to the original, first of all it was build on the specifics of the two seater version of the 262 and then modded for a single seater cockpit with a different structural internal layout compared to the original, it also uses different wing sweeps to deal with center of gravity issues provided by it's modern jet engines. It's far better then nothing but still a bastard.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Now that is what I am talking about "fetishizing". An aircraft, even one as old as this one, is not some magic artifact from the past like for example the antique computer found in a greek ship wreck in the mediterrianian. The blueprints are all available, there are still a few engines left over and some airframes still exist. There is nothing in there not put to paper and preserved for future generations in it's original timeframe and long after. It's simple mechanics, no "historical" secrets attached. In fact, given the money available, it would be no problem rebuilding this and other aircraft. Also, replacing parts simply is routine for "every" active aircraft out there. That simply is part of an aircrafts service life, old or new. Added to that, there is nothing stopping you from taking these old parts and storing them for future reference or putting them into the aircraft again should it ever lose airworthyness again for wahtever reason.

You probably have never been around or tinkered with a genuine wartime machine. We are not talking about some empty shell that has been repainted and they chucked in original components. This is the plane as it was in wartime, it's a time capsule, and should be preserved as such.

Besides construction techniques of the time were unique and many construction details and adaptations (like field modifications etc) are not present on blueprints, so you would lose on historical information, which might no be interesting to you, but surely is to others.

One of my first restoration jobs was on a Spad VII, which was in remarkably good shape for its age and for some time we thought about having the engine running again. As we removed the canvas we found so many details that weren't reported anywhere on drawings but which were testimony of the incredible craftsmanship behind these machines, details that were of use to make a flying replica that has been made to original specs but with modern materials and components. The original Spad VII of an ace is an extremely rare machine, and thinking of flying it is insane to say the least.

It comes down to this, there is a huge, huge difference in perception and impression between a plane sitting around and one flying around. I dare say future generations will get a better appreciation for these machines seeing them in action instead in a corner of a room. It's the difference between being alive and dead. How much attention does an airframe get sitting around in a museum compared to one in the air, recored and spread on youtube around the world? What is the diffeence you think in interest generated and thus ultimately, funding and preservation potential?

Now if you prepfer to just let it sit and rot around like what is done with the Do335 or the Ho229 in the US, feel free to do so, but we will have to agree to disagree here. What defines madness here obviously is a matter of perspective.

I completely agree, that's why we have airshows. To a child, seeing a T-6 or a Do335 it makes little or no difference. Seeing exotic and rare birds taking back to the air is more the pleasure of aviation philanthropists than the average people. Heck, I took my girlfriend to countless airshows, and she can barely tell the difference between a Mustang and a Spit! She loves it and think it's all very cool, but to her it's not about what plane is flying, but the spirit of this kind of aviation that matters.

The Do335 and Ho229 are not rotting away. The gate guardians or external exhibits all around the world are (this is the A-20G at Monino in Moscow, kept outside and damaged by heavy snowfalls)




thinking of taking a Pfeil or a Ho229 to the air is crazy to say the least. They should be cleaned, given a preservation work, reassembled and exposed to the public. But flying them again is simply impossible and irresponsible.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The replica 262 is quite different to the original, first of all it was build on the specifics of the two seater version of the 262 and then modded for a single seater cockpit with a different structural internal layout compared to the original, it also uses different wing sweeps to deal with center of gravity issues provided by it's modern jet engines. It's far better then nothing but still a bastard.

erm... so if it's a replica in a museum it's fine, whilst if it's a flying replica it needs to be accurate?

You know Hasegawa's Macchi 202? Well the kit was based on the Italian Macchi 202 that is in Vigna di Valle, Italy, the Japanese engineers went there and measured the machine in every corner, then made their kit. What they didn't know is that originally one wing of the Macchi was actually shorter than the other, this to compensate on torque, but the machine in the museum, an empty shell that was recovered from a shooting range (!!!) had only one wing left, so the restorers used the other wing as a template to build the other, ignoring the peculiarity of the different wing length.

As a result, many representations of the Macchi planes are done without this feature. That's why having an accurate and genuine plane from wartime is of vital importance for the sake of historical information and data.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You probably have never been around or tinkered with a genuine wartime machine. We are not talking about some empty shell that has been repainted and they chucked in original components. This is the plane as it was in wartime, it's a time capsule, and should be preserved as such.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Even static aircraft get repaints and maintance. You also have to constantly work on them to keep them in the condition they are for unless you put them into an airtight room and elimiate any sources of corrosion. Ultimately they decay the same way an active aircraft does, just at a much slower pace and with less work attached, but that's it.

Besides construction techniques of the time were unique and many construction details and adaptations (like field modifications etc) are not present on blueprints, so you would lose on historical information, which might no be interesting to you, but surely is to others.

What about ...

Added to that, there is nothing stopping you from taking these old parts and storing them for future reference or putting them into the aircraft again should it ever lose airworthyness again for whatever reason? "

...was so hard to understand?
And are you actually trying to say that when you restore an aircraft, you are not doing a vast documention of the parts involved and the restoriation process in general? So that each generation will have to assemble and disassamble the aircraft anew when they want to know what's in it? Or that the viewer in a museum will apreciate these details when looking at the aircraft?

One of my first restoration jobs was on a Spad VII, which was in remarkably good shape for its age and for some time we thought about having the engine running again. As we removed the canvas we found so many details that weren't reported anywhere on drawings but which were testimony of the incredible craftsmanship behind these machines, details that were of use to make a flying replica that has been made to original specs but with modern materials and components. The original Spad VII of an ace is an extremely rare machine, and thinking of flying it is insane to say the least.

Congrats to that work and nice to see you having worked on that. However, I never heared of that original Spad, which should be telling you something. And I can just imagine the original mechaincs, when working on that one, thinking to themselves "oh yeah, great, lets make this a marvel so that future generations can appreciate our work". I am sure they did not have in mind to get the plane into the air to fight the germans, did not see it as a mere tool for a purpose and they were really looking forward to see it on static display one day.

I completely agree, that's why we have airshows. To a child, seeing a T-6 or a Do335 it makes little or no difference. Seeing exotic and rare birds taking back to the air is more the pleasure of aviation philanthropists than the average people. Heck, I took my girlfriend to countless airshows, and she can barely tell the difference between a Mustang and a Spit! She loves it and think it's all very cool, but to her it's not about what plane is flying, but the spirit of this kind of aviation that matters.

You are making a girl friend the reference here? So she was more exited to go to museums and see those aircraft on static display? Or what do you want to prove with that example? An interest in aviation is a prequisite, but awakening this interest is the key in the first place. Saying that flying aircraft are the joy of only aviation philanthropists while static aircraft get the attention is.....bold, to say the least. That's like saying a Ferrari will only get attention when it is taken from the road and put into a museum. I doubt, however, that ole Enzo build his cars for display.

The Do335 and Ho229 are not rotting away. The gate guardians or external exhibits all around the world are

thinking of taking a Pfeil or a Ho229 to the air is crazy to say the least. They should be cleaned, given a preservation work, reassembled and exposed to the public. But flying them again is simply impossible and irresponsible.

uhm....you may want to do a little google search and then come back.
just as an example:



That said, the Go229 has no future as a flyable simply because even if fully restored, it would never fullfill safety standarts and thus is bound to stick to the ground anyways.

All in all, listening to you makes the impression of you having a typical collectors mindset, rather preferring to see a closed box with a toy on the shelf instead of playing with it. This is a philosophical debate that won't find a solution as it is putting practical minded folks against those putting an artificial worth to an object that was created with an entirely different purpose in mind.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

erm... so if it's a replica in a museum it's fine, whilst if it's a flying replica it needs to be accurate?

I needs to be accurate, period. Why you differ here between a museum peice and an active replica is beyond me.

You know Hasegawa's Macchi 202? Well the kit was based on the Italian Macchi 202 that is in Vigna di Valle, Italy, the Japanese engineers went there and measured the machine in every corner, then made their kit. What they didn't know is that originally one wing of the Macchi was actually shorter than the other, this to compensate on torque, but the machine in the museum, an empty shell that was recovered from a shooting range (!!!) had only one wing left, so the restorers used the other wing as a template to build the other, ignoring the peculiarity of the different wing length.

As a result, many representations of the Macchi planes are done without this feature. That's why having an accurate and genuine plane from wartime is of vital importance for the sake of historical information and data.

So how is it that you know about that wing and the japanese did not? Did another Macchi appear somehwere making this obvious? Or sloppy research by the japanese maybe? I know what you are aiming for, but in all honesty, if you restore such an aircraft and do not do your homework in regards to documentation or visiting original blueprints, then that is based on other factors, not the utter need to preserve an aircraft in all it's details just for the sake of it.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Even static aircraft get repaints and maintance. You also have to constantly work on them to keep them in the condition they are for unless you put them into an airtight room and elimiate any sources of corrosion. Ultimately they decay the same way an active aircraft does, just at a much slower pace and with less work attached, but that's it.

well that depends on what sort of treatments they're given. Most of the primers given to aluminium in the 30s were of such good quality that they wouldn't come off easily, not even today unless using really aggressive paint strippers. The heating of metal under the sun further "soldered" the primers to the aluminium, so much that sometimes when the paintwork came off you could see the primers under.
Preservative restoration has reached incredible standards nowadays, and an alloy treated against defoliation and corrosion will last forever. Heck, we have wood frames that are 100 years plus old and still keep their original size!

And are you actually trying to say that when you restore an aircraft, you are not doing a vast documention of the parts involved and the restoriation process in general? So that each generation will have to assemble and disassamble the aircraft anew when they want to know what's in it? Or that the viewer in a museum will apreciate these details when looking at the aircraft?

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.

Congrats to that work and nice to see you having worked on that. However, I never heared of that original Spad, which should be telling you something. And I can just imagine the original mechaincs, when working on that one, thinking to themselves "oh yeah, great, lets make this a marvel so that future generations can appreciate our work". I am sure they did not have in mind to get the plane into the air to fight the germans, did not see it as a mere tool for a purpose and they were really looking forward to see it on static display one day.

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.

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.

You are making a girl friend the reference here? So she was more exited to go to museums and see those aircraft on static display? Or what do you want to prove with that example? An interest in aviation is a prequisite, but awakening this interest is the key in the first place. Saying that flying aircraft are the joy of only aviation philanthropists while static aircraft get the attention is.....bold, to say the least. That's like saying a Ferrari will only get attention when it is taken from the road and put into a museum. I doubt, however, that ole Enzo build his cars for display.

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.

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

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.

uhm....you may want to do a little google search and then come back.
just as an example:



That said, the Go229 has no future as a flyable simply because even if fully restored, it would never fullfill safety standarts and thus is bound to stick to the ground anyways.

All in all, listening to you makes the impression of you having a typical collectors mindset, rather preferring to see a closed box with a toy on the shelf instead of playing with it. This is a philosophical debate that won't find a solution as it is putting practical minded folks against those putting an artificial worth to an object that was created with an entirely different purpose in mind.

So? There's nothing wrong with that Go229. It's dirty, it has some plywood damage (one would expect so after so many years!), but it's solid and it's sitting on its undercarriage, which means the spar is sound.

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