![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by Sternjaeger II; 10-24-2011 at 01:10 PM. |
#2
|
||||||
|
||||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cheers Last edited by Bewolf; 10-24-2011 at 02:06 PM. |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
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! Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Again, I think we need to differentiate between warbirds circuit and aviation history, just because they have wings they're not the same thing. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|