Pisis
2nd Lieutenant
He can have both! 
nice ride
- Thread starter pbfoot
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While I think it looks nice on the inside I agree with FBJ. Its overkill and ruins a perfectly good plane.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
you know i'm sure a flight in that thing could be simulated if you want 
Why would you want to do that?
Pisis
2nd Lieutenant
plan_D said:
He can build a replica...
Id just go with an old Huey or a Blackhawk as my ride. Im just a Rotorhead and I love being down in the trees.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
I'm not refuting what you are saying D, I totally agree, but I have a general question. when does an aircraft become a replica?
If you have say an E E Lighting but to make it airworthy a large percentage of it has to be replaced at what point is it no longer an original. If say more than 50% has been replaced with patent parts, Is it a replica or an original. Or if the airframe is original but it has a new skin and engines etc, is it original even though most of it has been replaced.
Most of the flying WW2 aircraft have had huge amounts of the original WW2 components replaced in order to make them fly, and indeed even static aircraft have many parts made to complete them for display purposes.
I feel there are very few truly original aircraft from WW2 in existence. One that springs to mind is the Corsair at FAA museum in Yeovilton even the paintwork is from the 40s and anything later has been removed, I'm not sure about the tyres though.
How do you guys feel about it ?
If you have say an E E Lighting but to make it airworthy a large percentage of it has to be replaced at what point is it no longer an original. If say more than 50% has been replaced with patent parts, Is it a replica or an original. Or if the airframe is original but it has a new skin and engines etc, is it original even though most of it has been replaced.
Most of the flying WW2 aircraft have had huge amounts of the original WW2 components replaced in order to make them fly, and indeed even static aircraft have many parts made to complete them for display purposes.
I feel there are very few truly original aircraft from WW2 in existence. One that springs to mind is the Corsair at FAA museum in Yeovilton even the paintwork is from the 40s and anything later has been removed, I'm not sure about the tyres though.
How do you guys feel about it ?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You're very correct Track. Many of the warbirds I've come across have had a great percentage of their original parts replaced for some reason or another. The biggest thing that's replaced from WW2 birds are the radios. You could yank out that 100 pound cathode tube beast (considering you could even get the thing to work) and replace it with an all-digital, "flip flop" 720 channel nav-com that also has a moving map GPS that weighs under 2 pounds and installs in an area 2" x 4" x 3". But to put this into a greater perspective; I had a conversation with my friend Doug Gilliss recently about warbirds. Doug owns the L-29 I get to fly and has also flown a T-6 and I believe he has time in a P-51. I asked him about owning something like a P-51 or a Corsair in lieu of a jet like an L-29 or T-33 and he came up with something very interesting. "The people who designed and built WW2 fighters did not envision them lasting but a few hundred hours. It doesn't make me very confident flying those types of aircraft, no matter how good they are restored 60 years later." Comments?!?
evangilder
"Shooter"
Good point there, Joe.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Some very worth while comments Joe and your mate Doug certainly has a valid point.
I feel if it is a Spitfire then its a Spitfire the design is 60 odd years old but even if it was built yesterday it would still be a Spitfire it may not be a second world war one and as you say some of the gubbins inside may have been up dated for obvious reasons, but I bet if an old vet got in one he would call it a Spitfire.
So although a modern re-build I would class them as genuine items it would only be a different plane to me if the basic shape and design had been altered. It is only a replica in as much as it is replicating the era it was originally designed and used in not the actual machine which is the really thing.
Now Ive written that it does look like I disagree with you D I must have changed my mind.
I feel if it is a Spitfire then its a Spitfire the design is 60 odd years old but even if it was built yesterday it would still be a Spitfire it may not be a second world war one and as you say some of the gubbins inside may have been up dated for obvious reasons, but I bet if an old vet got in one he would call it a Spitfire.
So although a modern re-build I would class them as genuine items it would only be a different plane to me if the basic shape and design had been altered. It is only a replica in as much as it is replicating the era it was originally designed and used in not the actual machine which is the really thing.
Now Ive written that it does look like I disagree with you D
I must have changed my mind.
Pisis
2nd Lieutenant
It depends on two factors:
1) If you're talking about WW2 combat experince, there's probably none left.
2) But if you talk about the structure (the machine itself, as seen on airshows), then I believe they could be called with their real names (spitfire, Messerschmit, Lighting...)
The "details" like radio, etc... is of course another thing...
1) If you're talking about WW2 combat experince, there's probably none left.
2) But if you talk about the structure (the machine itself, as seen on airshows), then I believe they could be called with their real names (spitfire, Messerschmit, Lighting...)
The "details" like radio, etc... is of course another thing...
Nonskimmer
Captain
I agree with you Lee. If an aircraft, for example the Spitfire, is built this year to the same specifications as one built say 65 years ago, it's still a Spitfire. Minor alterations like the type of radio set or compass wouldn't change that, they'd simply be minor updates. The same could be said of a Lightning. I think a replica would be a machine that bore an external resemblance, but had serious alterations made to the specs such as power-plant, major structural and material changes, and those sorts of things.
elmilitaro
Senior Airman
hey pbfoot, this is one nice airplane your shoeing on here.
FLYBOYJ said:
Very good point. Kind of makes you wonder whether it really is safe or not. You know what though I would not trade the chance to fly in an old Spitfire, P-51D, Bf-109 or Fw-190 anyday. I would take my chances.
So would I Alder. (As would most of us on here)DerAdlerIstGelandet said:FLYBOYJ said:
Very good point. Kind of makes you wonder whether it really is safe or not. You know what though I would not trade the chance to fly in an old Spitfire, P-51D, Bf-109 or Fw-190 anyday. I would take my chances.
I am sure that is the case for most of us.
If you were to build a new Lightning that was truely just an update of the Lightning, such as improved materials and improved engines etc. etc. then, yes, it's a Lightning. But it's not going to be built for personal use! And it's not going to be any kind of original Lightning - so it's not going to be the Lightning I love that served from 1960-1988.
If you got an old Lightning that was built in the 1960s, and started changing everything on it ...then it's no longer a Lightning, even if it looks the same. The only way a Lightning that's been rebuilt stays a Lightning, is if you built it the same way, with only MINOR material changes solely for safety purposes and built it exactly the same. To keep it even more real, pay BAe to pull out the old drawings and have them rebuild it! Highly unlikely anyone could them to do that ...but still. And to be a REAL original it has to be old ...you wouldn't build a GT40 Mk.IV (1969) to the exact same specs and call it a GT40 Mk.IV 1969, would you? It's not built in 1969 - so you can't! A new Lightning would have to be a Lightning Mk.7...then it's not original.
If you got an old Lightning that was built in the 1960s, and started changing everything on it ...then it's no longer a Lightning, even if it looks the same. The only way a Lightning that's been rebuilt stays a Lightning, is if you built it the same way, with only MINOR material changes solely for safety purposes and built it exactly the same. To keep it even more real, pay BAe to pull out the old drawings and have them rebuild it! Highly unlikely anyone could them to do that ...but still. And to be a REAL original it has to be old ...you wouldn't build a GT40 Mk.IV (1969) to the exact same specs and call it a GT40 Mk.IV 1969, would you? It's not built in 1969 - so you can't! A new Lightning would have to be a Lightning Mk.7...then it's not original.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
all the BBMF aircraft fly with totally original parts, nothing modern except modern radios but they still have the old radios installed anyway..........
