Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on March 06, 2004, 01:17:20 AM
-
I was just reading throuhg Graham Whites excelent book on the R-2800, he is the same guy who did the Allied piston engines of WW2 book.
In the last section he talks about the future and spends a little time talking about how it bothers him that most restored R2800 powered aircraft use the single stage CB 16 civilian version of the 2800 instead of the proper 2 stage engines or in the case of the P-47, the turbo.
Now, this made me think, and yeah it bothers me, another thing I do not like is the mission armor, or upgraded cockpits that are not like they where.
I know most of this is for safety, and it helps the planes survive, but why the use of the civil engine instead of the originals?
The Merlin powered Mustang use the right merlins right?
I find it inexscusable in museums, there is no good reason for not restoring a non flying to pure stock. Well as long as you can get the parts.
I think it kind of cheats us out of the history of the aircraft to have them not be "right"
What do you guys think?
I hate seeing a P-38 from the top when they do not bother putting the turboes back in, it just looks wrong.
-
It only bothers me if I know it's wrong. :)
-
It bothers me when they get my P47 wrong. The spittys can have jets for all i care.
-
Only when they use my money to do it.
-
honestly I'd probably never know the difference. I love old planes and in theory I think they should restore them to stock, but I doubt I would be able to tell unless it was something obvious.
but thats just me. I haven't taken the hobby to an obsession, with power charts and records of what load-outs and engines where in every variant of every plane.
BTW- thank God some of you guys take it too far, otherwise we'd never get good flight sims.
-
I think its just like FM and visual models in AH, some people are bothered by what they see as innaccuracies and others are not.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I was just reading throuhg Graham Whites excelent book on the R-2800, he is the same guy who did the Allied piston engines of WW2 book.
In the last section he talks about the future and spends a little time talking about how it bothers him that most restored R2800 powered aircraft use the single stage CB 16 civilian version of the 2800 instead of the proper 2 stage engines or in the case of the P-47, the turbo.
I know most of this is for safety, and it helps the planes survive, but why the use of the civil engine instead of the originals?
one of the major reasons you see the CB-16 being used is the difference in carburetor problems that exist in the 18W and the CB 16. With a down draft carb, the problems of fuel collecting in it a start is a reality that can cause fires (it was a problem in the war) and can subsequently cause the loss of the aircraft if it gets out of hand, and / or cause irreparable damage to an already scarce source of spares. For todays purposes it is perfectly fine to run a civilian version of a 2800 especially considering that the 2800-18W (F4u-4) is so darn hard to find. As for super charging the engines, who gives a rats flug whether it is 1 stage or two. Very few of these aircraft fly above 12k (as most are NOT IFR certified) and so have no need to carry the extra weight or the added maintenance cost of the 2 stage compressors or the external turbos on the 47 and 38.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Now, this made me think, and yeah it bothers me, another thing I do not like is the missing armor, or upgraded cockpits that are not like they where.
First off, to fly today, you need to have a way of communicating with other aircraft, the tower, and ground. That is just not possible with a stock military aircraft. They use to totally different frequencies. VHF and UHF. (I may have this prettythangbackwards) UHF is military freq, and modern day military carry both, but not back in the old days. So, you are faced with a choice, carry a hald held radio for talking... which is sketchy over distance, and unsafe in my opinion, OR you place modern electronics on board. When we do 100% restorations, we try to hide the modern stuff in places where t is not seen, and use remote heads to use it. We place the old avionics in, and hide the remotes in such a way, you have to know what to take off (usually false plates in old avionics) to access it. Now this works, but is VERY costly. Don't forget too, that you need a transponder if you plan on bebopping into any controlled airspace. All these new gadgets, require different type of antennaes, so those too detract from the final "original" appearence of the aircraft. As for armor, it is more personal choice, but it does add lots of weight to the aircraft, weight which increases fuel burn, causes longer t/o runs, and can be a hindrance to performance. So, I am for supplementing rolled steel plate for magnesium, or aluminum and no one is the wiser. Sure it is not "authetic" plate, but then again, we are not getting shot out or seeing flak either.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The Merlin powered Mustang use the right merlins right?
Depends on the mustang, but for the most part, they are correct. One good thing for mustang owners is that there is a shop in the US that is now legal to make cylinder banks, pistons, rings, cranks, and do repairs on blocks. That shop, owned by Jack Rousch, is the reason that the Merlin is thriving these days. But, that same set does not exist for the Pratt, or Curtiss engines, and hence, we restorers are forced to horde parts and scrounge the globe to find these items. Sooner enough they will be non existewnt, and then, the era of the vintage radials flying along will end. Sadly, a lot of usable parts end up in the hands of private collectors (we call them kooks) that find it wonderful to have a usable valve, cylinder, or any variety of part sitting on their mantle, so they can point it out to visitors. This in itself is one of the biggest causes of the dry ups of spares, and is so sad.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I find it inexscusable in museums, there is no good reason for not restoring a non flying to pure stock. Well as long as you can get the parts.
I think it kind of cheats us out of the history of the aircraft to have them not be "right"
What do you guys think?
I hate seeing a P-38 from the top when they do not bother putting the turboes back in, it just looks wrong.
I feel just the opposite. Why should museums dry up the source of airworthy parts and force aircraft to be grounded so a "staic display" can be authentic. I am in favor of stripping static displays of airworthy parts, and replacing them with worn out, cracked (repaired of course but unairworthy) castings and forgings, run out no good engines, and basically anything in the aircraft that cannot be seen by the public. This helps us as restorers to put flying examples back in the air, and allows flying aircraft to stay in the air longer. Soon enough as I said before, there will be no parts left to continue the era of WW2 "heavy iron" and then there will be very few who will be able to afford to fly these beasts. As for cheating the public out of history, that is bogus. John Q public can give a rats shreck about whether this stuff stays or goes. As long as they have their home in suburbia, a land rover discovery, and 50k in the bank, they are happy. The ones who should and DO have a say are the ones who are funding these restorations. They are the ones through cost to themselves are keeping this history alive and available to airshows. I know of only one government funded flying of vintage aircraft program, and thats the Brits, who are smart enough to preserve their history in a representative condition. If we left it up to our military, we'd have nothing but corroded hulks wasting away on a pole somewhere. As for 38's with no turbos, I know of two like that, and one is trashed. So, as the newer restorations come on line, you will see better and more accurate representations that are costing many millions to do, but are not as representative of the "racer" era stripped 38's. All in all I think the restorers worldwide have a hard enough job doing it, without JQ public chiming in to say it is not right, or telling us how to do it, because until you fork over $5000000, you really don't have the right. Just MHO though.
:)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I was just reading throuhg Graham Whites excelent book on the R-2800, he is the same guy who did the Allied piston engines of WW2 book.
In the last section he talks about the future and spends a little time talking about how it bothers him that most restored R2800 powered aircraft use the single stage CB 16 civilian version of the 2800 instead of the proper 2 stage engines or in the case of the P-47, the turbo.
Now, this made me think, and yeah it bothers me, another thing I do not like is the mission armor, or upgraded cockpits that are not like they where.
I know most of this is for safety, and it helps the planes survive, but why the use of the civil engine instead of the originals?
The Merlin powered Mustang use the right merlins right?
I find it inexscusable in museums, there is no good reason for not restoring a non flying to pure stock. Well as long as you can get the parts.
I think it kind of cheats us out of the history of the aircraft to have them not be "right"
What do you guys think?
I hate seeing a P-38 from the top when they do not bother putting the turboes back in, it just looks wrong.
Just FYI, the avgas most commonly used today is 100 octane
low lead, I'm pretty sure the Jug used 115/145 or at least 100/
130 back in the day to develop full power.
Another factor in restoration work may be that the parts are
either not available, or prohibitively expensive. Alot of these
museums are not backed by huge corporate money, or very
profitable on their own.
I understand the purist view, but also can sympathize with
the other side as well.
Rino
-
Originally posted by Rino
Just FYI, the avgas most commonly used today is 100 octane
low lead, I'm pretty sure the Jug used 115/145 or at least 100/
130 back in the day to develop full power.
Another factor in restoration work may be that the parts are
either not available, or prohibitively expensive. Alot of these
museums are not backed by huge corporate money, or very
profitable on their own.
I understand the purist view, but also can sympathize with
the other side as well.
Rino
see above, but u hit the finacial reasons right on the head!
-
Generally, the arm-chair purist that owns no Warbird and just likes to complain has no clue what it costs to own and operate a Warbird.
I'd love to send the bills for a 100% authentic restoration of Jug to one of them.
They'd probably have a heart attack right in their arm chairs.
-
Doesn't bother me in the least.
I could care less if this car is a replica, or what kind of instrumentation the pilot uses. I am however green with envy since the same guy owns both these beauties.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_94_1058846190.jpg)
-
Adjusted for grammar: I could NOT care less if this car is a replica, or what kind of instrumentation the pilot uses. I am however green with envy since the same guy owns both these beauties.
:)
-
JEEZ, didn't you ever go to school? when you corect someones grammer or spelling you do it in RED ink.
fluff'n amatures :p
-
Well, if I'm ever fortunate enough to be seriously wealthy enough to buy a Me 262 from Stormbirds, I'm going to insist it has a proper ejector seat and hang the realism!
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
JEEZ, didn't you ever go to school? when you corect someones grammer or spelling you do it in RED ink.
fluff'n amatures :p
LOL... when I was in the Navy, one of the guys got a "Dear John" letter. A junior officer in the CIC was an english major so they "corrected" the letter and sent it back. It was hilarious. :)
-
Bodhi
Good points... I am only bothered a little by most of the stuff. If you need the stuff fore safety, I can understand that, even better if you hide the best you can though.
On the Museum birds, the reasons you list are just why I find it inexscuable. LOL, I figured it would be easier to restore a static plane cause you could use the warn out stuff.
Toad,
I have some clue as to the costs, they are so high in general whats a few hundred grand here and there?
:D
I would rather see an incorect one in the air then nothing at all.
MT I can tolerate and still enjoy the inacuracies of warbirds, hell I can only catch the major things. Replica cars do nothing for me at all, especialy the fake fiberglass cobras. Now I know the real ones are up past 250grand at this point, but a fake cobra is a fake cobra, just as bad as the fake Lamberginis based on Fieros.
-
ROFL!! Sandman :D :D :D
-
nice sandman, classy way to handle the letter.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
nice sandman, classy way to handle the letter.
At no time are you allowed to use the word "classy" when describing sailors. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
At no time are you allowed to use the word "classy" when describing sailors. :D
Yes, the proper word is buggery. ;)
-
Originally posted by qts
Well, if I'm ever fortunate enough to be seriously wealthy enough to buy a Me 262 from Stormbirds, I'm going to insist it has a proper ejector seat and hang the realism!
Hell, why go for realism on a Stormbirds 262 anyways, they are totally 100% replicas. The engines produce a lot more thrust then the originals to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see them fly, but they are 262's only in silouette.
-
I think that the best condition original birds should be static onlyl. Fly replicas.
I think they are too valuable and vulnerable to fly.
-
Originally posted by qts
Well, if I'm ever fortunate enough to be seriously wealthy enough to buy a Me 262 from Stormbirds, I'm going to insist it has a proper ejector seat and hang the realism!
To the best of my knowledge ejector seats are not ever authorized in privately owned birds.
-
Whyever not? There are plenty of private jets around and how else does one egress at speed when at speed?
-
you dich or die in private jets i belive
-
Basically if you own an warbird you can pretty do what you like with it. Paint it purple and replace the wings with those from a Learjet. But the fact of the matter is that most owners attempt some form of authenticity.
Personally if I owned a warbird it would be as authentic as possible down to a genuine cockpit complete with gun sight. But naturally items like the engine and electrics and any safety related items would be compromised. Cockpit instrumetation would be authentic 'looking' but work properly. In any case with GPS nav is a cinch these days.
My biggest peeve is inaccurate colour schemes, incorrect colours or too much gloss paint and polished aluminium. I don't like seeing late exhausts styles and four bladed props on early Spits either.
Probably my favourite restored aircraft are from the Shuttleworth collection in England who go for authenticity to the point where sometimes it restricts their operation. They are as good as they get.
But in fact, as to the question of authenticity, quite frankly many 'restored' flyable aircraft are little more than replicas. A typical crashed warbird pulled out of a lake or a Russian bog had little enough remaining of the original after restoration. All too often the accusation is made that the only original part is the data plate. While that in an exaggeration if you want a flyable aircraft it has to be made airworthy. A half corroded mainspar and mud filled instruments would be fine in a static restoration but it won't fly.
It's an argument that will run and run but I feel aeroplanes are made to fly and fly they should. But until I win the 50 million super lotto. I won't be able do anything about it.
At the end of the day the easiest thing to get right is the paint scheme. Paint is cheap.
-
The warbirds are there for one reason only, no matter how you slice it; they are there to project the thoughts and images of a by-gone era.
I like to see all original equipment, but I'd rather see a replica or something with a modern engine or avionics than no warbird at all.
-
it irks me the same way it irks me when someone when someone drops a v8 in a spitfire (the car) then brags about it in classic car magazines...
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
At the end of the day the easiest thing to get right is the paint scheme. Paint is cheap.
You have never researched a paint scheme have you? IMHO, the easiest thing to do is the Sheet Metal Fabrication. That is straight forward and governed by the Aircraft Structural Repair Manual, and the Maintenance Manual. No abiguities there. It is laid out in black and white and usually involves a lot of bold print when it specifies something very important. As for engines, we have been using Covington and a few others, but I like that idea, leaves the engine rebuild in the hands of the experts. We do everything else, wire, plumb, w+b, avionics, everything, that and we paint it too. The T-6 in my thread of the other day is very authentic, and that means that the research into just that portion involved several 100 hours just to make sure all the details were correct. That does not count the special stamps that are made to apply warning labels and that ilk, because guess what, for the most part, they did not use stencils at the factory (overspray concerns) they used roll on stamps. Just one more drive to make things "accurate"
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I think that the best condition original birds should be static onlyl. Fly replicas.
I think they are too valuable and vulnerable to fly.
Well maybe someday when you have the money yourself, you can buy an original airframe, restore it to the tune of several millions and put it in the hangar. Till then, I am glad I work with people with a better sense of the aircraft's purpose.
-
Bodhi,
I fully agree about flying aircraft. A static aircraft in a museum is like a stuffed Tiger. I hate to see sad aircraft in a museum with a drip tray collecting the oily result of it's geriatric incontinance. Some significant historical aircraft and one offs are better off in museums. But as a pilot I want to fly them and see them fly.
you're dead right about researching paint schemes, although I was thinking more of the actual painting itself rather than the research.
Oddly enough I have researched paint schemes like anyone who has made model aircraft at one time so I do understand a little of the difficulties: 'The underside was grey' Which grey? I'm sure you've had the problem once or twice. I also found that it was difficult to find photos of aircraft of even quite famous aces so I could make a model of it. Researching colours of Irish military aircraft for example led me to the conclusion that you could use any colour you liked because frankly no one really knows!
I have read endless arguments about the colour of the underside of RAF fighters, even the actual colour of the ubiquitious Olive Drab. Don't even get started on late war Luftwaffe colours LOL.
It's and endless problem and you just know as soon as you paint something, someone will point out your error or you find another photo contradicting your scheme. You just can't win.
-
Well put cpxxx. Although I have found that:
a: olive drab is dependant on who mixed and where.... I believe there are like 50 or 60 shades of the stuff, then leave it in the sun for awhile, and whammo, it is different again!
b: each squad had different color preferences, as in tones, and it changed REGULARLY
c: No one ever wrote down crap when it came to how they painted. Except factories, but that changed everytime a new batch of paint arrived.
So color is a *****, but placement, that is completely different. That was standardised at the factory.
-
It bothers me more when they use these beautiful warbirds for that pylon racing crap.
P51s, F4Us, F8Fs, basically gone to waste.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Adjusted for grammar: I could NOT care less if this car is a replica, or what kind of instrumentation the pilot uses. I am however green with envy since the same guy owns both these beauties.
:)
How do you know....... Maybe he could care less. :)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Well put cpxxx. Although I have found that:
a: olive drab is dependant on who mixed and where.... I believe there are like 50 or 60 shades of the stuff, then leave it in the sun for awhile, and whammo, it is different again!
b: each squad had different color preferences, as in tones, and it changed REGULARLY
c: No one ever wrote down crap when it came to how they painted. Except factories, but that changed everytime a new batch of paint arrived.
So color is a *****, but placement, that is completely different. That was standardised at the factory.
Come on Bodhi, we all know that military aircraft end up being
bare metal and dirt color eventually ;)