Fantastic FW 190 video

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm not sure I understand this, but what I'm saying is that I'd rather have a replica flying than a unique original plane, there's simply no need to risk a genuine plane if you can have a flying replica that is spot on. It's safer and wiser.

The problem with flying replicas is that you have to get a lot more things right then with static ones. Static replicas merely require to capture the look of the craft. A flying replica has to catch not only the looks, but also the sound and flight performance. I can't think of a single WW2 repilica to date that really manages to capture all of those.

I didn't know at the time, a friend of mine, who's passionate about the Macchi, found out by sheer chance in a manual and technical drawings!
Sometimes the documentations is missing or lost (or worse, in the hands of a collector), that' why we need to keep and preserve unique originals as much as we can.

But that is the point! If you have that original, you also have all the stuff coming with it. How often do you have to recheck that particular aircraft to get it right?

If a certain aircraft has a very specific history behind it, like the aircraft bringing Roosevelt to Yalta, or the the Stuka that sunk the Marat, then I am all on your side. But when it is just a generic warbird, then it does more justice to the plane, the pilots that flew it, the mechanics and producers to keep it in the air, imho, even, or especially, if it is rare.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The problem with flying replicas is that you have to get a lot more things right then with static ones. Static replicas merely require to capture the look of the craft. A flying replica has to catch not only the looks, but also the sound and flight performance. I can't think of a single WW2 repilica to date that really manages to capture all of those.

well that's true to a certain extent, and a lot of the stuff that is out there is not always that accurate, not because they don't want to, but because there's no practical need for it. For example, many P-47s who still fly don't have the supercharger installed, simply cos they don't need it. That affects the performance and sound.

There are a lot of replicas that capture the original look and feel though: most of the planes you see out there are replicas, in the sense that panels, ribs and sometimes even spars are changed for the sake of airworthiness. I have seen Mustangs that are claimed to be WW2 vets which have only 10% of its original structure, still they're regarded as precious machines.. it's a very slippery slope in the warbirds circuit man.

You also get award winning restoration of course: there's a P-40 in the US which has been reconstructed to its original factory stock specs, down to stencils, components and (deactivated) armament! It's really down to the owner's choice (and pockets).

But that is the point! If you have that original, you also have all the stuff coming with it. How often do you have to recheck that particular aircraft to get it right?

You'd be amazed. I have personally taken 1600 pictures inside a S.79 Sparviero, one would think they're more than enough. They aren't. There's always a detail that escapes you, something you didn't think of and if the plane isn't there no more how are you supposed to know it? It's crazy, but believe me, I'm talking out of experience.

If a certain aircraft has a very specific history behind it, like the aircraft bringing Roosevelt to Yalta, or the the Stuka that sunk the Marat, then I am all on your side. But when it is just a generic warbird, then it does more justice to the plane, the pilots that flew it, the mechanics and producers to keep it in the air, imho, even, or especially, if it is rare.

nah, people are not interested in that unless it actually made some very remarkable stuff (Bell X1, Lockeed Vega, Bleriot etc..).
It's not down only to what they've done, but to how rare they are.
That D-13 is the sole survivor in the world, if that goes there isn't no more, end of games, and the future generations are left with pictures.

God knows what technologies we will ahve in 50 years time, we might even be able to make intricate 3d mappings with scanners etc.. but risking to lose such material now that we have is utter madness.

Let me give you a relative example: would you get rid of all the paper in the national archives once it's scanned and stored on an hard drive, or would you keep it anyway until it deteriorates?