Sounds like Sawbones has been sold and is headed to Australia

[Jan]

The first of these you mention is entirely constructed from other parts. Virtually nothing remains from Cook's accident. Look for my article on Thunderbird in an upcoming issue of Flight Journal. There you'll find more detail.

[RAD2LTR]

The first of these you mention is entirely constructed from other parts. Virtually nothing remains from Cook's accident. Look for my article on Thunderbird in an upcoming issue of Flight Journal. There you'll find more detail.

Okay, so its a data-plate restoration. That is totally fine. As long as the identity of the aircraft matches the data plate, then fine, close enough. At least its not confusing the history of another aircraft with that one. The data plate makes the aircraft, and the aircrafts history. If the data plates for any of the others that were the donors for the parts used to rebuild Thunderbird exist, then if a restoration project is undertaken, the aircraft needs to be restored to represent the aircraft the data plate identifies. It could also be restored in a civilian or non authentic (Think Miss Suzi Q) military scheme that doesn't represent a real aircraft. This new identity becomes part of the aircrafts legacy, but not at the cost of erasing its real history and replacing it with the assumed history of the more famous aircraft. Heck, I might even go so far as to say that any history from any of the parts used is fair game for history to follow, as long as the history is attributed to something on that aircraft. At least the scheme represents the history of something on that aircraft.

To clarify, lets use this scenario. I win the lottery, buy a Mustang and build it as Galloping Ghost. How many people would be up in arms that I built a fake Galloping Ghost? Obviously its not the real one to those in the know, but to anyone else, it might as well be real. People will say "oh I saw Galloping Ghost at such and such airshow" Well, no, they didn't, they saw the fake, but if they didn't know it was the fake, then they'd think they saw the real deal. Yep my aircraft started as a pile of parts, or even a replica with no North American Aviation history at all, but now its Galloping Ghost and has all the fame and history that the real G.G. has, but oh, wait, no its a fake. We all know the real one was destroyed (If in fact it actually was the same airframe, and even that is debatable) All I've done is hidden the real history of the aircraft I bought and traded it for a "better" history. That isn't cool. That isn't ethical, and it screws up history. The only catch with this scenario is if I was able to prove that my aircraft was the one from the Cleveland days, and that Jimmy's was, in fact, a totally different airframe. (Opening a whole new can of worms as to what aircraft it actually was that crashed.) The outcome of my stunt would be a dumpster fire of epic proportions. Most of the people who disagree with my stance on keeping history straight would be making my exact same argument that I'm making now.


Will

[Jan]

Well... now you've unscrewed the lid on the G.G. can of worms. I'm going to drop back and punt on that one.

I agree on the whole that history should be preserved correctly. But more precisely, I think aircraft histories should be recorded/stated correctly. By that I mean that if you have X Mustang and paint it in scheme Y, I don't have too much of an issue with that as long as the owner is honest enough to say it's actually X Mustang, not Y.

But that's another can of worms. Warbird history is often illusive. Ditto for air racing. There are multiple warbirds that are polyglots. Some are polyglots that go way back.... I know, I've researched enough of them for articles I've done.

In fact, you could say fairly that warbird cobbling is part of warbird history. If we're talking aircraft manufactured during or even before World War II, you'll find that almost immediately after they were surplussed those doing the buying and selling of them were doing some amount of mixing and matching. Throw in decades of restorations, particularly of the highly variable 1970s-kind, and you're in often in for a mess if you seek to establish purity.

One more thing. The aircraft you see as warbirds today certainly have histories - sometimes multiple histories combined in one mixed/matched airplane. But apart from those exceedingly few that actually were flown in combat, the real history of most of the remaining "warbirds" that have existed for at least 60 years is as civilian aircraft. That doesn't make them any less interesting to me.

Occasionally it's quite right to cock an eye at one or another of them. More often, it makes little difference.

[RAD2LTR]

Jan,
Yes I agree with what you say. Most of the racers were built from parts of other planes. That was the easy and economical way to go racing back in the day. It made sense as well. Heck warbirds with real combat history may have pieces of other aircraft on them, because that was what was available at the time. That practice is nothing new. Yes its absolutely warbird history. Often these parts weren't tracked and if they needed a new rudder for an aircraft that had one shot to hell, they'd go to the scrap pile, pull one out and install it. The bad one may or may not get fixed and end up on yet another aircraft. That was how they kept the birds in the sky. Heck we saw just that happen with Bosie Bee last year after the tug operator backed the plane into the K rail after refueling it. A call was made, work began and later that evening the plane was ready to fly again with new tail feathers.

Yes, the non combat history is every bit as important as combat history. As you state, most have no combat history, so their real history is something civilian related. That history should not be lost, covered up or otherwise neglected and replaced with the history of a more famous aircraft. It is that civilian history that has dictated the aircraft being able to sit there on the ramp in front of us. This is why I love seeing the pics of civilian warbirds from the 50s-80s. so what if it was used as a mapping aircraft, fire bomber, cloud seeder, or racer? That was the reason it didn't end up in the scrap pile, or was pulled out of it. That is the history that gets ignored when the aircraft is given an fake identity. True, its rare that an owner will falsely say it is "the" plane, but at the same time, how many people go to the trouble of researching things to find out that its NOT "the plane"? I'd guess very few. So the public thinks its the plane and doesn't care about its real history. This is WHY the practice needs to stop. Each and every warbird out there has its own story to tell, and to have told. There is no good reason to pass that over for the history of another aircraft that is long gone. It doesn't cost any more to have the thing painted to any point in its lifetime as it does to paint it as an incorrect identity. Often the civilian schemes are every bit as colorful and beautiful as a military scheme (if not more so.) The owners should be proud to be the current steward of the piece of history they have, so support its real history. This way the public gets to see the real deal, and who cares if its not a military scheme on a bird with no military history? Each aircraft has lots in its history over the past 80+ years, so pick a point and embrace it.

I think we've beaten this to death now. I hope the new owner of Sawbones embraces its true history and follows it rather than trading it away. Trading it away serves no purpose.

Will

[ZacYates]

I've spoken with Sawbones' new owner for an article on Vintage Aviation News which will be published when the aircraft arrives in Australia, and he said there will be some changes to the scheme (which I believe another poster in this thread alluded to). He didn't tell me the exact details.