I think it boils down to what is left of the original. I agree that it does become a replica but a lot of what we see today has had a majority of the parts replaced or made. It is the nature of the beast. By and large, it's all about $$$$$$ in the end.

As they say in the classic car arena...."It is only original once."

Yes, that's how I see it. Same as an original musket would have it's parts replaced by
new ones. To me, it's not the original anymore, it becomes a replica.

*Of course, nothing stops anyone from looking at the plans available and actually
building a C-47 though. :yep:

Yep, I agree. IMHO, if there is enough to restore something, that still keeps much of the object original, I'm willing to say it's a restored piece. Say, a tank that is missing it's wheels entirely from one side, I'm ok if they build them from scratch.

An object can be restored to many other states as well.


History deals with the past. Museums preserve heritage.


While I agree on most of what you wrote there, it's still a shot down plane we are talking about here.

-Restored by the definition is the original state the item was manufactured. Anything else is a modification.

-Museums do both.

-Agreeing in part or whole, the aircraft I have seen fly were basket cases at one time. The first P-40 I watch fly was found covered in tar and on a pole over a bar in Arizona. Restored to it former glory. Should we have left it on the pole so it could tell it's story? By and large, it depends what is left to work with that should drive what part of preserving it should take place. Glacier Girl P-38. Found deep in the ice mangled. Rescued, repaired, restored and flying. It was a destroyed P-38 they were dealing with here.

It is strange how numerous airplanes produced during ww2 have become so scarce.
Even the ones manufactured in many thousands.
Good luck restoring the DO - 17.

If it's at the bottom of the channel, wouldn't that make it a submerplane?

No, a channelplane. :03:

For me personally its a case of:
Do i want to see something how it was intended to look? or do I wasnt to see it as it was found?
The answer really depends on what it is..
To use Jims Halifax example, ive seen that one for real and its by far the sorryist looking thing in the room :P

As a museum peice along side other BOB aircraft that are not wrecked, Id rather see it restored as needed rather than smashed to hell. (And considering this Dornier is allegedly in pretty good shape under the circumstances)
So long as its exterior is restored with reasonable accuracy and craftsmanship -and with similar matching materials. (E.g not some crudely knocked up canopy made from mdf and clingflim :O:).

The fact that some of its aluminium/paint/plexiglass was manufactured in 20XX rather than 1939 wouldn't bother me much at all, the majority of it is still an orginal Do-17z
IMO, not being 100% orginal materials is small price to pay for seeing the aircraft restored to its intended appearence.

If you think about it, old cars get restored all the time, as do old buildings that are centuries old. So I dont see restoring a 70 year old bomber as sacrilege.

But after forking out £350k to fish her out, I dont know if they will have enough cash left to fix her up any time soon.....

The paint job on that Halifax is better than most paint jobs on a five year old Chevy. :har:

This is as far as they have gone with the only 219 from the war. Is it a replica, because it was painted?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...psad9e118d.jpg

Yes, that is her on display.

Why was it displayed in this fashion?

From the museums expanded history of the aircraft:

The professional conservators I have worked with have a different definition. I'm going by that.

Another term which I haven't heard being used in the museum context. An item can be restored or conserved. From Oberon's posts it seems they are going to conserve this one. I'm happy with that, but not against restoring either, as long as the object's identity is not removed.

And since there have been no plans of making this plane fly again, the comparison doesn't work.

Depends on how it got on the pole and covered in tar.

To me a museum piece that shows the scars of war/battle moves me more and tells me more about its history then when it would be fully restored to the state it was in when it rolled out of the factory.

a nice example is the World War 1 tank Mk.IV Deborah they found in France.
It was shot in world war 1 ditched by Russian PoW's into a hole and left there for 90 years untill someone found it, dug it up and put it on display in the same state they've found it in.
http://www.1rtr.net/historical/Deborah_51.jpg

HunterICX