Only known surviving Dornier 17 to be raised from the English Channel

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I have no problem if some parts are restored, but if a large part of the object needs to be build from scratch, then I dont see the point of even using the real parts. At that point, to me, it just becomes more of a replica.

Why not just put them up on display as they are? Or store them somewhere?

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."

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

By that standard there are no flying DC-3/C-47s anymore*. After more than seventy years every single part, piece and panel has been replaced, so nothing is original.

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.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I think it boils down to what is left of the original.

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.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

That is a restoration

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

Museums do their best to preserve the past.

History deals with the past. Museums preserve heritage.

Depending on the museum, not all displays have items that are new looking or look as never used. Then there are living museums. Museums that restore aircraft/automobiles for flight and driving. If museums did not restore vehicles like this I would never have witnessed B-17, Spitfires, P-40, Hellcat, Dauntless, Lancaster and a slew of other aircraft operate/fly. Sometimes it just depends on what is left to work with concerning full restoration. Perhaps this aircraft can tell it's story in the condition it is in and be left on display as such.

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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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.

[MH]

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.

[Wolferz]

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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

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

No, a channelplane.

[JU_88]

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 ).

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.....

[em2nought]

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

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Reminds me of this Halifax at Hendon...







http://www.archieraf.co.uk/archie/10...continued.html

[eddie]

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

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Jim,

Was the plane left in this condition?

Yes, that is her on display.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Yes, that is her on display.

Why was it displayed in this fashion?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Why was it displayed in this fashion?

From the museums expanded history of the aircraft:

It was later decided that due to the effort and expense required, a full restoration would not be attempted and that the aircraft would be displayed unrestored as a tribute to bomber crews of World War 2.
As the aircraft had lain in a fresh water lake, although fabric had rotted from the control surfaces, cabin transparencies had distorted and magnesium alloy parts had corroded, the duralumin structure was in good condition, with little rust.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

-Restored by the definition is the original state the item was manufactured.

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

Anything else is a modification.

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.

the aircraft I have seen fly were basket cases at one time.

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

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?

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

[HunterICX]

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.


HunterICX