CHANGE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

[dade]

I find the fact that the Hispano Ha1112 Buchon fighters that go into a rebuild hangar and come out Messerschmitt Me 109 / Bf 109 fighters do not have provenance. Two thirds of the aircraft is still Spanish if you remove the Daimler Benz Engine. So if you undress a Spanish bullfighter and put Lederhosen / Bundhosen on that person, it does not make them a German Citizen. The change from the Rolls Royce Merlin (which has a lovely sound and the Allison also is not far behind) makes the Daimler Benz not as nice. If this has happened to enhance the sale value, then the prices asked could be a bridge too far. I have often found that a display does benefit and bring comment from certain people concerning the noise. Once when watching a Sopwith Pup move up to a flight line and due to the older engine being used, it was popping and banging and blipping, my wife turned and said it sounded like me first thing in the morning, bless her. Other times I can get bored watching the umpteen Spitfire and possibly in the future Messerschmitt . My best displays were Transport Planes. The Fokker F27 Friendship / Troopship comes under the, if it looks right it is right banner. I watched a Dutch Air Force pilot throw his F27 all over the sky and in another clip in New Zealand watch a pilot move the aircraft from a hardstand to the runway like a Ferrari (this aircraft is with HARS in NSW now). The De Havilland Caribou could go backwards at the same speed as going forward on a runway. If you want me to pick a Warbird then the Commonwealth Boomerang was lovely. So the Hispano Ha1112 Buchon will always be a Hispano Ha1112 Buchon, so please no name changes, it will confuse the born again or mid life crises aircraft enthusiasts of historical facts.

[vultee43]

Agree wholeheartedly. Call it what it is. It is after all a part of aviation history that deserves its place. I loved seeing the three ship Buchon formation at Duxford but mainly for the fact that they were Buchons and they look great! Also think the Boomerang is on of the best WW2 display aircraft alongside the P40.

[planecrazy]

I'd love to see a Buchon in it's original Spanish markings but hey I guess it's all
up to the owner they can paint and call it what they want because they own it!

Plus it's got to be better that they fly in some markings than not at all?!


Along similar lines I guess, I have always wondered about the restorations that
started with the manufacturers plate being pretty much the only original part
re-used? Shouldn't these machines be called replicas, after all most of the
essential airframe parts are brand new in many warbirds that fly today.

Please understand I am only adding to the conversation, don't get me wrong I
apreciate the history around the aeroplane associated with the name plate but
it's not the original machine. Plus better they fly in their replicated form for safety
reasons and so we can see them! It's the owners possession and more importantly
they spent all that money to get it flying, they can call it what they want I guess.


This Spitfire was recovered from being buried in a beach for many years.


This one crash landed in a river after it's pilot bailed out.

A huge thanks to all those who spend the money and those that rebuild them!

[nuuumannn]

Plus it's got to be better that they fly in some markings than not at all?!

I agree and for these Battle of Britain movie veterans, it is worth remembering that some of them have spent more time in the air decorated as Bf 109s than they did as Buchons with the Spanish air force, so their current identities are very much apart of their history.

As for the 'new' Bf 109s, again, the owners can afford to do what they want with their airframes, so really, we can call them what we want, but it makes no odds. Yes, it is prudent to call these aircraft Buchons, but it does have to be remembered that by putting them into Bf 109s, it is returning them to their original configuration, even though they were built in Spain. A Buchon is a Bf 109G with a Merlin. Very little structural difference between the two. Up to you though.

[nuuumannn]

Shouldn't these machines be called replicas

Since we are being specific, the term 'replica' can only be used to describe a reproduction of a work by the original producer of that work. In aviation terms, that equates to the Orenburg Yaks being called replicas, but if someone else other than the original firm that produces them, then its not a replica. So, a data plate build is a reproduction. Those two Spits so lovingly reproduced were in such bad shape that they were almost entirely rebuilt from pattern parts. Very little original structure was used in their production, but we still call them by their serials. The Mossies here in NZ are the same. Glynn Powell builds them at his workshop and original bits are added, so they are reproductions as well.

[Dave Homewood]

Oct 12, 2018 19:34:31 GMT 12 dade said:

So if you undress a Spanish bullfighter and put Lederhosen / Bundhosen on that person, it does not make them a German Citizen.

If the Spanish bullfighter had a German parent, as the Buchon does, it can quite rightly claim dual citizenship and call itself a German.

[chbessexboy]

I once read in a similar discussion that if a WWII veteran Spitfire was found untouched in a barn and restored to fly, only 25% of the original structure would be usable. These discussions are usually had by spectators not owners/operators, and if it were up to the purists there would be very few 'warbirds' flying. By contributing I hope I am not giving this thread any weight because it really is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

[nuuumannn]

These discussions are usually had by spectators not owners/operators

You might be surprised how often and by whom these things are discussed within the industry.

By contributing I hope I am not giving this thread any weight because it really is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Y'know, this sort of thing annoys me. Why can't we discuss it? So, we are two fleas discussing who owns the dog. Isn't that what this social media thing and these forums are all about? If you are above this, why contribute? Why are you here at all? Don't belittle us, just don't contribute if you don't see the point.

Yes, it might be a bit pointless, but this guy wanted to say his piece, so why not here? Isn't that what this is for? This won't be the last time this subject is raised, not even on this forum.

Rant over.

[ErrolC]

Oct 13, 2018 12:17:53 GMT 12 nuuumannn said:

Shouldn't these machines be called replicas

Since we are being specific, the term 'replica' can only be used to describe a reproduction of a work by the original producer of that work. In aviation terms, that equates to the Orenburg Yaks being called replicas, but if someone else other than the original firm that produces them, then its not a replica. So, a data plate build is a reproduction. Those two Spits so lovingly reproduced were in such bad shape that they were almost entirely rebuilt from pattern parts. Very little original structure was used in their production, but we still call them by their serials. The Mossies here in NZ are the same. Glynn Powell builds them at his workshop and original bits are added, so they are reproductions as well.

If you have to define a word before you say it, because common usage contradicts it, then your usage isn't really usable.

[dade]

I liked all the contributions on this subject, all equally correct and not obstructive. As the saying goes buyer beware as to provenance, It was always drummed into me that the manufacturers plates denoted the aircraft, plus country of origin and any change would be a reproduction which usually meant a reduced price, although only a few will be built and it depends on demand from rich people. Yes it would be nice to see a Buchon in Spanish colours, but since 2008 the millionaires would have been reduced in that country and others will want German markings. If the Battle of Britain film had not been produced, would we even be talking about this aircraft. As for the Spanish bullfighters parent, well Spain is a tourist mecca for German holiday makers, who knows what goes on. One thing is certain due to the shortage of Daimler Benz engines only a few reproductions can be built. As we are two years from the next decade will we have the first Supermarine Spitfire and Rolls Royce Merlin with a year build of 2020 if there is a demand. I would point out that if I win the Lotto, I am open to buying a Curtiss P-40. But not the Canadian P-40 that is original but too expensive as a static aircraft and too expensive to rebuild to fly as it comes from an expensive base and it has been on the market for a long time. See its always Cents and Dollars.


Regards,
DADE.

[nuuumannn]

If you have to define a word before you say it, because common usage contradicts it, then your usage isn't really usable.

My usage? Look the definition of replica up in the dictionary.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged three volume edition: "Replica: a reproduction, facsimile or copy done by the maker of the original or under his direction."

Common usage doesn't apply if the original definition is lost in the interpretation. Another example is the common usage of 'ultimate', which means last, yet so many use it to describe the best of something.

[nuuumannn]

Yep Dade, your point is a fair call and there are no hard and fast rules for definition (except 'replica'of course), but the term reproduction broadly covers so many aspects of the subject; recreation is also one I've used in the past. As a writer I often struggle to define these things as it is an emotive subject. I've been rubbished on social media before for calling the Mosquitoes reproductions and new builds instead of restorations, so definitions continue to generate emotive interest, as this post shows.

[ErrolC]

Oct 14, 2018 12:05:49 GMT 12 nuuumannn said:

If you have to define a word before you say it, because common usage contradicts it, then your usage isn't really usable.

My usage? Look the definition of replica up in the dictionary.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged three volume edition: "Replica: a reproduction, facsimile or copy done by the maker of the original or under his direction."

Common usage doesn't apply if the original definition is lost in the interpretation. Another example is the common usage of 'ultimate', which means last, yet so many use it to describe the best of something.

Doesn't apply? What does that even mean? If you have to define a term each time you use it, it isn't that useful a term.
The dictionary? If you look at a modern edition of that dictionary, how many meanings are there? How about British ones? Or read even specialist publications like aviation mags?

[nuuumannn]

Lordy. It's simple Errol. Use your brains. The definition of replica in the dictionary defines how it should be used, regardless of how we choose to use it. That's not how language works. You can't just make up your own usage of words.

[dade]

Hi to you all,
I blame it all on the comics we looked at when we were young, Messerschmitt here Messerschmitt there, Achtung Spitfire here Achtung Spitfire there. As I grew older I was astounded that there were other aircraft in the world. Now that I am in the region of being old and working in a library in our museum, its Lancaster here Lancaster there, Spitfire here, well you know the rest of it. One of our racks of six shelves has British Constructors and Manufacturers Aircraft and at least four shelves cover books on the Lanc and Spit. I wish authors would expand their horizons as like the wheel it has already been invented.
I know my posts look like I am anti flying aircraft, not really. I find that at sometime in the last century we went from static aircraft at affordable prices to flying aircraft at prices, five or six times the price of my house. Some history disappeared. I am in awe concerning the (reproduction) Mosquitoes, where one man turned his life over to resurrecting one type of aircraft using the manufacturers techniques and not change another aircraft into a different model. When Rolls Royce car manufacturer bought the Bentley car manufacturer, models with both these names looked similar, but one was cheaper as status was different, one had VIP bums on seats and the other Racing pedigree. If you took of the markings saying Bentley and put the Rolls Royce emblem on, you cannot say its a Rolls Royce and expect big bikkies (provenance). Also flying aircraft like the Fairey Firefly were close to extinction due to flying accidents, but then in Ethiopia some were found and others in Sweden were gathered up. A static aircraft in a museum can hold your attention for maybe 10 mins, but the log books, letters, medals, paintings, armament can take the whole day. I also mention money a lot, maybe because I have none and I could be jealous, but sometimes the difference between an amateur and a millionaire can be the physical effort an amateur, free of charge will expend in volunteering. With the swings and roundabouts of these threads, we are just human. So thanks for the messages on this thread and the pictures planecrazy.
And to use what they say at the end of films using live animals. NO MESSENGERS WERE PHYSICALLY HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS THREAD.

Cheers,
DADE.

[nuuumannn]

Well Dade, I probably come across as a grammar nazi, but there's reason for that. I used to do professional proof reading and write for professional organisations, and I learned that there are standards that need to be upheld, which include the basics of spelling, grammar etc, so that's why I mention these things in threads like these. I also write freelance, which means my work is edited by someone else and any mistakes I make - and there are often those, have to be corrected, so I try not to make them.

There is no excuse for sloppiness in writing; spelling mistakes, misappropriation of words etc. There are editors of aviation magazines available to the public here who are very sloppy; in an article on the Bf 109 in one popular magazine, I saw it written as BF-109, Bf.109 and Bf 109 and Messerschmitt as Messerschmidt. Consistency has to be maintained when writing, even if the majority of the general public who reads these magazines don't really care.

The reality is, if people want to call these aircraft replicas, then hey, Errol's right, everyone does it, so it must be okay, right? But that doesn't mean I don't have the right to advise them that their usage of the word is not correct, as annoying as that might be. If it's of any consolation, I get corrected all the time!

[planecrazy]

Sorry dade for my sideways hi-jack, took this from wrong markings to replicas/restorations, have
enjoyed the conversation and comments in saying this.

Will have an attempt at getting this back on topic, there are two wonderful machines that reside
in New Zealand both of which are genuine ex RNZAF machines that wear different schemes than
when they first served. I know there is already a thread on these two which has gone very quiet?
Will we see these two flying again in the near future and more importantly in RNZAF markings
would be awesome?!

(NZ5648, FG-1D Corsair, 3205 and NZ3009 P-40-E, 19669 41-25158 ET482)

[ErrolC]

I'd be ecstatic to see the Corsair flying, a scheme change would very much be a bonus.

[vultee43]

Perhaps back on to topic. Personally I have no beef as to how an owner paints or displays their aircraft / boat / car etc. What does annoy me is the inacurate perceptions that this will be perpetuated in the publics knowledge or awareness of the artefact and therefore dilute its provenance and consequently its history. I know many of the forum members have been to airshows and have had to put up with poor commentary filled with inaccuracies. In saying that there are some great airshow commentators, including several forum members. I can just hear how a line could go - 'And here we see an Me109 that was flown by the great Russian pilot The Red Baron'. Okay somewhat exaggerated but like the media reports 'it was a cessna that crashed'. It is pleasing to see these aircraft represented in historically accurate and exceptionally detailed schemes and I applaud the level of commitment.

On another point I see the whole debate of restoration /reproduction and replica as a particularly oenerous debate. In my very humble opinion it could be distilled into a very simple definition.
Restoration - at least 25% original material with every effort made to restore the artefact using traditional techniques and materials in line with original specification.
Reproduction - as above with less than 25% original material.
Replica - a faithful recreation of an original that may or may not use the same materials or techniques.

Just my take on this on going saga.

[dade]

Only 25 aircraft arrived from Germany and were to be called Me 109Js, by 1943/44 the tide of the war was going against Germany so when the aircraft arrived in Spain they were minus their engines, propellers, armament and tail fins. To compound the issue the jigs and technical drawings were also unforthcoming. So as 1944 came to a close and with no sign of the much needed parts to complete the airframes Hispano Aviacion would change the aircraft in 1945 so that the Hispano Suiza 127-89 engine could be used and these were known as the HA-1109-J1L but the engine was replaced by the 127-17 and a new designation of K1L was given to the aircraft.
It wouldn't be until the 1950s when the definitive version of the Buchon, originally given the designation HA-1109-M1L, would be built when a 1,600-hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 500-45 was installed, giving the aircraft a top speed of 419 mph, and as a result gave the Buchon a distinctive cowling compared to its Bf 109 predecessor. Armament would consist of a pair of 20mm Hispano Suiza cannons and eight 80mm rockets and this flew for the first time on the 24th March 1954 and when this type entered service two years later it was known as the HA-1112-M1L Buchon. The reproductions from Buchon to Messerschmitt were built from the HA-1112. No early Buchons would still be in service by the late 50s