Warbird restoration.....

[Lucky13]

Is it just me, or does someone else think that they tend to finish of the restorations too shiny and polished sometimes?





I hope that I don't step on someones feet about this.

[evangilder]

I kind of like it, personally.

[ccheese]

I guess it really depends on what you're restoring. A P-51, B-25 or P-38,
shiney is nice. But a B-17, B-24 or a P-47, no thanks...

Charles

[Cub Driver]

There's a million dollars or more in the typical restoration. No way is someone with a million dollars to spend going to accept a dinged and dirty aircraft in return!

I once wrote an article about the AD Skyraider as nuclear bomber. Every pilot I interviewed remarked on the filth of the aircraft's undersides, streaked with oil after a mission (often 12 hours). I went to the Naval Air museum in Pensacola in order to sit in a Spad cockpit, to get the feel of it, and was amused to see not a drop of oil, on the carrier deck or the airplane itself.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Coming August 21: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942

[ccheese]

Maybe I better clarify what I meant by "shiney". I'm speaking of unpainted
metal. The B-25's, P-38's and P-51's looked good in un-painted shiney
metal. I think the others looked better painted..... let's say "glossy".
Glacier Girl is a good example of a painted (glossy) airplane.

Charles

[comiso90]

I noticed that too but assumed that $$$ played a role. I'm sure it is cheaper in terms of materials, application and maintainability .. as well as fuel costs.

[bigZ]

Gloss paint tends to be more durable than matt.

NASM tends to strip all paint from their restoration(unless the paint is in reasonable condition and can be stablised) and chemicaly clean their aircraft as dust is corrosive. They even apply a solution to prevent eroding from due to electrolysis. NASM for various curatorial reasons has decided not to weather their aircraft. Their primary aim is to ensure that not only the outer shell of the aircraft lasts but also the technology is also preserved for future generatons. With a WWII plane taking over 20,000 man hours to restore with a small team it is something they don't want to reapeat in the not to distant future.

Flyable warbirds have differnt critera to meet but I guess the shiny gloss finish lasts longer, looks nicer(to some) and saves fuel and $$$ in the long run. Plus a dirty plane looks like an uncared for plane.

[AV8]

Most private collectors use a glossy finish because they want their warbird to look GREAT. After all, unless they are FILTHY rich, they only have ONE.

A museum is different. Many have static restorations and matte finish is fine indoors. Most, but not all, museum aircraft that are flyable are glossy and are stored indoors. Glossy is smoother and consumes less fuel during flight.

[Heinz]

Someone already said but overall its cheaper to have gloss for running costs and just general up keep.

Sally B the UK B 17 was recently re painted and they decided on a gloss finish stating exactly that it is easier to look after and preserve.

These are retired war birds for the most part and should enjoy and deserve to look at their best!

[Aussie1001]

Agree with Heinz

though i kinda think it adds to the effect if you have cordite marking and the like from the guns going. I guess it depends on what you are into.