There's no reason to make the originality versus modified owners adversarial. Each has their own intents and purposes, ... but it might help the ones who think those who lean towards "originality" out-of-line... might remember that our Association was "Formed to preserve and promote a truly classic airplane" .
I have a really good friend who is slightly older than myself and, like myself, appreciates the era of the '50's/'60's automobiles. He gleefully informed me one day he'd acquired a 1957 Chevrolet two-door convertible. I couldn't WAIT to see it.
Sure 'nough... there it sits in his driveway.... cherry-apple-red with white leather seats, rolled and pleated. It was gorgeous!
Then he popped the hood. It is actually a later Ford Mustang with a Chevy body mated to it.
Yes...it drives much better than the prototype... but it's NOT a '57 Chevy.
I claim to be an originality nut "for the right reasons"... meaning that I love the beauty of the 1950's Cessnas. I don't love their shortcomings...but I love their beauty and their simple functionality. And their affordability. However, I don't modify the airplane simply to "improve" what Cessna didn't intend in 1953.
If I wanted a fuel-injected STOL airplane ... I would NEVER start-out with a 170, and start throwing money at it. I'd probably look at a 185 or 206.
I'm not a fan of VG's, or leading edge cuffs, or wing fences, etc... because I never need less than the runways I always use. If I did.... the 170 wouldn't be my preferred airplane. I'd also never stick a swept-tail onto it. Or tricycle landing gear. Or "bubble" windows. But if that's what YOU want.... go for it. Just don't criticize my personal preferences as well.
At some point modifications begin to resemble a Mustang with a Chevy body on it. It's no longer the C-170 of which I became so enamored.
Frank LOVES his '57 Chevy replica. But that's what it is...and it's NOT a '57 Chevy.
Did I criticize it to his face? What purpose would that serve but to injure our friendship...? I CAN admire the incredible amount of engineering and expertise it took for someone to mate that body to that drive-train... and THAT is what we discussed. ... and how he wants to change out the front suspension to ride better. ... and how to convert the air-conditioning to R134A. ... and so on. We had a good day looking over his toy.
One of the things THIS Assoc'n is good at is..... forming good friendships. Having fun conventions with those friends. Helping other owners find parts. Fix problems. Share information.
There's no reason to endorse anothers mods that you don't find interesting. But it's also VERY off-topic to criticize those who like originality in a club that "Formed to preserve and promote a truly classic airplane".
At Deming, Bruce and I shared a short conversation about the NON-originality of some of my airplane's features. Yes, I'm an "originality nut"...in the sense that I like it to LOOK original, PERFORM original, and meet the majority of those judging rules which pertain to original C-170s.
For example: When I found my airplane for-sale... it had no anti-collisions lighting. My purchase-offer was predicated upon the installation of wingtip strobes by Whelen. The seller/restorer immediately stated, "You know...that's not original don't you...??"
I replied, "I hate to tell you this...but I intend to fly this airplane off a grass strip and sometimes do so at night!"
After a short pause he said, "Well..... I guess that's what Cessna
intended it for."
Bruce was likely noticing some of the following:
1- My engine and cowling pass the casual observer's glance as being original. However it's actually a C-172 installation with an O-300-C, EM-series (6-bolt) prop, and a C-172 cowling. Why? Because those were more plentiful and less expensive/easier to obtain when the restoration was undertaken.
2- My radios are late 90's. Why? They work better for current requirements.
3- My baggage shelf is removed. Why? Because it made loading/unloading simpler and allowed larger items to be placed there and allowed easier access in-flight. It's largely unnoticed.
4- My baggage compartment has a baggage door. Why? Because it isn't intrusive on appearance and is a HUGE improvement in utility and access. It also makes it much easier to maintain the aft fuselage area (providing access to the ELT, etc.) It looks original.
5- My aft baggage bulkhead has been reinforced and blanked-off above the shelf-area. Why? Because it strengthens the fuselage, blocks noise and air-flow from the tailcone entering the cabin area improving heating in winter. If the rear shelf were re-installed, it would provide additional support and prevent items from stressing the headliner. It's invisible.
6- My right wing has a mirror-image set of landing/taxi lights. Why? Because the right wing suffered minor hangar-rash in exactly that nose-rib-bay and it was more useful for me (often operating at night on a dark-hole ranch-strip) and less expensive than replacing that long leading edge. Most people who view my airplane overlook it because it appears exactly as Cessna might have done it originally (similar to a C-337.) They look like they could have been original.
7-What are those appendages on my rear doorposts? They are passenger convenience/reading lights. But they are made from original Grimes torpedo-lights and look like something Cessna would have done, and they really help loading/unloading at night and allowed my daughter to read her books when we travelled. They look original.
8-The instrument lighting is never noticed by anyone looking at it... but my instruments have indirect lighting installed behind the floating panel. I fly a lot at night and it's a matter of being able to see the instruments better. They are virtually invisible except at night. It
looks original.
There is absolutely NO fully "original" C-170 that I've ever seen which flies today. One of the most meticulous restorations I've admired is Steve Jacobsen's..... which has a highly-modified instrument panel in order to accommodate modern avionics hidden behind original radio-faces as well as a glove-compartment similarly modified.... So his Oshkosh multiple-Wins for "originality"... is a bit "tongue-in-cheek". ... but it's very pleasing and admirable to those of us who like "originality".
I imagine those who bemoan the "originality crowd's conceit" .... actually really admire such craftsmanship.... While few "originality nuts" desire highly modified airplanes.... none that I know have any feelings of condemnation over another owner's modification-preferences.
There's no reason for the owner of a modified 170-owner to imagine reasons to dislike those who prefer originality. And there's certainly no "originality nut" who should presume their own preferences depict the actual condition of their own airplane.... My airplane is an example of something with original-appearances...but modifications of convenience and/or functionality.
This disparity in the personal tastes of C-170 owners is no reason to stir up some non-existent argument...which serves no useful purpose in a club "Formed to preserve and promote a truly classic airplane". ... and one that is so good at forming really GOOD FRIENDSHIPS.
PS: When I win the Powerball I plan a Continental IO-360, C175 fuel tanks and .... Naww.... I'll buy a 195....and a Convair and a HU-16 and...