Early POF pics ????

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11282

warbird1 wrote:

If the POFs' Jack's engine was in such bad shape that it needed an extensive overhaul just to run in idle, then I agree, the money could be better spent elsewhere. But would it really be that expensive to overhaul it to just "idle" standards?

BTW, many years ago, (late 80's or 90's), Ed Maloney was on record as saying that he would like to have the Jack restored and flying some day. I can imagine, though, given the rarity and escalating value of Japanese warbirds, that he has probably changed his mind in this current day and age.

I'm not saying that I disagree that it would be nice to have the engine in running condition. Let's say it costs $50K to remove the engine, tear it down to ensure that the bearings won't consume themselves on the first start and sieze the engine and come up with some kind of operable fuel system. What does Planes of Fame get for their $50K? How long before they get a return on their investment? What if they instead put that $50K into an engine overhaul on their P-40 so they could offer rides to their members? Or put $50K into their B-17 so they could get it closer to having it on tour? Or finished their kids' educational museum? Where do you think that money is best spent?

I've sat in it and dreamed of how cool it would be to see it back in the air. Nice dream, hope it happens, but I'm not holding my breath.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:45 pm

warbird1 wrote:

2) The old RAF Cosford's Ki-100, which was a sole survivor with an extremely rare engine. Though static, the engine was run up on occasion.

3) The old RAF Cosford's Me 410, which was one of 2 survivor's of the model with extremely rare engines. Though static, the engine was run up on occasion.

4) The old RAF Cosford's Fw 190F-8/U1, which is the only survivor of it's type and being unique in that it is a two seat trainer version. Though static, the engine was run up on occasion.

I was there, and it was St Athan, Wales when they were engine run. It was a blast. (The Fw 190 and Ki100 are now in Hendon, the Me410 at Cosford.)

Note the Welsh weather.

A bit more of the picture. In each case a number of compromises to originality were made, including, I was informed by another ex-RAF engineering officer of relevant experience, parts from the local hardware store including tubing etc. The Me410 had the prop blades cropped shorter; a non-reversible change, and difficult to justify in hindsight on such a rare aircraft.

A good idea? I can see and have seen some of the benefits - bdk's outlined the cost issues. There is, albeit a small one, a risk issue with running an un-airworthy aircraft with 60 year old parts. A split pipe, ignition, and you can have a totally consumed aircraft in seconds.

Like most things there's no easy 'right' answer, but trade off as to benefits, cost, safety and so forth.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

JDK wrote:

warbird1 wrote:

2) The old RAF Cosford's Ki-100, which was a sole survivor with an extremely rare engine. Though static, the engine was run up on occasion.

3) The old RAF Cosford's Me 410, which was one of 2 survivor's of the model with extremely rare engines. Though static, the engine was run up on occasion.

4) The old RAF Cosford's Fw 190F-8/U1, which is the only survivor of it's type and being unique in that it is a two seat trainer version. Though static, the engine was run up on occasion.

I was there, and it was St Athan, Wales when they were engine run. It was a blast. (The Fw 190 and Ki100 are now in Hendon, the Me410 at Cosford.)

Note the Welsh weather.

A bit more of the picture. In each case a number of compromises to originality were made, including, I was informed by another ex-RAF engineering officer of relevant experience, parts from the local hardware store including tubing etc. The Me410 had the prop blades cropped shorter; a non-reversible change, and difficult to justify in hindsight on such a rare aircraft.

A good idea? I can see and have seen some of the benefits - bdk's outlined the cost issues. There is, albeit a small one, a risk issue with running an un-airworthy aircraft with 60 year old parts. A split pipe, ignition, and you can have a totally consumed aircraft in seconds.

Like most things there's no easy 'right' answer, but trade off as to benefits, cost, safety and so forth.

Awesome, great pictures JDK! Do you know if any video was taken of any of the forementioned engine runs? I would love to see/get a copy of anything that might be out there.

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:26 am

warbird1 wrote:

Awesome, great pictures JDK! Do you know if any video was taken of any of the forementioned engine runs? I would love to see/get a copy of anything that might be out there.

No video by me, I'm afraid, or my friends, but I think there was some taken at times. Don't know how you'd get hold of it.

In the meantime:

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:27 am

bdk wrote:

airnutz wrote:

Regardingthe J2M..I wonder if POF has ever fired her up, if not, I wish they'd invest the time to do so? I wonder what one of them sounds like??? :wink:

I don't think so. Since that is the only one of those engines in existence that I am aware of, you'd want to be mighty careful with it. As it is a static display, it sounds like a lot of work for little return on your investment. The money might be better spent doing a more thorough static restoration, replacing the corroded wing spars, finding better replacement tires, etc.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Bdk, but I was basically asking if Mr. Maloney ever fired 'er up
in all the time he's had her. The J2M3 is one of the rarest of the rare..the last one, as far as I know.
As much as I'd like to have the experience of seeing and hearing a Raiden fly, I'd not be for
risking the bird for my own selfish pleasure. Though, to restore the engine and ground run it could
be done with proper attention. This would make the Raiden a rather dynamic "living" static bird....
THAT would be the "return" on the investment. Just a purist dream.... :wink:

As for the rest of the airframe..it'll happen eventually...

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:00 am

Check this one out:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20111203@N ... 917146211/

Misidentified as a Cessna T-50, it's actually the POF's Beech AT-10. Right around this time, it was used as set dressing in the film Where Love Has Gone along with their B-17G Piccadilly Lily. What happened to it after this? Do any pieces of it still exist, and did any of it end up in the NMUSAF restoration?

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:04 am

OK, on the same subject.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/rafstathan/

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11282

airnutz wrote:

As for the rest of the airframe..it'll happen eventually...

I hope you are right, but that seems to run contrary to the way the museum has operated since their inception. Static restorations tend to be exterior cosmetic standards, not the way that the NASM would perform a restoration (by definition which are all static). I personally would love to see it restored to fly as the Zero has been and would dig deep into my pockets to donate towards seeing it restored to flight status.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

bdk wrote:

airnutz wrote:

As for the rest of the airframe..it'll happen eventually...

I hope you are right, but that seems to run contrary to the way the museum has operated since their inception. Static restorations tend to be exterior cosmetic standards, not the way that the NASM would perform a restoration (by definition which are all static). I personally would love to see it restored to fly as the Zero has been and would dig deep into my pockets to donate towards seeing it restored to flight status.

Since the Jack has never been restored, I would love to see it restored concurrently while making parts and patterns to make new build Jacks in much the same way as the Willow Grove Me-262 was done to make the new build 262's. Wouldn't that be cool!

It's just too bad that there isn't a market for Japanese warbirds, because I don't think those Jack replicas would ever sell for the price that would be required just to break even.

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:19 pm

Guess too many folks don't know Jack... :roll:

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:14 pm

Chris Brame wrote:

Guess too many folks don't know Jack... :roll:

Ah, but this will help.

http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm

NOT for the easily offended.

Warbird Information Exchange

Early POF pics ????

Who is online