Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:13 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What Would You Restore?
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:40 pm 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
Here's a scenario where you have a limited opportunity to restore only certain warbirds of different values and conditions.

Out of the following choices which of the following would you restore?

Airworthy TBM tanker in bad shape to airworthy warbird in good shape? Restoration time is 4 years.

Corroded Zero, Ki-43, or SBD which needs 100% reskining, new spars, some new ribs bulkheads and stringers etc. Restoration time is 10 years.

Yak 11 conversion to Yak-3 which needs a spar splice, cleaning, but has been partially restored? Restoration time is 2 years.

A Mustang with all drawings, but only includes a spar and some fuselage bulkheads, fuel tanks, tail wheel, etc. Restoration time is 10-12years.

Or, none, I'll just have a beer and watch WWF


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:02 am
Posts: 361
Well, you did ask, so here's my thought process. Of the choices you gave, my choice of airplane would be a mustang. HOWEVER, I would choose the TBM to restore. Given my age, the TBM would be the most realistic to actually see through to completion. Not a huge fan of the yaks, so that leaves the shortest path to restoration as the TBM. As many know, 4 years quickly become 10. The spar replacements and reskinning are huge tasks, even if you already had replacement spars, but most likely they would all have to be fabricated. As for the mustang, I don't have the skills, time, or the will to scratch build an airplane from drawings. Now if Gary Austin were to come live with my family and I for a few years, we could wrap up this SNJ fiasco and move right to the mustang! :D Gary, are you out there?

Chunks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:18 am
Posts: 39
I'd take the Yak (obviously).
The word here is that the Yak-11 is much closer to a Yak-3 then the new built examples are. Would also probably go down the Klimov route.
Now, where do I write down the address of our workshop?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:39 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11275
For the same price I'd be flying a fighter in 2 years!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:43 am 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
Quote:
For the same price I'd be flying a fighter in 2 years!


WTF bdk that's an excuse. Be a man and answer the question..


Last edited by A2C on Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:46 am 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
So no one choose the Zero? I must be the only Zero fan then.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:02 am
Posts: 361
A zero would be fine, but they look too much like a T-6 :twisted:

I actually did not choose the zero because it was an overwhelming task.

Chunks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:56 am 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
Thanks Chunks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:11 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11275
A2C wrote:
Quote:
For the same price I'd be flying a fighter in 2 years!


WTF bdk that's an excuse. Be a man and answer the question..
I guess I wasn't clear enough...

Yak 11 conversion to Yak-3 which needs a spar splice, cleaning, but has been partially restored? Restoration time is 2 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:36 pm 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
Right, that would be a pretty good choice considering they are simply constructed and sell for a pretty good price.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:16 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:54 am
Posts: 5116
Location: Stratford, CT.
Why not try and borrow the jigs and plans at the Fargo Air Museum to build an all new R-2800 powered Zero? Isn't there's essentially and all new build aircraft?

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/images/07_250.jpg

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis

Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:38 pm 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
Hey Warbird Kid:

So your vote is for the Zero. Blayd built the plane and Tri-state put it together, but they might have the plans. From what I hear a Zero has 16,000 parts, and a P-51 or something like that has closer to 10,000.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Wichita, KS
My pick would be a T-33, but that's not on your list.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:00 pm 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
Quote:
My pick would be a T-33, but that's not on your list.


Well, let's talk about it. I think an airworthy T-33 can be purchased for $35,000, I kid you not. So is it worth it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Wichita, KS
A2C wrote:
Quote:
My pick would be a T-33, but that's not on your list.


Well, let's talk about it. I think an airworthy T-33 can be purchased for $35,000, I kid you not. So is it worth it?


IMHO, it would be. Awhile back I knew of someone who had 2 that were selling for $13k each. I like the era of aircraft it comes from and I also like that it's a 2 seater. If I ever purchase something that I'll end up flying it'll be a T-33 of some sort. There is so much to do before that would ever become a reality for me though. It's not implausible, just not something I can afford to do for a few years. I might humor it in 5-10 years from now though.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group