Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:32 am
C.6-60 Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:02 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airworthy would bring $50,000-$60,000 U.S.D. Tops!
Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:53 pm
Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:13 pm
Centerline wrote:The wood is killer and always a problem even in the best aircraft. The engine mount is also wood.
Centerline wrote:Sorry!! The jet warbird market in the US is way down, due to fuel prices and limited people able to fly these aircraft. If you want to get into jet warbirds, get a metal airplane. The de Havillands are for a few museums and a small group of collectors who don't mind spending 10x what its worth to fly one for other reasons.
Centerline wrote:PS - all of this assumes the aircraft is in the U.S. with an FAA N number and all paperwork complete. Otherwise, no value at all to US collectors as import and paperwork costs would far exceed market value and be too much work.
Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:30 pm
JDK wrote:Centerline wrote:The wood is killer and always a problem even in the best aircraft. The engine mount is also wood.
Wow, that's clever. Presumably the engine also burns sawdust? Perhaps you mean the engine mounting is attached to the wooden pod. Just because it's unfamiliar (and maybe thus scary) doesn't mean it's bad or dangerous. There's significant hours of civilian Vampire ops, inc aerobatics, outside the US and I don't recall any structural failures of any kind.
A properly maintained wooden aircraft which is properly looked after is no worse than an equivalent tin one. However, it seems that in the US anyone interested in post 1940 aircraft regards wood as some kind of satanic device to confuse good sheeties. Finding fast-jet woodworking LAMEs is a trick anywhere, but ignorance by many breeds 'giving a dog a bad name and hanging it'.Centerline wrote:Sorry!! The jet warbird market in the US is way down, due to fuel prices and limited people able to fly these aircraft. If you want to get into jet warbirds, get a metal airplane. The de Havillands are for a few museums and a small group of collectors who don't mind spending 10x what its worth to fly one for other reasons.
I'd agree that the supply outstrips demand, and with no US history, a Vampire or Venom is going to be outside the popular items there anyway.Centerline wrote:PS - all of this assumes the aircraft is in the U.S. with an FAA N number and all paperwork complete. Otherwise, no value at all to US collectors as import and paperwork costs would far exceed market value and be too much work.
And in the rest of the world, those currently operating their Vampires and Venoms are very happy with them, by and large. The fuel prices are a lot tougher in Europe and the UK than US users have ever encountered, and certainly have knocked back jet ops significantly, but you weren't going into jets because they were cheap, were you?
Like piston warbirds did in the 1950s and 1920s, there's a triage going on with jet warbirds at the moment weeding out the less well-heeled people playing and leaving dedicated owners in the game.
There are currently several airworthy (and currently flying) Vampires in Australasia. (I was watching Judy Pay's last weekend.)
Temora two-seater & Meatbox.
Their value? Not for sale, AFAIK, but not likely to change hands for big figures.
Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:44 pm
T33driver wrote:There was a fairly recent example of a substantial section of wood coming off a Vampire's fuselage during an air show due to dry rot. I won't get into who, where, when etc. It was repaired not long afterward and flew on.
Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:51 pm
JDK wrote:T33driver wrote:There was a fairly recent example of a substantial section of wood coming off a Vampire's fuselage during an air show due to dry rot. I won't get into who, where, when etc. It was repaired not long afterward and flew on.
Can you go so far as to say within the US or outside? I'd not be surprised were that a US case, I would if it were in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and most of Europe, hence my asking.
I'm in no position to point a finger, but that's down to inadequate maintainence, rather than an unsound design. Your points are good, there. It amazes me that we are all prepared to take chances with our transport at times, beyond sense.
Otherwise I'd agree with your points! The 'fun jet' market is dying back, and we are seeing a shift to more serious players. As I say, that's not new in vintage aviation elsewhere.
Regards,
Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:55 am
T33driver wrote:That begs the question...what was the RAF or RAAF or DeHavilland recommended inspection interval for the wood construction in a Vampire/Venom?
Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:38 am
Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:16 am
Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:29 am
Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:40 am
Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:40 am
Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:41 am
Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:51 am
Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:55 am
daveymac82c wrote:"I wouldn't mind just buying a flying Vampire in order to preserve the historical value of it."