P-39 project

Nathan · **Posted:** Sun Jun 14, 2015 10:43 pm

Don't have much to add other then lots of warbirds flying today are just data plate builds anyway. The more and more maintenance done with parts replaced, new sheet metal etc detracts less originality to the airframe. Although I don't let that bother me from enjoying them. Even during their service time they had parts replaced. Something to think about.

marine air · **Posted:** Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:07 am

Most warbirds are not "data plate rebuilds". Actually when a lot of aircraft were being re-patriated to the U.S. a lot of data plates were moved to these aircraft, bits and parts. Aircraft like T-28D's from Vietnam, P-51's from Nicaragua, and former gate guards that the U.S. Navy or Air Force might lay a claim to. The actual building up something from nothing typically involves a small warbird where the finished value of the aircraft will be more than $2 million, and there aren't any other options for the owner. Example, the P-51B/ C's, Me-109 E's and F's, maybe a Bearcat, and some early Spifires. D model mustangs start with some provenance, a crashed airframe and logbooks, lots of parts sourced including reproduced pieces, and pieces built up that are a departure from the factory drawings. That's why they often end up registered in the Experimental category.

fiftycal · **Joined:** Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:20 am **Posts:** 306

marine, they are usually experimental because any aircraft that has had military service may have exceeded design limits and will not be certified.

Cvairwerks · **Posted:** Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:16 pm

fiftycal wrote:

marine, they are usually experimental because any aircraft that has had military service may have exceeded design limits and will not be certified.

Exceeding a design limitation has absolute no influence on getting an ex military bird certified. The only way it will get certified is if there was a Type Certificate issued that covers the particular aircraft, by either model number or by serial number. If there is not a TC that covers it, then it goes under one of the Experimental classification.

VCS1 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:35 pm

It is amazing who the FAA TC holders for some these AC:

B-25 Aero Trader
P-51 Cal Pacific Airmotive
P-40 Chris Prevost

fiftycal · **Joined:** Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:20 am **Posts:** 306

Cvairwerks wrote:

fiftycal wrote:

marine, they are usually experimental because any aircraft that has had military service may have exceeded design limits and will not be certified.

Exceeding a design limitation has absolute no influence on getting an ex military bird certified. The only way it will get certified is if there was a Type Certificate issued that covers the particular aircraft, by either model number or by serial number. If there is not a TC that covers it, then it goes under one of the Experimental classification.

definitely not here, the DCA made the ruling due to not knowing if they had exceeded design limitations when in use

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

How do you know if any aircraft has exceeded design limitations? Is something different if a Cessna 150 exceeds design limitations?

And what exactly do you mean by design limitations?

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:49 pm

I'm with bdk, that's an odd reason. Definitely not the same here in the US.

fiftycal · **Joined:** Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:20 am **Posts:** 306

for example in combat if its pulled too many G then it has exceeded design limitations and for that reason they were initially grounded and later given very limited airworthiness.

look at these mustangs for example: http://www.goodall.com.au/photographs/e ... tangs.html

Quote:

However DCA would not budge from their strict restrictions on civil
operation of former military combat aircraft, on the basis that during their service lives they could have be been subjected to
unreported manoeuvres beyond their design limits.

fiftycal · **Joined:** Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:20 am **Posts:** 306

all i can put it down to is that aviation is safer in Australia than the USA, maybe thats why Qantas hasnt had a fatal accident since flying jets but united airlines kills hundreds every year? anyway i thought there was some universal international code

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:16 pm

Wow! That's a bold statement, considering the last fatal crashes of United Airlines aircraft occurred on September 11, 2001. One into the World Trade Center and another into a Pennsylvania field. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft)

You're out there, man. Good luck with your project. I hope you get what you want for it and we all see it flying soon.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:34 pm

This topic is being locked down pending review

WIXMOD-DELTA · **Joined:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:44 am **Posts:** 58

Guys this is turning personal. Locked and let's cool off.

Warbird Information Exchange

P-39 project

Who is online