Warbird Information Exchange

So i thought just now, since everyone wants to see xx model warbird fly.. eg B-47 or B36 or B-52 etc .. why dont slated organisations start building one from scratch as its the only way isnt ??? .....as the US govt aint gona release any for restorers to fly...

Sure might be cough cough tad cough expensive for any "big" bird but hey long term if they build their own the US govt can not claim it came from boneyard eh and stop it flying ....

mad idea eh?

_________________
Fighters pilots are born to make movies , bomber pilots make HISTORY, cargo crews haul their material and fame.

saberdriver wrote:



Fosters induced idea?

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Impossible.

It is possible to make full scale replicas of reasonably-sized aircraft. These aircraft are usually made using completely different methods and structure. Look at the various Spitfire replicas, they vary from timber or fibreglass on tubing through to fairly close representations. This is possible in a machine of single-seat size. Multiply the size and you take it to the realm of horrendously expensive or impractical.

The short runs of new-build warbirds (Me262, Fw190, F3F, etc) are examples of what is required for practicality and 'affordability'. The tooling, jigs and casting requirements are such that it would only be financially practical if a certain number were built to spread the costs. These are usually the result of stripping a surviving airframe to its components and replicating skins, castings, systems and the likes. Sometimes non-surviving parts could be made using drawings or modifying other components. Semi-practical for a single-engined fighter, ain't gonna happen for an eight-engined jet bomber.

With the more popular warbirds, there is alot more sense in going the new-build route. It can be said that lots of Mustangs or Spitfires now fly around with a great deal of new structure. The old line is that one can now jack up a builder's plate and build a 'new original' around it. The line between replica and new-manufacture components is a fine one. Maybe with a Mustang, not with a B47.

From the engineering perspective, small aircraft can be done. Start factoring in the size and complexity of a jet bomber, and nobody could afford it.

From the manufacturing perspective, these aircraft were originally built by huge companies using state of the art manufacturing techniques which cost many millions of dollars half a century ago. Nobody today (outside the aircraft companies) would have the facilities required.

From the financial perspective, any person or organisation with lots of cash to hurl at a warbird project would have to ask itself the big financial questions. The money needed to build a replica jet bomber would be better spent having a squadron of Mustangs or Mitchells rebuilt/restored. Why do it?

From the certification perspective, the various aviation bodies throughout the world would be very wary of a 'homebuilt' jet bomber. Look at what is required to certify a new type of aircraft. Boeing can afford it if there is a multi-billion dollar contract. Joe Schmo can't.

From the government perspective, it would be most unlikely that any government would be happy with a privately owned nuclear-capable jet bomber. I'm sure they wouldn't want someone building an aeroplane that could easily end up as the flagship of Allah Akbar Airlines, heading for Washington.

These are a few considerations. There are plenty more.

At best, if all of these considerations could be overcome, you still have an aeroplane which would be a 'look alike' at best. Why? So people at an airshow can get their jollies?

Interesting idea. Impossible and in the realm of total fantasy, but interesting nonetheless.

Cheers,
Matt

Minor addition and correction to Matt's excellent post above.

Boeing (or any other US Government contractor) does not have to "certify" a warplane built for government service. If the Gov. is using it, it doesn't have to be certified or licsenced.

HOWEVER, if YOU want to build one, it can be experimental (easy way) and you can fly it with various restrictions. If you want to set of production and build unlimited numbers of them for civilian use, then they have to be certified and that does cost a LOT of money.

Mark H

Wix board home of the dreamers!! Jollygreenslugg makes a very valid point. Once you passed the WW2 designs and entered into the jet age a/c systems became very complex. What most don't realize is all that stuff that lurks under the skin. The labor just to build the structure is mind boggling let alone fuel systems , hydralics, fight controls, avionics ,ect. ect. ect.$$$$$$$ If you think I'm kidding unplug your computer and start building that B-47 cocpit section we will all be waiting to see the fruits of your efforts. It takes so much effort to design and build an a/c and make it fly but it only takes one man with a torch and a little time to destroy it forever. Any way you slice it building a a/c from scratch takes a lot of time, money, and a very dedicated and skilled crew, nothings impossible but its not likely to ever happen. I suggest that if you want to get involved in aviation is to turn off the computer, get out of the house and seek out the local museum and get your hands dirty, there are so many surviving a/c that need attention that building a homebuilt B-52 will seem a little out of reach. I would love to se a B-36, B-47, or even a XB-70 fly but guess what it's not going to happen.

Thanks Mike

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT

Hi there,

Well, I wouldn't too sure of yourself regarding the idea that the US Government couldn't stop you or impound your aircraft if you were to build one yourself. Take for example, the idea of scratch building a B-47. The idea behind that aircraft at the time, was for a medium to long range nuclear capable bomber. It was speedy, and a very complex machine. Plus add to the idea of an "airshow pleaser", you'd have to have a JATO package to go along with it.

But let's say that you were able to find yourself a sugar daddy who thought it would be cool to have a flyable B-47. IF he backed you up fully, and the DoD or the Government got wind of the project, the chances are VERY high that they would put the skids to it in a heartbeat, or at least attempt to tie the project up in court forever, remember THEY have an unlimited amount of Taxpayer dollars to do just that.

But it is nice to dream. I'd love to see a B-36, B-47, or for that matter a B-58 doing flyby's at an airshow. Even if they were operated by USAF personnel. But the operational costs would be astronomical.

Just my 2 cents worth,

Paul

DoD doesn't give a flip about what civilians build as long as it is not a direct copy of, or a rebuild of a current use aircraft. Were you to obtain all the relavent equipment for ordinance delivery, they still wouldn't care...BATF might want to talk with you though. And as long as youi meet the liscensing requirements for which ever type CofA you are building to, then the FAA isn't going to have much heartburn over your jet. Just look at what Scaled Composites has done over the years...

If you build a flying replica B-36, I would definitely be a potential customer for one. I'd park it next to Eric's Skyraider and make him look deprived with that dinky little thing. I wouldn't be as interested in something more common like a B-52, heck most every North Vietnamese has got one of those in his backyard.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK