Warbird Information Exchange

Okay, here is my dumb question(s) for the week. In terms of airframe availability, restoration difficulty, availability of parts, and operating cost, which warbird is more more expensive to bring back into the skies (assuming "equal" condition of airframe and engine at the start)...the P-51 or the F-86? I know this is somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison, but I'm wondering if the cost difference is part of the reason why we see so few privately operated F-86s in the skies compared the P-51s. Or does it just come down the the popularity of each aircraft? The P-51 is an extremely famous aircraft, therefore it's the bird almost everyone wants.

Tell me if I'm right or wrong on my assumptions:

1. Airframe availability - I assume the F-86 is more easily obtained and cheaper to acquire, in an unrestored condition, at least. I assume most P-51 airframes are already restored, are in the process of restoration, or are pretty much spoken for. Some of those photos from China Lake appear to show many F-86s sitting in storage (as of 1997, at least).

2. Restoration difficulty and parts availability - I would guess the P-51 is easier in this regard, since the number of people who restore and operate these birds is higher. Also, with the number of active P-51s out there, there is a market for "new" parts...making the economics of creating new tooling possible. The F-86s on the other hand might be easier to obtain original parts for, but harder to obtain them in operating condition. I may be way off base here, however. Also, are the systems on the F-86 much more complex than on the P-51?

3. Operating cost - Here is where my ignorance really shines. My guess is that the F-86 is more of a fuel hog and more expensive to operate, but I am willing to admit I know nothing of the reality of the situation.

Also, are there other factors out there I haven't considered, such as the ability to obtain airworthiness certificates for one versus the other? Is the FAA somewhat more restrictive about allowing private operation of ex-military jets versus piston-powered aircraft? Or are things pretty equal in that regard for 50+ year old aircraft?

I'm gaining a bigger appreciation for the beauty of these cold war jets and wish more were in the air (not just the F-86, but any of the cold wars jets). I know there is probably something I overlooked, but I assume there is a reason why many don't fly today. I hope it doesn't just come down to lack of interest...

Mark

I think the biggest factor in the relative lack of cold war jets is operating cost. I had a current P-51 pilot who flew the F-86 in the air force tell me he would never want an F-86 due to astronomical operating cost.

_________________
Dan Johnson

First I will qualify my answer and say that I have never flown the F-86. Saying that I believe the main reason we don’t see more F-86s is personal choice by the owners. The planes are out there, if someone wants one.

The downside to F-86 ownership is:

1. A much more complicated aircraft than a Mustang in terms of systems. The main issue being the full hydraulic control system. Loose hydraulics and you can’t fly. The system has some redundancy built in, but mainly to give the pilot time to eject. Today guys fit electric backup pumps and fill the nose with batteries to give an extra measure of backup.

2. Faster approach and landing speeds mean only going into 6000+ ft. runways, so not as many airports are open.

3. Fuel burn is (I’m guessing here) probably around 350-450 gph

4. No back seat…no passengers

It really is a different animal than a Mustang, but the guys I know who have owned F-86s loved them with a passion.

Steve

One other thing is, I think you have to have a 1000 hours to fly an F-86. That might hold some guys back also.

_________________
DEEP THOUGHTS BY KIDS:
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started. Age 15 "


Deep Thoughts,
Jack Handy

How much time do you need to get insurance in a Sea Fury?

Hey Folks:

LOA's are no more. From what I know a 500 hour type rating is now required.

look at the spare parts comparison...... tons of ww 2 p-51 spares still floating around because uncle sam made a pile of 51's during the war compared to the handful of f-86's made after the war with a tightened defense spending budget. some sabre parts are virtually unatainable now. & let's look at the prices of av gas!!! ww 2 prop vs korean era jet gas guzzler..... do the math!!! look what it costs to fill your car, or buy an airline ticket!! give me the mustang any day to stretch the long dollar. tom

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Yes, and no. In contrast to other jet warplanes available for civilian use, the F-86 has a lack of redundancy.

No, the F-86 is very simple. My grandpop flew them, and says that it was strictly a stick, rudder and throttle plane, that simple. In his ANG unit, they kept the slats wired shut, and the airbrakes too.

Chris

Thats probably Steves question, But, I'd imagine that it would have a lot to do with time in type and training above the 500 hours. A lot of tailwheel time and T-6 time, an IFR certification, and maybe some bonus stuff. Also, Guys here have said that a week at a place like stallion51, means a lot on what you're going pay for insurance.


Hi Chris!
It was my understanding that the LOA to Type rating change was mostly an administrative change. None of the requirements to fly the planes have been changed. Above 800 hp =500 hours, Jet powered=1000 hours, both with the same kind of checkouts, for each individual type, and by the same FAA qualified instructors.
I don't think it's a bad idea, but I kinda hope you're right, I'm such a darn good pilot that I'm pretty sure I won't need 1000 hours in order to fly a jet fighter . As soon as I can put the 172 exactly on the numbers three times in a row, I'm golden

Conspiracy theory time: Why did they change it? Hmmm....Maybe,
1. They didn't like the idea of guys walking around with unlimited LOA's, or,
2. They're bureaucratic dudes that need to justify their existance with a non-meaningful reg change.

As far a monetary costs. Hey, 1.5 million vs 500k max. A million dollars buys a lotta spare parts and gas.

_________________
DEEP THOUGHTS BY KIDS:
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started. Age 15 "


Deep Thoughts,
Jack Handy

From a pilot's perspective, it may well be a stick, rudder and throttle plane. From a mechanic's perspective, they are much more complicated. Before I had to move out to the east coast, I was doing the inventory and parts gathering for an F-86 project that we will restore and fly. Hopefully I'll go back some day and finish what I started! Compared to an F-16, the F-86 is simple. Compared to a P-51, they aren't. I would class them about the same as a T-28.

_________________
Brad

I can give a completely different angle here.

We did Special issues with Warbirds Worldwide on the Sabre and another on the Mustang. I thought both book/journals had excellent content (and I only wrote a little in each ) and the coverage was global in each case - Aussie, African, Latin America and European as well as the expected USA and Canada.

The Sabre sold like.. Well, really badly. The Mustang sold. In terms of popularity, you could do books on the Mustang every year and make money. On the Sabre, forget it. Sad, but true.

Cheers!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

...I get many more inquiries on P51 parts than I do on F86. And I have more F86 parts than P51 parts in stock at any given time.

I talked to an operator of an F86 who said that the airplane was just a fuel hog and required constant attention to maintain airworthy status.

Look at all the relatively inexpensive T33's for sale out there, and also look at the fact that there are several NICE early P80 (real WWII era vintage jet) projects out there which have not gotten restored after being traded around for years. Sorry to say but I think the vintage jet market is not going to get established while there are relatively cheap L39's and L29's out there.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

3OO GALLONS PER HOUR IS A HARD HABBIT TO SUPPORT THANKS MIKE

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT

You still need 1000 hours for any Experimental Type Rating, just like the LOAs. There is a proposal to change that to 500 hours for non-turbojet aircraft, but that's just a proposal. Some P-51s are certified in the Limited catagory, so I'm not sure how the ETR rules apply there. If you buy a T-28 today you'll need 1000 hrs of PIC time to get a rating.

My insurance company was pretty good in dealing with me on the Sea Fury, considering that all my warbird time was in T-6s, T-28s and L-39s (no taildragger fighters). I did 10 hours of dual in the 2 seater Mk. 20 Sea Fury and took a checkride.

The main reason for the change from LOAs to ETRs was that there was no central database for who was qualified in what. As the LOAs were issued by the FSDOs (on stationary), the information never was entered into the computers in OK City. The new system is much easier to manage.

That is correct. Each state's FSDOs ran like their own kingdoms. Now the FAA has centralized its LOA managment.
I personally had problems; My LOAs expired at different times from each other because I would get my LOAs in differnet parts of the country. For example, I had more time in a T-33 that my partner; but my local FSDO would only issue a 2 year LOA whilst my T-33 partner got an unexpiring LOA. The same happened with my other piston LOAs. Made no sense, wasn't consistent.