CAF B-23: How bad is bad corrosion?
Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:37 pm
Hi folks,
Was poking through Airliners.net and came across this photo of the CAF B-23...
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1171527/M
It made me think... truly how bad is the corrosion issue that is keeping her on the ground? I know this has been discussed here as of late, but in reality, how probable that this plane will ever see air under her tires again?
I know it isn't the worlds most popular warbird, but it really is one of those birds that I'd love to see fly again.
Was poking through Airliners.net and came across this photo of the CAF B-23...
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1171527/M
It made me think... truly how bad is the corrosion issue that is keeping her on the ground? I know this has been discussed here as of late, but in reality, how probable that this plane will ever see air under her tires again?
I know it isn't the worlds most popular warbird, but it really is one of those birds that I'd love to see fly again.
Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:36 pm
Ryan;
That actually looks like Kermit Weeks' B-23 to me. Was the CAF's ever painted in the OD colors?
Jerry
That actually looks like Kermit Weeks' B-23 to me. Was the CAF's ever painted in the OD colors?
Jerry
Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:39 pm
If you zoom in on Ryan's pic, on the rear bit of the fuselage you can read "Confederate Air Force."
I think it is the CAF's.
I think it is the CAF's.
Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:11 pm
Hmmm... but this pic (according to the label) was taken 13 years later at the Weeks Air Museum -- and it's wearing the remains of that OD paint scheme with the same tail number.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0643301/M/
Who can solve this mystery?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0643301/M/
Who can solve this mystery?
Re: CAF B-23: How bad is bad corrosion?
Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:24 pm
Ryan Keough wrote:Hi folks,
Was poking through Airliners.net and came across this photo of the CAF B-23...
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1171527/M
This one is 39-0057 now with Kermit Weeks. According to WD4 it was registered to Tom Page/P & M Supply Co., Willoughby OH in 1979 when this pic was taken at AirSho 79
Registry listing here:
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b23regis ... 90057.html
The CAF B-23 is 39-38 not listed in the registry (paging Scott or Dan
)
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b23regis ... istry.html
It looked like this at AirSho 05
I'd sure love to see this one back in the air as well- Gary can speak more to the possiblilty of that when he gets back.
From what has been posted before it is going to take quite a bit, but certainly not impossible...
Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:08 am
Whats up with the tail damage?
Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:49 am
APG85 wrote:Whats up with the tail damage?
Several years ago, the airplane was either just chocked or tied down poorly and a strong blast of wind broke the airplane loose and it rolled, backwards, down the taxiway, until it finally took out the taxiway gate with it's tail. darn shame really.
The airplane is is a VERY corroded condition. The CAF High Sky Wing tried diligently to make efforts to restore the airplane, but when they got deeper and deeper into the airplane, it was discovered that it was simply too much for them to take on.
That is not to say that the airplane isn't repairable, it's just going to cost much more than what it's probably ever going to be worth. Would anyone here want to spend $500,000 on an airplane that probably isn't worth $200,000 when it's finished? That's the perdicament the CAF is in with the airplane.
Old Shep or FG1D Pilot could better tell everyone the eventual status of the airplane. I think there was serious discussion about making it a nice static display, but that didn't seem to take hold yet.
Gary
B-23
Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:39 am
..............since when do we stop spending more money on a warbird that the warbird is actually worth? I have more in my "6" then I'll ever get out!
In all seriousness, I guess the historical significance plays a big role as well. Gary needs another project anyway. He obviously has too much time on his hands
In all seriousness, I guess the historical significance plays a big role as well. Gary needs another project anyway. He obviously has too much time on his hands
Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:21 pm
Speaking for the High Sky Wing first...we spent a bunch of money to retrieve the airplane from South Texas to get it to Midland. Initially we thought that it could be made ferry-able but discovered that it had been damaged, some parts removed, etc, by people unknown, so we had it trucked to Midland. After spending more money and time, we discovered that the airframe was pretty much riddled with corrosion. We had a retired Douglas engineer acquire all the blue prints, maintenance diagrams, etc, on microfilm, inspect the airplane, run some numbers and come up with a final figure: $500K was the conservative estimate, with $750K more realistic. The High Sky Wing returned the airplane to CAF HQ, as per CAF regs, and it has been up for reassignment ever since. As Gary points out, it is a $200K airplane that will cost (now) a million to fix, and then you get such a rare airplane that it appears to be an oddity...People constantly think it is a twin-engined B-17...
As far as making it a museum static airplane, I'm all in favor, but I'm only one voice on the General Staff.
Old Shep
As far as making it a museum static airplane, I'm all in favor, but I'm only one voice on the General Staff.
Old Shep
Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:33 pm
I think I would sell or trade it to the AF for something you could do something with.. As is it is currently a burn barrel for $100 dollar bills to get flying.. And like you said, most people think it is a 2 engine B-17
Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:55 pm
It has been sitting for over 20 years. It's time to let it go to the highest bidder. Maybe someone with the proper skills can restore it or use another one and together get a B-23 back into the air. Are there any really flying on a regular basis?
I respect that the C.A.F. must have a lot of conversation regarding it's mission and assets. Why not sell off the oddball stuff and streamline the fleet ? Use the assets to get more of the recognizable types flyable and producing revenue for a longer time into the future?
Some of these oddball types are like troubled R.E. properties, the cost to repair and put back into service is rising much faster than the residual value of the property, as is.
I respect that the C.A.F. must have a lot of conversation regarding it's mission and assets. Why not sell off the oddball stuff and streamline the fleet ? Use the assets to get more of the recognizable types flyable and producing revenue for a longer time into the future?
Some of these oddball types are like troubled R.E. properties, the cost to repair and put back into service is rising much faster than the residual value of the property, as is.
Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:26 am
Hi Guys,
I know all of the debate that has been ongoing about this particular airframe, and the rather lowly status this type holds in the public view. Now, I do not mean that to say that this is not a worthy effort to at least become a static airframe for didplay, nor do I advocate a rare type to sent off to the ministrations of a scrappers torch.
But, rather it has always been my belief that, as a former "tin bender" myself, that there is NO airframe that cannot, with the proper amount of TLC that cannot be maintained in a flyable condition. There just has to be a will to do it. From my own experiance, the bigger the job, the better I liked it. The challange was the reward. Be it spar work, skin work, of body frame work, it is all potentially a reward in itself.
I have seen, up close and personal, the B-23 that Mr. Kermit Weeks aquired, and that airframe is extremely corroded. And that one is equally repairable to become a flying example as well. There just needs to be a will to do it. As to the cost estimates that have been bandied about, the question is do these estimates include a labor element in them ? Or rather do they reflect only a parts issue of what is or could be required to bring this aircraft "back from the grave" ? From a personal standpoint, I would LOVE the challenge of getting this airframe back to an airworthy perspective. And, while I am not a an engine or systems guys, I do know many who are. Does the cost estimate also include rebuilt engines and props ? And if that is the case, I can well understand why the cost estimate is so high. The radials and props used to power the airframe are usually the highest portion of any rebuild. So if you take that particular part out of the equation, does the cost estimate subsequently drop for the cost of the overhaul of the airframe ?
Additionally, does the cost estimate reflect the accessories such as instruments, and electronics package for flight ? If you see where I am going with this, I am attempting to break down the cost of the total picture into several components. Instuments/Avionics, Structural overhaul, including recovering the flight controls, Landing Gear repair and overhaul, and finally the miscellanous systems inculding the hydraulics. If you take them, one at a time, begining with the structural component first, would this particular airframe being a candidate for a long(er) term restoration ? Versus leaving it sitting, slowly returning to nature.
Respectfully,
Paul
I know all of the debate that has been ongoing about this particular airframe, and the rather lowly status this type holds in the public view. Now, I do not mean that to say that this is not a worthy effort to at least become a static airframe for didplay, nor do I advocate a rare type to sent off to the ministrations of a scrappers torch.
But, rather it has always been my belief that, as a former "tin bender" myself, that there is NO airframe that cannot, with the proper amount of TLC that cannot be maintained in a flyable condition. There just has to be a will to do it. From my own experiance, the bigger the job, the better I liked it. The challange was the reward. Be it spar work, skin work, of body frame work, it is all potentially a reward in itself.
I have seen, up close and personal, the B-23 that Mr. Kermit Weeks aquired, and that airframe is extremely corroded. And that one is equally repairable to become a flying example as well. There just needs to be a will to do it. As to the cost estimates that have been bandied about, the question is do these estimates include a labor element in them ? Or rather do they reflect only a parts issue of what is or could be required to bring this aircraft "back from the grave" ? From a personal standpoint, I would LOVE the challenge of getting this airframe back to an airworthy perspective. And, while I am not a an engine or systems guys, I do know many who are. Does the cost estimate also include rebuilt engines and props ? And if that is the case, I can well understand why the cost estimate is so high. The radials and props used to power the airframe are usually the highest portion of any rebuild. So if you take that particular part out of the equation, does the cost estimate subsequently drop for the cost of the overhaul of the airframe ?
Additionally, does the cost estimate reflect the accessories such as instruments, and electronics package for flight ? If you see where I am going with this, I am attempting to break down the cost of the total picture into several components. Instuments/Avionics, Structural overhaul, including recovering the flight controls, Landing Gear repair and overhaul, and finally the miscellanous systems inculding the hydraulics. If you take them, one at a time, begining with the structural component first, would this particular airframe being a candidate for a long(er) term restoration ? Versus leaving it sitting, slowly returning to nature.
Respectfully,
Paul
Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:45 pm
Why not start a fund on WIX? Like we did for "Lil" and the PBY.
Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:38 pm
Following Nathan's lead, and thinking outside the box... would there be any sense/feasibility to breaking the project down into components, and having various folks volunteer to take some responsibility for those small parts, with someone (like Gary, but not necessarily Gary) having oversight responsibilities? Just a thought...
kevin
kevin
Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:36 pm
I'm a big fan of the CAF and optimistic about the B-23 flying again. I'm pessimistic about what it would take to get it there again. Was it a pristine aircraft when corrosion was restored? When I see the aircraft , it needs everything, paint, tail reconstruction, new fabric on the control surfaces, propellor overhaul, engines and all accessories overhauled, landing gear overhauled and inspected, tires and tubes, all avionics probably replaced, an interior of some sort, and on and on. That's not even talking about corrosion.
IF you could get the B-24A completely refurbished, the B-29 up and flying, and the P-82 rebuilt and flying under CAF "ownership", and the B-17G Texas Raiders, would this be a worthy tradeoff for selling off some of the lesser known or extreme projects?
How much revenue would the CAF's B-17, B-24A, B-29 and P-82 bring in if they were airworthy all at the same time,(85% attendance) for say, 5 years in a row!!?
IF you could get the B-24A completely refurbished, the B-29 up and flying, and the P-82 rebuilt and flying under CAF "ownership", and the B-17G Texas Raiders, would this be a worthy tradeoff for selling off some of the lesser known or extreme projects?
How much revenue would the CAF's B-17, B-24A, B-29 and P-82 bring in if they were airworthy all at the same time,(85% attendance) for say, 5 years in a row!!?