ME-262 Headed to Virginia Beach

[Warbird Kid]

Also, speaking of the MAM (FF) I was looking at Google Maps and noticed some upturned ground that I can only assume is the groundwork for the new hangars. Also it seems some of the trees that were parallel with the runway have been cut down. It almost looks like the beginning of a second runway.

[CraigQ]

Also, speaking of the MAM (FF) I was looking at Google Maps and noticed some upturned ground that I can only assume is the groundwork for the new hangars. Also it seems some of the trees that were parallel with the runway have been cut down. It almost looks like the beginning of a second runway.

No pictures but a storage hangar is pretty much functional save exterior finishing and some interior work I think and block work is going on for the new FF MX hangar. Haven't been over in a couple of weeks so not sure how much has progressed since then. Google maps behind the times as usual.

[mrhenniger]

So is it 501243 that is headed to VA? When?

Mike

[JimH]

I'm curious about the static airframe.

Is this predominantly an airworthy structure fitted out with static systems, or were the major structural components constructed or rendered suitable for static use only?

I think its a predominantly static airframe fitted out with airworthy systems

[The Inspector]

The static, display only recreation has lots and lots of left over, scary stuff that showed up in the truck loads of parts from Tejas, all unairworthy, so don't you think it will ever get into the air except as freight-

[Dan K]

The static, display only recreation has lots and lots of left over, scary stuff that showed up in the truck loads of parts from Tejas, all unairworthy, so don't you think it will ever get into the air except as freight-

Says who?

[RickH]

I think its a predominantly static airframe fitted out with airworthy systems

Huh ?

You really think there might be some airworthy systems hiding in there ?

[JimH]

Hah! I'm pleadin' the 5th!!!

jim

[richkolasa]

I was chatting with Jerry at Geneseo today, and I'll have to get Parr to confirm, but I'm quite sure that he said that he bought BOTH airframe #3 and #5 (with either 2 or 4 being the static one). I was undernourished, and dehydrated, but I'm pretty sure...

Rich

[The Inspector]

#2 is TANGO TANGO in Germany.
Let me see here, I'm now retired, but I do have 45 years as a licensed A&P Mechanic, mechanic/installer, Structures mechanic, systems installer/troubleshooter, flight test mechanic, Boeing Functional Test Inspector, QC Inspector, QC Inspection Leadman, QC Inspection Supervisor, Project Manager, and Technical Instructor for a major MRO. I held RII and Logbook Release to Service authority for 14 or so major customers while @ that MRO, I also held Return to Service authority (8130) in all four disciplines (airframe, engine, Avionics, and Accessory). Starting with the 707 up through the 787, I know 8 major Boeing types and 18 derivatives of those 8 major types, 6 different turbine engines and 4 different APU types as well as having been Technical Instructor and on the floor SME for 3 major MD types. I know and understand 99% of the workscopes involved on those airframes and can comfortably and with surety, perform the vast majority of work to be accomplished from "A" checks to Bridging "D" checks.. I've worked on 150's and 787's and most of whats in between. So I feel I speak with some amount of authority and knowledge.

In several months over about 3 1/2 years helping out part time @ the 262 project, I don't ever recall seeing either of your faces in the hanger. I do however believe that my experience and knowledge and training allow me to recognize and discern what is safe and airworthy and what I wouldn't use to build a garden cart. The static display airframe is mostly things that wouldn't go on an airworthy aircraft. The aircraft is less flightworthy than most of the RED BULL FLUGTAG goof ball entrants you see on the news falling off a platform into a lake or river and could probably glide half as far, just like the real, original aircraft, lots of it is sheet steel and the wing halves are held together with bolts from the local hardware supply outfit.

[Dan K]

#2 is TANGO TANGO in Germany.
Let me see here, I'm now retired, but I do have 45 years as a licensed A&P Mechanic, mechanic/installer, Structures mechanic, systems installer/troubleshooter, flight test mechanic, Boeing Functional Test Inspector, QC Inspector, QC Inspection Leadman, QC Inspection Supervisor, Project Manager, and Technical Instructor for a major MRO. I held RII and Logbook Release to Service authority for 14 or so major customers while @ that MRO, I also held Return to Service authority (8130) in all four disciplines (airframe, engine, Avionics, and Accessory). Starting with the 707 up through the 787, I know 8 major Boeing types and 18 derivatives of those 8 major types, 6 different turbine engines and 4 different APU types as well as having been Technical Instructor and on the floor SME for 3 major MD types. I know and understand 99% of the workscopes involved on those airframes and can comfortably and with surety, perform the vast majority of work to be accomplished from "A" checks to Bridging "D" checks.. I've worked on 150's and 787's and most of whats in between. So I feel I speak with some amount of authority and knowledge.

In several months over about 3 1/2 years helping out part time @ the 262 project, I don't ever recall seeing either of your faces in the hanger. I do however believe that my experience and knowledge and training allow me to recognize and discern what is safe and airworthy and what I wouldn't use to build a garden cart. The static display airframe is mostly things that wouldn't go on an airworthy aircraft. The aircraft is less flightworthy than most of the RED BULL FLUGTAG goof ball entrants you see on the news falling off a platform into a lake or river and could probably glide half as far, just like the real, original aircraft, lots of it is sheet steel and the wing halves are held together with bolts from the local hardware supply outfit.

Inspector, that was an amazing rant. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers.

Based on your response, I'm assuming you've never seen The Defender ("starring" Chris Ball and Bob Diemert--the two faces you don't ever recall seeing in the 262 project hanger/hangar). Take an hour to watch this cinematic classic sometime, and I'm quite certain you'll begin to see the desperate attempt at humor my last post was intended to be. Here's a link to watch it (but don't say I didn't warn you):

http://www.nfb.ca/film/defender

[The Inspector]

Dan K,
I recognized Old Bob D right off the bat and have watched 'The Defender' a few times, I just wanted to draw you out from your hiding place. The static bird is stuck together with parts (like the wing under the restored 'WILMA') that would have been better left behind in Tejas, but will work well enough to hold things together enough to make a really nice display subject, but things that no one associated with safe airplane operations would allow to fly anywhere except into the scrap dumpster.
I appologise for the rant but remember I live about 5 minutes from the project and still have friends who volunteer there, plus there are no secrets between any of the warbirding types here on KPAE, we're like a really small town and know everyone elses hangups and indescretions.

[dors]

Says who?

I think I just wet myself

[Chappie]

What Im more concerned about is a 262 operating off a grass strip.

I thought about that too when I first saw the thread, but I'm sure more than one 262 flew off grass during the war.



Chappie

[VCS1]

As some who has followed all the TAF airplanes produced (F3F, ME262, KI43) I am always curious of just what "level" the workmanship performed at that facility. It would seem with the amount of rework necessary that it was not very high. Can you give some examples? As an A&P myself I definately understand the notion of having "undo" someones else's work (or just throw it out and start over) to ensure the airworthiness of an article.