Why none of these flying?

[sabredriver]

Why is it we see none of these flying as warbirds?

F-84D/E?F?G???

F-105D/F ?

F102?

F106?


Whats so wrong or restricted about them?

Sure their old but why has no one ever restored one to fly as a warbird?

[Swiss Mustangs]

maintenance hogs ?

Martin

[wendovertom]

It seems like it would take mighty deep pockets to maintain one of these - but then there are the guys who own MIG-29s!! I thought I had seen a F-84 for sale a year or two ago, a very viable "project plane" it seems like.

Also, Brad has provided pictures - the Greek AF has F-102s - they might be persuaded to sell one. . . . .

Tom P.

[BennoT6]

There was a F-84F Thunderstreak on the US-airshowcircuit some 15 (20 ?) years ago; in a Thunderbird c/s

About 10 years ago a Belgian group were working on a F-84F to return in to flying condition; unfortunately never heard about it since.

The other jets are rather complex and expensive to operate (I think)

[RickH]

Money and maintenance hogs have very little to do with why none are flying.

The foremost reason is US DoD policy.

Apparently there is at least 1 F-106 that escaped and is in El Paso. The owner is reportedly trying to get it put together to fly. Haven't heard anything in a while.

The only Thunderbird F-84 i've ever seen was an example restored by Pete Regina for static only.

Most foreign govts flying US aircraft are doing so with strings attached. One of those strings is that the US Govt has a say in what happens to them when the operating country is finished with them.

Case in point, Canadian CF-5s, New Zealand A-4s.

[marine air]

Once these types of jet aircraft get out of airworthiness it is extremely difficult and expensive to get them airworthy again. The sheet metal is more difficult to work with, there are more compund curves and the hydraulic and electrical wiring all has to be redone from scratch after so many years.
Some types of jets were rushed into service or had serious design flaws and limitations by today's standards. They were difficult to fly and not too much fun. Operating costs were exorbitant but the govt. wasn't too concerned with this in the 1950's and 1960's. The F-4 is such a maintenance pig, as was the F-111, they "broke the bank" and are what brought about maintenance friendly designs in the 1980's like the F-18 and the Black Hawk helicopter.
If you look at the jets on the civilian circuit, most were imported flyable, or in pretty good shape. They are easy to fly, easy to maintain, and parts are easy to come by. There aren't many exceptions to this.

[RickH]

The availibilty of unencumbered airframes remains the main reason why more of these jets aren't being restored to flight status.

As has been pointed out before it CAN be done.

[marine air]

Nice photos!
They remind me that there are a lot more different types flying than ever on the civil circuit. Who knows in the next 20 years? !!
Once at Oshkosh, there was a civilian B-57 Canberra and also a Fairey Gannett. SO anything is possible!

[JimH]

Next year could be pretty interesting on the jet front....stay tuned

[T33driver]

Lots of good points on thread about why certain aircraft aren't seen flying in the warbird circuit. Ease of operation and maintainence are two big factors. For example, the owner of a CF-104 told me he figures 10 hours of maintenance for every flight hour. So you either have to pay someone to constantly wrench on the airplane or devote lots of time doing it yourself. Gotta have a long runway, drag chute, maybe a pit crew of sorts to launch and recover them as well. Plus, if these jets don't fly, they break in big ways and the currency of the pilots may be an issue depending on their experience/currency. Many of the early jets and trainers like my T-33 are relatively low maintenance with plentiful spare parts, easy to fly, and can be launched and recovered without ground support equipment and personnel. In talking to other jet owners, some have mentioned flying the MiG-21 for example, really isn't "fun", but more like crisis management. Heard that from more than once about the Mig-21. Guys I fly with in the airlines that flew the F-105, F-106, and F-4 loved flying those airplanes, but they didn't have to find spares, buy fuel, and maintain them. I admire the dedication of the folks privately operating and maintaining the high-end jets like the F-4, A-4, MiG-21, BAC Lightning, F-104 and now maybe an F-106? Wow!

[wendovertom]

Mark's F-104 is an awesome thing to behold!! Hopefully the weather will cooperate for the 2007 Jet blast in Wendover and he will be able to attend.

This kind of makes me think of the A-7 for sale - there must be a paper trail making that bird clear to restore and fly. I would hate to see another Lex & the corsair fiasco.

Personally, I think the Navy should have seen thier way clear to let Dale Snodgrass have an F-14 or two for a demo team!

Tom P.

[K5DH]

There are some wealthy individuals who can afford to buy, maintain, and fly vintage combat jets. A couple of years ago, I ran across a privately-owned "mini air force" of ex-Soviet jets at New Castle County Airport (ILG) in Wilmington, DE. The collection is made up of two MiG 21 Fishbed, two MiG 23 Flogger, and one Aero Vodochody L-29 Delphin. I was told that all of them came from the Czech AF. Here are some photos that I shot of them. One of the MiG 21's was not present, apparently "out west" somewhere being worked on. The white MiG 23 is a flyer, and the camo MiG 23 was undergoing restoration to fly. The 2-seater MiG 21 in these pics had just landed from a flight (I saw him in the pattern and immediately zoomed out to the airport with my camera in hand!).













For you trivia buffs: New Castle County Airport was the home of the 4th FIG before they were deployed to Korea.

Cheers!

[wendovertom]

These planes belong to a member of the Classic Jet Aircraft Association - thier website is www.classicjets.org

Take a look under the "gallery" section of the site.

Tom P.