Restoration Trends

A2C · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:15 pm

Folks:

Have noticed a trend in warbird restorations? P-51's, P-40's, Spitfires and P-47's appear to the most in demand, but P-39's, P-63's and Me-109's appear to be more or less ignored.

Anyone know why that is?

Thanks,

usaf ssgt · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:17 pm

Lack of available airframes, perhaps?

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:53 pm

I don't want to say ignored, due to the fact that there have been a few restorations of the more rare aircraft you mentioned.

I believe that there was a company in Germany that was cited here on WIX a couple of weeks ago that was preparing to produce new build 109s. The only problem was lack of DB engines.

But other aircraft like P-39s and P-63s are apparently from what I've gathered more complex restorations. Still, i believe more collectors would be more focused on probably obtaining American WWII fighters such as the 39, while the 63 was only successful with the Soviets. But there are certainly more 63's kicking around than 39s so i expect to see more Kingcobras in the air in coming years. I mean just look at the P-47. How many Thunderbolts were flying in 1990? As opposed to how many are flying today?

A2C · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:13 pm

Good points, but this begs the question: Why do the Aussies and others go to the extent of 95% new P-40's, like the 95% P-51's in the USA when there are more original P-39's and P-63's to be restored, not newly produced? Are the restorers serving the news media or the it's the "in thing to do" crowd? The reason I say this, is P-39's served a key role in the defense of Port Moresby New Guinea in 1942, but it was largely forgotten.

The P-63's, although mostly used by the Russians some served in the continental US. So, compare that with the Bearcat, which was used in battle mainly by the French. Yet the Bearcat has a much higher value.

It looks to me like there's more of an obsession with the P-40, and the Mustang more than the others. Probably because all the kids like the sharks teeth on the one and the Mustang success at the end of the war for the other.

Look also at the A-26, these served in Eorope, but the rebuilders focus on the B-25 instead.

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:29 pm

A2C wrote:

Good points, but this begs the question: Why do the Aussies and others go to the extent of 95% new P-40's, like the 95% P-51's in the USA when there are more original P-39's and P-63's to be restored, not newly produced? Are the restorers serving the news media or the it's the "in thing to do" crowd? The reason I say this, is P-39's served a key role in the defense of Port Moresby New Guinea in 1942, but it was largely forgotten.

The P-63's, although mostly used by the Russians some served in the continental US. So, compare that with the Bearcat, which was used in battle mainly by the French. Yet the Bearcat has a much higher value.

It looks to me like there's more of an obsession with the P-40, and the Mustang more than the others. Probably because all the kids like the sharks teeth on the one and the Mustang success at the end of the war for the other.

Look also at the A-26, these served in Eorope, but the rebuilders focus on the B-25 instead.

Its true its a popularity contest. Restoration projects such as a B-17, P-40, Corsair, P-51, B-25, etc seem to be far more popular and quickly snatched up than a A-26, P-39, P-63, F8F, but there are examples of these aircraft being brought back to life.

As for the P-39, its probably one of the most important fighters we had out there. Early into combat and still on the front lines at wars end, it was a fighter that saw its fair share of trials and tribulations. Truly a shame not more of them are around and flying. But dedicated restoration shops with experience like Fighter Rebuilders in Chino can just about restore anything you throw at them. I believe there the most recent group to have restored a P-39 for a customer.

Mostly it depends on whose got the money and what there knowledge/specific interests are in Warbirds. Of course everybody knows a "Shark Mouth" or Mustang, which maybe why so many owners/operators purchase and have these fighter restored.

Im more partial to the collector that tries to get either the more economic/unique aircraft rather than following the heard. Jerry Yegan is still leading the race in my book with historically representing a large (and growing) number of WWII aircraft from all points across the globe.

steve dickey · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:33 pm

I'll chime in here a little: I think the biggest problem with 39's & 63's are parts availability, sure you have many a airframe out there that could be restored to airworthy but with out certain parts it becomes impossible. Mainly with the Bell products I think gear box issues, i.e. none to be around or none to be made into airworthy.
probably with P-40's and 51's parts availability are more prevelant? i.e. more spares were saved/squandered than other types?
But with enough cubic $$$ anything can be made to make an airplane airworthy, its just a matter if the owner wants to really spend it and probably some to do with FAA.
Just my thoughts, others smarter than me will expand more.......
As Gary would say, "over to the experts......"
Sorry gary didn't mean to steal yer saying!

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:37 pm

Hmmm, what we need is a small company to produce a line of needed Bell parts for the 63 and 39! Heck why not some parts for the P-59 too?! :wink:

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

I hope to see more A-26' restored to flying status. I'm surprised there are not more of them out there flying right now, the 26 seems like a lot of airplane for the money. Perhaps the 25's ww2 history and flight envelope make it more appealing. I admit if I had a choice I would take the 25 over the 26. Is it possible to move thru the bombay of a 26 like you can a 25? I'm thinking no but not sure. That might also have something to do with the 25's popularity.

I always wanted a P-39. I wonder how much power gets robbed from having to turn that loonnnnngggggggg propellor driveshaft.

A2C · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:42 pm

I would think a P-39/63 gearbox could be made, but it would have to be forged just like engine parts. Maybe one could be borrowed from another plane with gear boxes? (Just an idea, could be a bad one).

So it could be a parts problem? Also could be that the P-51 guys and P-40 guys have teamed up from old restorations and recreated the parts as a group?

retroaviation · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:48 pm

There are some parts for the 39 & 63 laying around. I know where there's a gear box for the prop sitting and I have a gear box for the landing gear here at Austin Acres. It's true that parts for these birds aren't as numerous as for a Mustang, but they're still around. Ya' just gotta know where to look. ;-)

Gary

steve dickey · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:05 pm

Another thing to consider too is the Mustang is basically "cookie cutter design", parts can be made rather easily and cheaply as far as warbirds go, but don't think that Mustangs are the cheapest to build up, they command more I think due their "provenance".
Where as P-40 wings are probably not the easiest to reproduce due to the fact that it has mulitiple spars so its very labor intensive! Heck just ask Chris Prevost, he built his up from scratch!!
Gary didn't you have a hand in Dick Hansens P-40 wing rebuild?

retroaviation · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:25 pm

steve dickey wrote:

Gary didn't you have a hand in Dick Hansens P-40 wing rebuild?

No, but my old friend, Paul Hunt, who built several sets of P-40 wings, said it is one of the most complicated wing designs he's messed with.

Gary

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:17 pm

But there HAVE been people willing to reproduce airworthy sets for aircraft such as the P-40. That is an amazing accomplishment.

Now for example, what about producing the needed parts for a Corsair Wing spar or even the whole wing for that matter? Would this be a more complicated job stacked against the P-40's or Zero's wing design?

Ryan Keough · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:52 pm

I think it can be easily summed up in the demand generated by the people who can spare the cash...

See: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/23 ... fighters23

That article, written last year at this time, clearly illustrates the trend according to Simon Brown -- the superstar warbirds garner the attention, draw the highest prices, and create the largest demand for restorers and suppliers alike.

Those who can purchase something of that value will purchase an icon... the P-51, the Corsair, the Spitfire... they all are symbols of "warbird cool" to those who have the means, but might have just the passing "coolness" interest.

And now that we are in tough economic times, those planes are what the investors are going after... the smoking hot deals you can get now will most likely appreciate significantly in a few years when things stabilize again. Build up a P-40 down under while the economy is soft... labor and parts are surely cheaper.

I have seen loads of P-63 and P-39 carcasses around... most notably the ones continually pawned by MARC in the last few decades. Why were they not restored? Lack of market in my opinion. I just can't see anyone stepping into a P-63 for the cool factor unless they are a diehard like us. Even Jerry Yagen had some, but got them restored to static only because there was barely a trade market for that.

If I had the money, I'd take a P-39 -- but then again, I grew up just outside of Buffalo, so it's the hometown pride...

...or is it the enormous amount of PCBs that I ingested from the water?

"Pure and Fresh Lake Erie Water: H2O You Can Really Sink Your Teeth Into!"

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:54 pm

A2C wrote:

Folks:

Have noticed a trend in warbird restorations? P-51's, P-40's, Spitfires and P-47's appear to the most in demand, but P-39's, P-63's and Me-109's appear to be more or less ignored.

Anyone know why that is?

Thanks,

Lots of good points made. I would add a couple. Regarding the A-26, they were working for a living until quite recently as fire bombers so maybe airframes and spares were tied up in that effort and weren't as available to restorers? Of course they never had the benefit of "30 Seconds Over the Rhine" either.

As for the 109s and Buchons a number of people have taken a run at them over the years only to bend them to one degree or another. It seems that the E models are better behaved than the Gs or Buchons but I have to wonder if there aren't a number of potential owners who have said thanks but no thanks regarding those types. Basically who wants to own a WW2 fighter that you have to operate like a WW1 fighter, i.e. little or no cross wind capability and likes turf surfaces rather than pavement? Rather limits your ability to see and be seen.

One last point is that the appeal for some owners is performance above all. That would explain the popularity of the Bearcat, Tigercat and Sea Fury which were pretty much the ultimate in their classes. Ditto the Mustang and Spitfire.

Warbird Information Exchange

Restoration Trends

Who is online