Future warbirds..

[JOHN MILLER]

First, love the plane and nice to see new ones being build. Question I have is during your annual, since you don't look for corrosion, do you look for termites????

[The Inspector]

To attempt to answer the Original question lestweforget asked, what will keep modern day military aircraft out of the skies in the future will be;

A)removal of military property/proprietary black boxes and computers, modern aircraft are incapable of being flown without lots of really sophistocated computers

B) de-milling, which on really new stuff will amount to removing large, complex, and important pieces of CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic) cut 6 feet out of the wing carry through and you got a really cool whirrligig for the yard and not much else-

C) the fact that the Freely Associating A$$es have already tried to pass a large, flaming brick over the number of foreign built ex-military types flying in the US. Several years ago they had a major conniption over the F-5 and A4 that 'got past them' and became registered. So you can bet they are working feverishly over the AD on MD-80 wirin...no...keeping now current stuff out of your grandkids' hands by getting legislation weaseled through the twin towers of pomposity, the House and Senate to make that never happen...............................$5 says I'm right

[RickH]

There was no conniption over the F-4 or TA-4 where the FAA was concerned, as far as I know.

The legislation that was passed individually for the CF aircraft was aimed directly at DoD policy as it regards turbine tactical aircraft.The legislation specifically addressed the release of a flyable or readily flyable aircraft. The aircraft have to be able to meet standard airworthiness regs for an experimental exhibition aircraft.

While maintenance on these aircraft is more intensive than a recip, in some ways it's easier. The maintenance hours per flight hours using military numbers is skewed when compared to civilian use. We are dealing with airframe, hydraulics, avionics, and engine. We are no longer dealing with radar, weapons systems, or ecm. I've been told that a large portion of the 65 maint hrs per flight hour that the AF touted was related to the radar. I can believe that. As sophisticated as it was it is a blend of tubes, transistors and even gears, I'm told that the original 463 spent a large portion of its nonflying time in the radar docks being tweaked, that's probably one reason it was the highest scoring jet in Viet Nam, 6 kills.


Dean, I believe that the you are not seeing more former Eastern Bloc being imported than you are mainly because of market saturation. The govt. doesn't seem to care about the importation of former military aircraft, unless it is an American built aircraft. Then they start worrying about the International Arms Agreement. The same agreement that they wanted to use as the basis for the legislation that would have allowed the govt to confiscate legally owned former military equipment with no reimbursement to the legal owner.

[JDK]

A good, if not new question, and some very interesting responses so far. It's interesting that one of the proposed 'what ifs' (Glynn Powell's Mosquitoes project, as mentioned) has been underway for some time...

Are modern aircraft too complex, expensive and potent to ever be future warbirds?

Yes, to all three of those.

Excellent post. For the purpose of the exercise, let me argue the other way.

No to all three.

Today's cutting edge technology is tomorrows rustic oddity. I'm sure the first flint knives were regarded as too advanced for the next generation to manage, while in 1918 (essentially the start of the ex-military aircraft scene) scout / fighter types were used by civilians (such as a doctor in the south of England using an SE-5 as a run around to visit his patients.) They seem simple to us now, but reading contemporary accounts there's a remarkable similarity to today's 'it can't be done' response, due to, guess what - complexity, cost and risk.

There has been exponential cost, complexity and regulation growth since then, but the noise against flying ex-militatary aircraft and the will to do so has remained essentially permanant, albeit fluctuating in size from 1918 to date (and a gap from 1939 - 1945 when everyone was busy)... It's a fact that 'they' said Spitfires and Mustangs would be 'too hot' for civilians.

So what. Let's have some current facts. Art Nails has successfully flown a Sea Harrier, which is highly complex, and foreign (to the user) in the US. They said it could not be done; no one would fly a Harrier just 'because they want to' or even with an intent for public display. Art has - whatever happens from now on. (And he writes a great blog.) The Avro Vulcan XH558 is, unarguably the most complex 'warbird' or ex-military display aircraft in the world - and it is in flying trim, in civilian ownership as I write. While there are serious reservations about the Vulcan operating team's management and fund-raising, and thus the aircraft's future, both technically and in terms of legislation, they've proven it can be done. They did it.

Ask the Collings guys how challenging and expensive it is to maintain and operate their A-4 Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom II, which are literally 1950s technology. Our current front-line fighters, such as the F-15, F-16, and F-18, were designed in the 1970s. Look at how complex they are (and how dangerous!). Our resident F-15 driver, Randy Haskin, can probably give us an idea of how many man-hours of ground labor are required for each hour of flight. The number will shock you. There are a small number of 1950s-era American high performance jets flying in private hands, such as A-4, F-5/T-38, F-100, F-104, etc, but their operating and maintenance costs have got to be staggering, and you can't just run down to the local airplane parts dealer and buy spares for jets like those.

Exactly the same can, and has been, said of each generation of military aircraft from 1945 onwards. There's a significant decrease in the cutting edge types in private hands, but someone somewhere seems always prepared to shovel green cash into the hangar and burn exponentially more of it 'just because'. Rick's post is a much better qualified comment than I could make, but I think he's more correct than Dean, IMHO, on this point.

Here in the US, because of the increased concerns over homeland security, there's no way you'd be allowed to operate a modern warplane because it could be used as an effective weapon if it got into the wrong hands. The Collings Foundation has the ONLY civilian (display category) Phantom II, and it literally took a special act of Congress to make that happen. You can be sure that it won't happen again. Look at the fuss that was made over the de-militarization of F-14 Tomcats because the government was worried that their parts would somehow end up in Iran. Two older Tomcats were confiscated from legitimate museums because they had not been properly demilitarized. The government is even taking a long look at vintage warplanes because they could be armed and used as a weapon again.

Again, not quite the whole story, and current paranoia isn't necessarily a guide to future opportunities. Up until 1975, warbird type ops were essentially banned in Australia, which is why numerous CAC Mustangs were traded at bargain prices (even for then) to the US. Bureaucracy and inertia was overcome, and Australia now has a healthy (small) warbird scene. (it's not a direct comparison, but it's worth bearing in mind.) As I've said above, the US isn't home to the biggest warbird project in history; that's a British story. Likewise the operation of Buccaneers and EE Lightings in South Africa show that sometimes people will take complex aircraft to somewhere where they can operate them, despite the other restrictions of cost, complexity, poor utility and serviceability records and so on. The EE Lightning is probably as hard to service as a more modern fighter because it's such a swine to maintain! The success of Thunder City in SA, Wanaka in NZ, Flying Legends in the UK and so on shows that if you build it, thy will come, even from such homebodies as the US enthusiast market.

Eventually, we might see a few more Century-series fighters restored to flying condition, such as an F-105 or perhaps even an F-106, but you can bet that it won't be easy to license anything that isn't already.

It's never been easy, or cheap. It might have escalated faster than a very fast thing, but we don't seem to have run out of people able to make it happen, albeit fewer of them and in smaller numbers. We won't see it, but it's possible that people will look at F-22s as we see a Nieuport 17.

It would take a small army (or Navy!) of mechanics to get it flyable and keep it that way, and can you imagine how much it would cost to keep it fueled? It might be difficult to get an F-18 type rating, too, unless you flew them in the military.

See the Art Nails Sea Harrier story. That even uses fuel for weight, lift and drag!

Military complexity is a bit misleading, as Rick's very well explained. The real next hurdles are civilian operated ex-military aircraft with swing wings... oh, been done... and fly-by-wire and after then the un-stable types, or whatever they're called. Beyond me. These milestones will go past, perhaps without notice while we miss the point worrying about which type of (removed) munition weapon system will rule out a machine...

The cost / value aspect is often misunderstood. Restoring most W.W.II and beyond ex-military aircraft will cost more than any value placed on it after completion. However, that does not factor in volunteer labour or support, nor do many people really do it 'as an investment', despite the PR saying so.

Like the complaints about insurance and gas prices, if you need to ask, you can't afford it. While lots of people got into the eastern European jet scene when they were cheap 'entry', the shake-out is happening now; some kill themselves, more find it too rich for their blood, and that leaves a few really dedicated people still playing. But the MiG 15 and 17 aren't going to disappear from the US scene from some time yet.

If you can afford a fighter you buy a Mustang, because you heard of it when you were a kid. If you want whiz, you might go for an L-39. Some move on beyond these entry level types to trying to fly Beaufighters, 109s, FW-190s, Me 262s and He-162s (not going to happen at the moment, but maybe tomorrow) and so on, even including P-38s etc. Funding the build or rebuild of 262s, Oscars or Mosquitoes needs people who've moved through being a Mustang jock, onto more interesting things, and we need more of them, but they do seem to be out there, nonetheless. Making a profit is only a consideration for some players in those businesses, most are just managing the cash burn to look a little less like magnesium rate.

As Warbird kid said, something like a Willow trainer (less systems and complexity than a W.W.II fighter type) has potential. Things like a run of P-26s, F3Fs, or PZL P-11c types are all 'viable' if the right people come together, given their lower system requirement than the next generation of fighters. The profit is staying in the game and having a flying aircraft at the end, NOT an investment return. But the more 'off the shelf' P-40 or in the case of the Willow, the N3N or Stearman is currently competition in an over saturated market. If all the US trainers suddenly vanished, there'd be production lines set up, and a new Willow would cost about the same as a new N3N. That would be 'interesting times'.

In addition to the potential security threat (real or perceived), there is also the safety aspect. Many people feel that high-performance jet fighters are very risky to operate, and one little mechanical problem or one little lapse in judgement by the pilot could send one crashing down into a schoolyard full of little ones or a busy shopping mall. Of course, the same thing could happen with a Cessna 150, but that's beside the point. The public views light planes as much safer than fighter jets.

A modern jet fighter (apart from the accident potential of the man at the stick) is far more risky, on a mass / velocity / things that go bang basis.

Basic risk analysis - a) what are the chances? and b) if it does go wrong, what is the potential effect? So; C-150 - a) higher than most other aircraft, b) bug-splat. Jet fighter a) lower than most other aircraft b) Oooo very messy, over a lot more landscape. However it does seem to be true (Vulcan, Lightning, Phantom) that if you can jump through endless hoops, demonstrating the patience of Job, and demonstrate a competent safe operation, a licence can be got. Will we see a privately flown F-111 in Australia? No, not for the foreseeable future, if ever. Is it impossible? No, just almost impossible. In theory, it could be done. The benefits are too low against too high a cost and a paperwork deterrent.

So, if you have enough money and will, you can make just about any aircraft fly. Some types would be plain dumb to try - the Me 163 being one, yet a replica glider 163 (based on an original pre-production aircraft) has been made, and flown in Germany. Amazing, and a bit of lateral thinking.

In rounding up, I'm continually surprised by what people achieve in the warbird field. On paper, the CAF, or Duxford, or a run of FW-190s Polikarpovs or Me 262s are 'impossible' to do, yet they exist.

Remarkable.

[The Inspector]

RICK;
My reference to the F-5 and A4 goes back to the early 80's when it dawned on the Feds that some enterprising type had found, fixed, and assembled a double sonic, arms capable private jet from parts sold as 'scrap' at various surplus auctions. Collings F-4 is still owned and in the control of the USAF, it's pretty much 'loaned' to Collings.

James;
I agree with 99.99% of what you say with one very major caveat-you haven't ever tried to deal with the FAA in the states over even the tiniest issue regarding something on your aircraft. Anally boresighted describes most of them on a really nice day. And, in the end, no FDC, no FMS computers, really cool lawn whirrligig and not much else. Coupled with AMARCs willingness to let you buy anything they surplus, as long as you agree to accept that pile of aluminum ingots as really being the F-15 you purchased.

If you are having trouble getting to sleep at night, pick up a copy of the CFR volumes on the FARs, their verbage will lull you to sleep faster than reading 'Mein Kampf' Written by teams of Goverment lawyers for teams of Government lawyers and really, really vague and open to 'intepretation'.

[JDK]

I agree with 99.99% of what you say with one very major caveat-you haven't ever tried to deal with the FAA in the states over even the tiniest issue regarding something on your aircraft.

Thanks! I'm pleased to say I haven't. The noise I'm getting from the UK over regulation there is tending in the same direction. But the problem hasn't actually completely halted warbird ops in the UK or US. Again, if you want an easy life, this isn't the field to be in, is it?
Cheers!

[The Inspector]

NOPE, and I've been saying that for 44 + years! What other line of work can you get into and be permanently temporarily employed?

[CAPFlyer]

The FAA is a workable beast - if you know who to talk to and get someone who can speak the language. This is what the CWAM is going through with getting airworthiness certificates for our collection. Yes, there's already been Mi-2's certified and there have been MiG-21s and MiG-23s certified (although those two are a LONG way from flying), but not Mi-24s, at least not exactly. The Vertol helicopters were ex-US Army aircraft and received a hybrid Restricted-category certificate based on the Army's military airworthiness certificate for the aircraft. But, we have someone who speaks the FAA's language and he'll be able to work with them to make sure the AC says exactly what they want it to say. If you have someone who knows how to talk with them, you can get a ton of stuff done that people would otherwise say is impossible. It just takes knowing what the FAA "needs" to hear to be comfortable approving whatever you want to do. If you don't, they'll fight you all the way to Hell and back and you'll just end up mad and pennyless.

I've found in my time in the industry, that so much can get done if you make sure you walk into the situation not hostile, but smart. If you think that the FAA is "out to get you", then they'll be out to get you. If you walk in thinking that you'll convince them that your way is the right way, then you'll get strung up. If you walk in thinking that you're going to work with them and find out what they want from you first, you'll probably get what you want. But it takes knowing how they think and how they work, which is why I try to avoid them because I've not figured them out yet, so I know I'll either get in trouble or strung up.

[The Inspector]

CAPFLYER;
Yes, I agree about attitude being everything when dealing with the feds, but here is a real life, saw with my own eyes peek into how the FAA mindset sometimes works;

While employed as an Inspector and Instructor @ the MRO here @ KPAE, we had an informational seminar presented to those of us in the QC department and invited guests (including our PMI)by the Boeing Co. on types of repairs on the then new in service 777.
Since they are a 3 shift operation, the same info was passed out in three seperate meetings on the same day.
Our assigned PMI sat in on all three to be sure nothing was being presented that would surprise him (trusting sort eh?). When the Boeing engineers started talking about 'typical repairs' to the skin, three times in a row this Einstien asked for the definition of 'typical repair', got exactly the same answer, and still didn't understand the principle. Finally, on the third occasion the engineer told this rocket scientist that if Boeing or anyone else had to print a manual with every concievable style of skin repair, the manual would be about 3/8th of a mile long.
This same guy is the only person I've ever witnessed being 'lit up' by a dozen laser pointers on his back as he walked through the hanger.

[RickH]

Collings F-4 is still owned and in the control of the USAF, it's pretty much 'loaned' to Collings.

Inspector, actually it isn't. There is a comprehensive deed of gift for the F-4 and a similar one executed by the Navy for the TA-4. It is true that certain things are spelled out that limits in a small way what the aircraft is allowed to do. Can't take it outside of the continental US without prior approval, can't sell it to anyone else without prior approval. That's about it, we would have to blatantly break the terms of the deed of gift in order for either aircraft to be in jeopardy. There is a bill of sale on file with the FAA in OK City, just like any other aircraft registered in the US.

One reason that the CF F-4 doesn't participate in the Heritage Flight is that a onetime commander of ACC decided that a Phantom would be a great add to the flight. This was after we presented a packet suggesting that the F-4D would be an easy add and certainly aneasy fit for USAF Heritage.

His comment was that he wanted it to happen but that if a Phantom was going to be added that the USAF would control it. Our request was denied and drones went to the paint shop. A gentleman was told at an airshow last year by a Heritage F-4 pilot that they do airshows for free with the drones to keep the Collings jet off of the airshow circuit. So much for noncompete with civilian entitys.

[CAPFlyer]

Well, they have to do all of their displays for free as a "matter of fact", but yeah, it's another typical thing that the military does when they think they're going to be "showed up" by a non-military aircraft.

I know of at least 2 occasions where scheduling conflicts meant that the warbirds would have been the stars of a couple of base airshows and the commanders ordered that the coordinators not offer any fuel or oil to the warbirds to show up in a deliberate attempt to keep the "big guys" from showing up even though they still called all of them to say that they'd asked and the groups had declined.

Some people within the military can be just as downright nasty as the private organizers when they want to.

[warbird1]

I've heard one rumor that a limited run, 8 to 10 planes, of the Bearcat is going to be produced in Russia in much the same way as the Yak's were.

A few years back, in the late 90's or early millenium, there was a company in Romania, I believe, that was going to make a run of exact replica airworthy P-51's for sale at a price drastically less than the original Mustang. The only problem was that the original P-51, which was going to be used as the "pattern" aircraft for the run, was denied export out of the U.S. by Customs officials. I heard they thought it was going to be used as a "weapon of mass destruction". Needless to say, when that happened, it stopped the project dead in it's tracks and never materialized.

I believe we will see more replicas being built in the future, but they will probably be either single-engine fighter types or small twins. Although certainly possible, but unlikely, is anybody ever tackling a "large" multi-engine type replica, like a B-26, Ju-88, He-111, etc. To make a complete aircraft like that, from scratch, would cost substantially more than what it would be worth. I don't think even the most ardent, rabid, warbird afficionado would pay the money which would be required to build such a project. After all, why pay $ 10 Million for a replica, when you could probably buy or restore an original for $ 3 to 4 Million?

Eventually the pendulum will swing when technology catches up, and it makes a large project like that more cost effective, but that day is still likely a long ways off.

[JDK]

I've heard one rumor that a limited run, 8 to 10 planes, of the Bearcat is going to be produced in Russia in much the same way as the Yak's were.

Besr in mind that the Yaks and Polikarpovs (of two distinct types) were Russian machines, based on Russiasn recoveries or jigs, rather than a fresh start with a complex foreign type.

A few years back, in the late 90's or early millenium, there was a company in Romania, I believe, that was going to make a run of exact replica airworthy P-51's for sale at a price drastically less than the original Mustang. The only problem was that the original P-51, which was going to be used as the "pattern" aircraft for the run, was denied export out of the U.S. by Customs officials. I heard they thought it was going to be used as a "weapon of mass destruction". Needless to say, when that happened, it stopped the project dead in it's tracks and never materialized.

Why would that 'stop the project dead'? Finding a Mustang, even outside the US, as a pattern aircraft isn't that hard, relatively speaking (it's certainly a common as muck type if you ask me...) certainly if that was enough of a show stopper to halt the project they didn't have the drive to complete the project in reality anyway, IMHO.

I believe we will see more replicas being built in the future, but they will probably be either single-engine fighter types or small twins. Although certainly possible, but unlikely, is anybody ever tackling a "large" multi-engine type replica, like a B-26, Ju-88, He-111, etc. To make a complete aircraft like that, from scratch, would cost substantially more than what it would be worth.

They always, unless you are talking Spitfires or Mustangs, cost substantially more than they 'are worth'. That's (one reason) why the 262 FW190 and Oscar lines are having difficulty selling through. They are a poor return on financial investment.

There needs to be 'another' motivator, such as is demonstrated by, for instance, Jerry Yagen's diverse projects, inc. the Wangaratta aircraft, or Paul Allen's approach (that's not about cost effective restorations...) For that reason, although your hypothesis is sound as far as it goes, I'd never say 'never' here.

Eventually the pendulum will swing when technology catches up, and it makes a large project like that more cost effective, but that day is still likely a long ways off.

Agreed, but we don't know what factors might make that scenario happen, but it's fun watching what is going on...

[warbird1]

A few years back, in the late 90's or early millenium, there was a company in Romania, I believe, that was going to make a run of exact replica airworthy P-51's for sale at a price drastically less than the original Mustang. The only problem was that the original P-51, which was going to be used as the "pattern" aircraft for the run, was denied export out of the U.S. by Customs officials. I heard they thought it was going to be used as a "weapon of mass destruction". Needless to say, when that happened, it stopped the project dead in it's tracks and never materialized.

Why would that 'stop the project dead'? Finding a Mustang, even outside the US, as a pattern aircraft isn't that hard, relatively speaking (it's certainly a common as muck type if you ask me...) certainly if that was enough of a show stopper to halt the project they didn't have the drive to complete the project in reality anyway, IMHO.

I don't know all of the reasons why, I was just repeating what was told to me by someone close to the project. I'm sure there was more to the story than what he said. I do know that the proposed "pattern" aircraft was 100% completely original, as it left the NAA factory, having never been "civilianized". Maybe it was this aspect that the Romanian company only wanted to duplicate, I don't know. Perhaps the years of legal wrangling with paperwork and import/export licenses became too much of a burden and deflated their motivation. Maybe someone familiar with this project will pipe in here to fill in the details.