F-86 Sabre for sale

Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:47 pm

I'd take a really long, hard look @ the center section to be sure it hasn't been 'de-milled' with a DOTCO making it a candidate for doing just what it's doing now, collecting bees. Who was it many years ago who discovered his F-86 had had the center section forging cut with a DOTCO and patched up with BONDO when he had it annualed after flying a season of demo areobatics in it? And the 'avionics' are pretty much all vaccuum tubes good luck finding the ones you'd need because they wouldn't be RCA's that the local old radio guys would have-

Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:47 pm

It 'looks' like a straight forward project as it looks complete and so not a lot of time spent looking for hard to find parts but with the vast experience of warbird rebuilds on WIX what are the inevitable surprises going to be with a project like this ? Corrosion ?

Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:11 am

I believe this is the same F-86L that Randy Ball originally intended to restore to flying status:

http://www.fighterjets.com/F_86D.asp

The late Wyatt Fuller told me several years ago that the engine wth afterburner and complex fuel control system was a major obstacle to getting this airplane flying as compares to other types of Sabres.

I would love to see a "Sabre Dog" in the air. I also believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I don't think that this is an ugly airplane by a long shot. It is a different aircraft than other versions of the Sabre and it was originally going to be designated the F-95A rather than the F-86D.

The F-86D/L has always been one of my favorite jet fighter aircraft of the 1950s, and I think the radar nose over the intake gives it a great look and a real personality.

Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:28 am

The Inspector wrote:Who was it many years ago who discovered his F-86 had had the center section forging cut with a DOTCO and patched up with BONDO when he had it annualed after flying a season of demo areobatics in it?

Believe that was The Big "Z"...

Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:03 am

Hal B wrote:
The Inspector wrote:Who was it many years ago who discovered his F-86 had had the center section forging cut with a DOTCO and patched up with BONDO when he had it annualed after flying a season of demo areobatics in it?

Believe that was The Big "Z"...

It was a flight systems plane. and they would have been demilled with a gas torch, never heard of a DOTCO.

Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:23 am

Thinking of it as a totally different plane, it looks good. I never knew that. The earlier F-86 will always be my favorite jet.

Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:24 am

jwc50 wrote:I believe this is the same F-86L that Randy Ball originally intended to restore to flying status:

That would be it. It has his name on the side of the cockpit.

Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:01 am

Matt Gunsch wrote: never heard of a DOTCO.

Air-powered grinder/cutting tool...i.e. a racer's best friend (next to 200mph tape).

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:14 pm

jwc50 wrote:I believe this is the same F-86L that Randy Ball originally intended to restore to flying status:

http://www.fighterjets.com/F_86D.asp

The late Wyatt Fuller told me several years ago that the engine wth afterburner and complex fuel control system was a major obstacle to getting this airplane flying as compares to other types of Sabres.

I would love to see a "Sabre Dog" in the air. I also believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I don't think that this is an ugly airplane by a long shot. It is a different aircraft than other versions of the Sabre and it was originally going to be designated the F-95A rather than the F-86D.

The F-86D/L has always been one of my favorite jet fighter aircraft of the 1950s, and I think the radar nose over the intake gives it a great look and a real personality.

So how far did they get when it was scheduled to fly in 2006?

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:29 pm

Speedy wrote:
Matt Gunsch wrote: never heard of a DOTCO.

Air-powered grinder/cutting tool...i.e. a racer's best friend (next to 200mph tape).

I have always called that a die grinder or a cut off wheel.

For someone to try and use one of those to cut a spar, they would need to have alot of time on thier hands.

If I remember right, Z's plane came out of Peru. Too bad he had to die because of a assanine FAA rule that required the external tanks to be non jettisionable.

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:37 pm

sdennison wrote:So how far did they get when it was scheduled to fly in 2006?

I have no idea - I would be curious to know. The reference to the F-86L being restored to fly in 2006 has been on that website for at least 4 or 5 years as far as I know with no updates.

Maybe someone else has some insight on this.

:roll:

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:49 pm

On Dave Zuschel...... if you read the F-86 manual it says, if you have to do a belly landing and have the tanks, leave them on to lessen the damage to the airframe.

His problem was one came off on its own after landing and the other stayed on.......

Mark H

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:53 pm

P51Mstg wrote:On Dave Zuschel...... if you read the F-86 manual it says, if you have to do a belly landing and have the tanks, leave them on to lessen the damage to the airframe.

His problem was one came off on its own after landing and the other stayed on.......

From credible eyewitnesses I heard that he bellied in going way too fast because he was running out of runway. And his other problem is that he had an engine failure that was induced by his own maintenance practices (as I understand it).

Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:05 pm

Allow me to expand the former post a bit.

From memory, I recall the incident. Dave in the F-86 and Chuck Thorton in the T-38 were making some flybys at an airshow in CA somewhere. The runway was too short for them to land so the plan was do a few flybys and return home.

Dave had an engine failure for a reason I am unaware of.

I have read the F-86 flight manual several times since at one point was going to buy one. I recall 2 things from it. First if you have to do a belly landing leave the tanks on to save the airframe. Second so you have flight controls you need to keep the speed up to something like 180kts to keep the engine turning to keep the pumps pumping and make the stick work and keep the airplane under control.

I never knew his tanks were fixed in place. I ASSUMED he kept them on since the flight manual says to do so. He landed and I guessed he was going fast (had to be at 180kts or so). I assume he did the gear up since he couldn't stop on a "short" runway. I would have said he would have been OK and still flying today, had one of the tanks not come off, allowing a wingtip to dig in and make the plane cartwheel.

I have never talked to anyone who was there. When it happened, I was on the other side of the country. I don't know exactly how long the runway was, etc. I'm sure someone will chime in and tell me what is wrong with what I posted here.......

No bad feelings towards anyone, no blame pointed at Mr. Z, nothing, just expanding what I posted before. Also no political comments here and I'm not trying to destroy the worldwideweb as we know it.

Mark H

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:28 pm

Accident was at Shafter.

FOLLOWING AN AIRSHOW, THE PILOT TRANSMITTED WHILE ON FINAL APPROACH TO THE RUNWAY, THAT THE ENGINE HAD SEIZED. THE AIRCRAFT WAS LANDED WITH THE LANDING GEAR RETRACTED. DURING THE FLARE THE AIRCRAFT BECAME UNCONTROLLABLE, BOUNCED SEVERAL TIMES ON THE RUNWAY, AND BURST INTO FLAMES. POST CRASH INVESTIGATION CONFIRMED THAT THE ENGINE WAS NOT ROTATING (OR WINDMILLING) AND THAT THE EMERGENCY HYDRAULIC SYSTEM WAS NOT BEING USED. FURTHERMORE, THE EJECTION SEAT WAS DISABLED AND THE PILOT WAS NOT WEARING A PARACHUTE.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 0697&key=1

My understanding was that the likely cause of the engine failure was frequent overtemps during start from using AvGas. That is just hearsay on my part though.