So, does this mean no comment on the questions?
Ryan
ellice_island_kid wrote:
Wow, you guys are brutal ! I was just trying to make the other poster feel better about not buying his B-23.
I just feel that if you are going to all the trouble to restore a warbird with limited funds it would be nice to restore one with significant wartime history that when done would provide some revenue. For instance, B-23s are so scarce that it would actually cost way more to restore it than a B-25, B-26, A-26 or similar twin bomber with a little history... Plus, it would be much easier to book airshow appearances with a WWII vet that will provide revenue to keep it flying. I understand you believe warbird collecting/restoring and finances are not related, but they are not un-related either.
Honestly, if that B-23 was free it would still be too much....
rwdfresno wrote:
ellice_island_kid wrote:
Sorry if my comment went the wrong way. I meant by not historic it was not a contributor to WWII, and I do feel the plane would cost way more than its worth to get flying. It is sad, but these old birds are just sooo expensive to maintain now days... Only the most collectible aircraft are financially viable.
I'm trying to understand your desire to be invovled with Warbirds. 90% of your posts do nothing but paint an extreamly negative picture of warbirds talking about how they aren't worth the money, the hobby is dying, and people shouldn't waste their time. It all may very well be true, but if it is, why are you bothering? Can you tell us a little bit more about this restoration project you are working on? I'm curious what type of project it is that is motivating you to waste your time.
Ryan