Most difficult warbird to resurrect?

drgondog · **Joined:** Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:50 am **Posts:** 237

Merlin_FAC wrote:

Actually, the ultimate in scratch-built Warbird complexity would have to be the Space Shuttle... not only would you have to build the vehicle and launch stack, but also build up all the infrastructure!

Although, maybe a 1/20 scale replica could work... with of course a scaled-down 747 to launch it from... hehehe

There's a guy building a homebuilt, scaled-down B-17... way cool, although if I were him and serious enough to actually tackle such a project, I would have jumped 2 logical steps beyond, and done a 2-seat B-36... proportions might not scale so well as the B-17, though.

I would think any 'scale down' has to consider the engine as the most important criteria - than scale from physical dimension/plumbing required for engine system to maintain scale and lines.

hahnej · **Posted:** Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:23 am

Totally a lost art construction/design.

Rajay · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:17 am

There seemed to be a lot of thought put into some of these answers, and some humor, too.

I'll go along with some of the answers based on sheer size:
B-36
B-52
XC-99

The "complexity" issue was valid, too, such as in regard to the
Vickers Wellington (geodetic construction - think "basket weaving")

Having considered all of that, plus having been involved in tearing a Grumman Goose completely (I mean 100%) apart, I have another consideration for you: "Seaplane" (in which every skin panel and bulkhead has to be sealed.)

Add it all up (size + complexity + seaplane) and I'll nominate:
Consolidated PB2Y Coronado
Martin JRM Mars

or, without starting a new debate about definition of "warbird", considering the fact that it was intended as a tactical trans-oceanic military transport:

Hughes Kaiser HK-1 / Hughes H-4 Hercules (aka Spruce Goose!)
Size + complexity + seaplane + WOOD!

Rajay · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:26 am

Merlin_FAC wrote:

There's a guy building a homebuilt, scaled-down B-17... way cool, although if I were him and serious enough to actually tackle such a project, I would have jumped 2 logical steps beyond, and done a 2-seat B-36... proportions might not scale so well as the B-17, though.

I've seen photos of the homebuilt scale B-17 project, but I LIKE the idea of a scale B-36. I'm just not sure that the cockpit/canopy size would lend it self to more than a single seat...unless it was way big (1/2 scale?)

If I remember correctly, the scale B-17 was using Rotax engines. Can you imagine mounting six pusher engines for a scale B-36? The scale would have to determine whether you went large or small (Rotax, Lycoming IO-540's, R-985's, bigger?)

And would you want to include the booster jets in pods under the wingtips? OK, yeah, you'd WANT to, but could you really afford, on top of the other engines, to add four even small jets such as the Williams FJ44's?

Still, what a way to log multi-engine time!

fotobass · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:49 pm

lestweforget wrote:

wendovertom wrote:

Michel - you get the Valkriye and I'll be the first in line to volunteer! that would be one incredible fly-by at an air show eh?

Tom P.

Wow, that would be a sight to see. Who would chip in for the fuel though!!! :shock:

Who? All of us, everyone you know, and everyone else there is.

And that'd probably only taxi her.

rreis · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:42 pm **Posts:** 441

fotobass wrote:

lestweforget wrote:

wendovertom wrote:

Michel - you get the Valkriye and I'll be the first in line to volunteer! that would be one incredible fly-by at an air show eh?

Tom P.

Wow, that would be a sight to see. Who would chip in for the fuel though!!! :shock:

Who? All of us, everyone you know, and everyone else there is.

And that'd probably only taxi her.

maybe with a redesign of the engine she could use some sort of Atomic Fuel...

Rajay · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:27 pm

rreis wrote:

fotobass wrote:

lestweforget wrote:

wendovertom wrote:

Michel - you get the Valkriye and I'll be the first in line to volunteer! that would be one incredible fly-by at an air show eh?

Tom P.

Wow, that would be a sight to see. Who would chip in for the fuel though!!! :shock:

Who? All of us, everyone you know, and everyone else there is.

And that'd probably only taxi her.

maybe with a redesign of the engine she could use some sort of Atomic Fuel...

Yeah, or just a teaspoon each of matter and anti-matter, but then you'd have to have those two big nacelles on pylons above and behind the wings. That'd spoil its lines.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:50 pm

The Defender! :lol:

old iron · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:16 pm

How about if we do this from a different quarter:

I suggest a Russian Le Grand - the four-engine bomber used on the German Eastern Front in WWI.

I argue that it is more difficult to resurrect that a B-36 or a B-32.

Why? Because in all liklihood, there are no original drawings that would provide construction details. Sure, something could be built that would externally take the appearance of the real thing, but internally that might be different in nearly every detail.

An accurate reproduction of a B-36 or XC-99 are relatively easy, since there are extant examples that can be copied in every detail. It takes money, but there is no reason besides money that would prevent the achievement. In the case of a B-32, there is no extant example to be copied but there are presumably good drawings and construction details from other aircraft of the same manufacturer that could be used to produce what could be argued as an accurate reproduction.

The construction of an accurate reproduction La Grand, and there are many similar not-well-documented aircraft, may well be impossible. This depends perhaps the standards that you apply to "accurate" but if there is uncertainty about the position, size and type for every bolt and wire, then the result cannot be accurate.

rreis · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:42 pm **Posts:** 441

I think there is one at Monino...

http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/php/show-im ... ?id=DH0595

I mean, the Le Grand didn't live long (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Russky_Vityaz ) and the Murometz was the type used as bomber.

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Zveno 8-)

http://www.aviation-history.com/zveno/zveno-6a.jpg

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/rafaq_zveno2.jpg

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviati ... ges5/3.jpg

And/or a Mistel-1

Jiggersfromsphilly · **Joined:** Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:15 pm **Posts:** 951

How about

USS Macon and her compliment of F9C Sparrowhawks?

ME 110

TBD-1

Hawker Typhoon

PBM -5

Pitcairn Auto Gyro XOP-1

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:53 pm

I think Chris may win for the most dangereous one to fly safefy HEHE

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:00 pm

PbyCat-Guy wrote:

I'd have to say the FockeWulf Condor since none, that I know of, exist. One of these would be great to see, I'd make a special trip to see one.

There is a Condor being rebuilt from sunken wreckage in Germany.

rreis · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:42 pm **Posts:** 441

Jiggersfromsphilly wrote:

ME 110

I think there's one the the RAF Museum in Hendon and surely there is one at the Technik Museum in Berlin.

Warbird Information Exchange

Most difficult warbird to resurrect?

Who is online