Warbird Information Exchange

OK, so now I am really pushing it.

If I were an individual with sufficient financial strength and where-with-all and wanted to restore to airworthy condition, virtually any warbird of choice, why could I not or would I not, approach a museum with an example of that aircraft and try to purchase or trade for it?

Surely, a whole and relatively complete aircraft that is in museum condition is a better starting point than a "data plate" off of a crash or lake bottom skeleton.

Tell me I'm nuts (cause I know that I am, SBS, short bus syndrom) but I think there are a lot more birds that could see the air again for less $$, perhaps.

Whatchu think?

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

I think EVERYONE has a price.

Mudge the frugal

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

There are a lot of factors that come into play. I am sure that many will have other opinions and add some to my list but these are some of the big ones that I can think of.

1. Many warbirds in static museums belong to the government and are conditional loans from the USAF, USN, etc.

2. Private museums with static aircraft that are not federally owned are frequently not for sale. Of course, they say everything is for sale at some price, but for instance if you went to Museum of Flight in Seattle it is likely that you would not be able to purchase an aircraft at a reasonable price since the museum has a great deal of money invested in the aircraft etc and it is not within the organizations policy to sell aircraft. Same goes for Kalamazoo Air Zoo (although I wouldn't count out seeing some of those for sale eventually).

3. Some aircraft that appear to be in much better condition that are in static museums are not necessarily in better condition. Some of them have serious damage, corrosion, or are missing a ton of internal parts and only appear complete or restored on the outside (often the reason they are static). It could take a great deal of money to rebuild the aircraft and there may not be much cost savings in the long run that resurrecting some derelict airframe for cheaper initial investment.

4. Some people such as Flying Heritage Collection are looking for certain airframes, such as ones that have seen combat. They are willing to spare no expense to get those particular aircraft and restore them to factory or wartime specs.

5. Sometimes if you want an aircraft restored back to factory specs you are going to tear the aircraft down to nothing so starting off with a completely derelict aircraft can more more cost effective since the cost of a formerly flying aircraft could be significant and you are going to tear it down to nothing anyway.

6. Sometimes popular aircraft such as P-51Ds or B-25s there just aren't many airframes left sitting around. The remaining airframes are either flyable or are complete basket cases that will require a total rebuild so there isn't much choice. You won't find many Mustangs or Mitchells just sitting around at some airport needing some TLC to get them going again. For the most part they are either flyable or they are sitting behind a hangar in disassembled needing extensive rebuild and many structural repairs.

Point one, accepted.

Point two, in particular, I have always had my eye on Big Stud, transfered as an airworthy aircraft. I saw a run up when Dad & I were there at Champlin in the late 80's. I always thought, what amount of money would it take to trip their trigger to sell Big Stud to obtain other aircraft for their museum?

Point three, again I am taking the stance that even though there will be missing gear, (we used to do show cars for the Indy 500 and most had gutless engines and gear boxes etc.) the basic aircraft was in much better condition than a wreck that you have to build nearly every part for.

Can't argue with point 4.

Point five for acquisition cost is a toss up. I still think (as a fabricator) that if I have to drill the rivets out to rebuild existing bulkheads etc. I am still further ahead than if I have to tool for and fabricate new bulkheads, etc..

Point 6. I'm not talking about finding that hidden jewel in somebody's hangar who's Dad died and the kids just discovered that he bought a P51 in 1950 for $500. I'm talking about the local museum that you go into that has a P51D on display that is highly polished, and to whatever degree complete that this is a better starting point than something found on a mountain or jungle somewhere and that would be a better starting point for a restoration.

Only my opinion as "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?" It is easy to say what I would try to do if I had the $$ but if I had the $$, would my theory work?

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

I think that in many cases your theory has probably already worked. There are former museum aircraft that have been acquired and are now flying. Usually when a museum needs cash for expansion, survival, or closure and assets are disbursed.

Matter of fact Planes of Fame is a perfect example, ME-262 was sold and is now being restored to fly. The folks who bought it could have bought one of the new builds but they wanted a real example.

I know that two of the War Eagles P-51s belonging to John McGuire were sold and are now being flown by the new owners.

Collections and priorities change over the years and as long as the item is not on loan from the govt. there's always a chance.

What it really comes down to is the fact that you are going to want to buy the stars of a museum's collection. The P-51s, the P-47s, the B-17s, the B-24s and what have you. Why in the world would a museum sell you the very things that are its reason for existing? Museums go to just as much if not more trouble and expense trying to acquire aircraft for static display as people who want to fly them do and they cherish them just as much. Trust me the very last thing anyone who owns an airplane thinks of doing when they want to get rid of it is donating it to a museum. Museums can't just sell off major artifacts because somebody wanders in the door waving promises of cash around. I'm not saying it doesn't happen because it sometimes does but when a museum sells the best of its collection you can bet that there are serious problems in the organization. By the way, that is a general statement that applies to any museum regardless of what it collects.

Now for a small rant. Sorry in advance.
Why is it so many people think that static museums are nothing more than spare parts warehouses and airframe suppliers just because they don't fly their airplanes? I can't tell you how many times I've gotten phone calls and letters that go something like: "Hi you have a great museum there. I see you have Airplane X. It would sure be great if you would give it/sell it for a fifth of its actual value to me so that I can restore it to fly. Its just one of dozens you have and its just sitting outside and I/my organization would love it so much more, etc. etc. etc." Then "to honor the veterans" usually comes in there somewhere too when they want to make you feel guilty for saying no. Just once I'd like to have someone say that they want something just because it would be really, really cool to own one. They would still be told no, but at least it would be a change.
End of rant. Thank you for your indulgence.

James

Jamesintucson...All due respect, but...What if they'd made you an offer ($$$) you couldn't refuse?
I say again. EVERYTHING has a price

Mudge the realist

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

There's a quote about some people knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, Mudge. Sometimes the 'price' includes having your country's history stolen.

I don't think anyone would advocate buying and rebuilding to airworthy condition the Wright Flyer, or the Ryan NYP; they are, literally 'priceless treasures' held in trust by the Smithsonian for the people of the United States and the world. They shouldn't be for sale.

It's not an 'either/or' world - I've no time for the 'fly them all' or the 'ground them all' brigades, and the power of the mighty dollar needs to be stopped, at times, by the ownership of the people, just as the economic free market should be given scope. We need both public museums and active aircraft; and it can be a complimentary world. I'm lucky in volunteering at a national museum that operates a handful of aircraft (including a Mustang) and the Museum's policy is it only flies types duplicated in the collection, or replicas. Not a bad principle in a wider world.

Another example is the NC-4. It would be easier and cheaper to build a replica, rather than 'restore' that aircraft to fly. Bit it still would be an eye-popping pricetag and task.

It can run and run, this discussion, but to return to the original question, offer and see; in the specific case, there may be a figure for Big Stud. There shouldn't be a figure for the EAA's XP-51.

The assumption that it'd be easier to rebuild a museum aircraft than start from scratch isn't thet straightforward either. Sometimes it is easier to start anew; other times a compromise (turn up at Glynn Powell's with the metal bits of a Mosquito, plus two Merlins, and take away a new-wood, old metal, real ID Mozzie) and yet others, as shown by the Tishler projects, an original to copy results in new builds.

Of course dollars want to buy history, so the replicas don't fetch the price 'an original' does, and that's one of the real differences. Likewise the aircraft the guys with the greenbacks are after are usually the 'cool' ones, hence the mass of Mustangs and the challenge to rebuild a single P-61. If you want to throw money at an important airworthy rebuild, I've a group aiming to rebuild and fly a very rare type - it just needs cash. It's a Supermarine Walrus. Sorry, not interested? Oh, it's got a great history, and the type saved innumerable American airmen from a watery death, in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific, but I forgot. When you meant was you get to flying around in something cool to 'honour the vets'. Right. My mistake.

Just funnin'...

http://www.projectwalrus.com/

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Some people actually enjoy the journey rather than the destination.

Even though there's alot of frustration blood sweat and tears.
Something has to be said for taking a wreak and bringing it up to airworthy/show condition, rather than picking up a turn key ready to operate aircraft.

Todd

Unfortunately there are those of us who truly enjoy the hunt. The challenge of finding something lost to the the world and bringing it to light. The idea of rediscovering an untouched piece of history of aviation. My hat goes off to those of the few who have the resources and the committment to hunting them down, recovering them legally(if they can)and restoring them, or if not,just selling or trading them to somebody who can provide for its restoration. Leave the museum pieces in the museum and go hunt for the million plus wrecks still out there. Letting them sit and corode in the water is a shame and a waste. The museums need their aircraft for revenue and the world needs to see more once lost and now recovered flying warbirds to remind us of those who gave their lives for us spoiled young folk. We are, because of these aircraft and their fliers. Now off my soapbox! cameron....

I do think that it's possible to convince a museum to part with an aircraft in their collection, but it will take the "perfect storm" of circumstances. Even the NMUSAF has traded off aircraft from its collection when it had duplicates. I think the key is having something that the museum wants more than the aircraft that you want. Example- if the Martin museum in Baltimore had a P-47 like 'Big Stud" that you want, and you had a B-26 you didn't want to try to fly. I'd bet that they would rather have one over the other. It's just a matter of priorities. If cash is not your problem, then you could always figure out what your targeted museum really wanted, go buy it for them, and then arrange a trade.

The other issue you're going to run into is donor wishes. Each museum has different policies- some are willing to allow donors to place stipulations on their gifts, and some are not. There are often stipulations that the aircraft has to remain on display, or remain in particular colors. There are sometimes legally binding arrangements that would preclude a sale/trade. Even if there's not a formal agreement, most curators/directors of museums are not going to risk sabotaging an ongoing relationship with a major donor just to make some quick cash.

I think that if there's an aircraft type that you really want, you should take inventory of the available airframes (using the Warbird Resource Group, of course) eliminate the ones that you know aren't going anywhere quickly, and focus your efforts on the possibilities. I would work on building a relationship with the director/curator, rather than making a cold call "will you sell me xxx?" Unless of course you've got a stable of rare birds, in which case a quick trade might be possible. Good luck!!!

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

JDK...I'm not advocating the purchase of the "priceless" aircraft you mentioned as they are, in fact, priceless. (AYK..There's always an exception to any rule.) They ARE NOT, however, warbirds which was the gist of the original post (and what, I assume, sdennison was referring to) and what my "everything has a price" comment was pointed towards.

Mudge the prideless

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

Point one, accepted.

Point two, in particular, I have always had my eye on Big Stud, transfered as an airworthy aircraft. I saw a run up when Dad & I were there at Champlin in the late 80's. I always thought, what amount of money would it take to trip their trigger to sell Big Stud to obtain other aircraft for their museum?



While that may be true, a static display P-39 may be a costly and hard to find while you could obtain a derelict hulk for under $200K. You may have to pay $500K-? for a static display aircraft and still have to strip it down to nothing for the restoration. There aren't a lot of Champlain fighter Museums (it isn't even around anymore) out there who run the aircraft up and have the aircraft maintained in running condition. Any aircraft that is near flyable (example the A-20 that was at Lone Star) is going to be very expensive and still need work to make it flyable.



Well again not all aircraft sitting in museums are what you think they are. Sure many are in great condition but as with the B-17G sitting out in Tulare, CA it has been hit by a truck 2 or 3 times and it would take significant structural repair not to mention the spar AD, rebuilt engines, props, electrical, plexi, hydraulic system, landing gear, fuel system, oil system, turbochargers, controls, re-skinning in many places, turrets, and who knows what it looks like on the inside. In any case it is a government owned but even if we pretend it was privately owned just look at what it would take to just to obtain the aircraft. Heck there are plenty of "flyable" warbirds out there that are in need of lot of work. Look at Kermit's B-24, that was essentially a flying aircraft however I think most would agree that it will take an investment to really make it a safe, "regular" flier.



This just goes back to not everything is for sale at a reasonable price. Sure if you spent a long time enough waiting around for an opportunity to purchase and aircraft when a museum decides to change it's priority or go out of business you may be able to obtain one of their aircraft but the lion's share of the museums aren't looking to unload aircraft regularly and it may just be quicker or at least more within your control to buy some basket case and start restoration. Again the aircraft isn't going to be sold for a dime on the dollar it is going to go to the highest bidder.

It is sort of like buying vs building a home. If you have the $ why wait for the perfect house when you can just build your own and have exactly what you want.

This is a ridiculous thread.

If you have the cheaper way to do it and feel you can help an investor speculating in warbirds turn a profit, then go do it.

These are for the most part not commodities however and differ from other items due to the special nature of the article itself. Its is an airplane, yes, but without its dataplate and requisite paperwork, it is nothing. Its pilots also require paperwork and certification, and attaining these certificates requires risk and money. Most principals doing the high end stuff want to fly the best, not the best that they can afford. This also means they want the one thats special to them, for whatever reason. Chuck Greenhill's Duck is a perfect example of a megabuck project done with dedication, historical conscience and love. There were no bean counters present at the beginning deciding the projects viability. At the end, the world has a Pearl Harbor survivor that defines the essence of a correct restoration. Whats it worth? Its priceless.

While money fuels and activates a project, its not ultimately about the money, and nobody in the game thinks so when it comes to restoring these things. Everyone gives their all for the cause, the mechanics, the suppliers and the owners all sacrifice in different ways to see these in the air again.

You are correct Sir! I was merely floating an idea out there. If I knew of a museum that was in the possession of an aircraft that I wanted to see fly again, and had the necessary fundage, I would be inclined to approach them and ask if there was a particualr project that they wanted to pursue in lieu of a static display they had. A well furnished museum probably has a tough time deciding which aircraft the patrons are coming in to see. If they have a "target" addition they would want, a large donation toward that in exchange for one in inventory might be feasible.

Scott, "Stirrer of the poo poo"

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."