Warbird Information Exchange

Okay , if a guy wanted to invest in a flyable jet aircraft or project to represent WW II use of jet aircraft, what are the options?

2)Would the Gloster Meteor be a great choice? What is the fuel burn of Meteor and has anyone on WIX ever flown one ?
3) Is the Dehaviland Vampire a WW II vet?
4) Yes I know the P-80, and I even saw one in the junkyard at Yanks Air Museum last year. Are there any available ?

THanks

Much would depend on how big your wallet is, how you define WWII (flew during the time period, or truly saw combat) and how authentic you wanted to be. I would love to see more early jets, or look-alikes fly.

I vote a T-33 made to look like a P-80 would be an interesting project. P-80's were in the European theatre during WWII, but did not really see combat, but would be a good example of an early American Jet. Remove the constant diameter plug (24 inch I believe) which was put in for the second seat, re-attach the fuselage halves together, and fit a short single seat canopy. You could likely ignore the rear fuselage plug, a few other minor differences, and get pretty close to a P-80 clone. I believe a few folks have looked into this shortening and describe it as rather straightforward. Likely "easier" than any real P-80 project as not many P/F-80's survive-although the one at Yanks boneyard looks pretty complete. A good number of T-33's still survive (some flying), so good choices depending on your bank account, good knowledge, spares, etc... A T-33 with a P-80 canopy (without removing the mid fuselage plug) would look wonky.

Other ideas:

- Convince one of the Me-262 new build owners to part with their aircraft. Paul Allen is restoring a real one and has the resources to do so. Arguably THE jet of WWII.
- Meteor- a good choice to show a true WWII jet, but would likely be quite pricey to restore and operate. Most survivors are post war marks- which are "better", but do not represent those used in WWII. Not sure if the Martin Baker ejection seat test aircraft are planned to be retired any time soon. A small number of candidate projects.
- Vampires were flying by the end of the war, but it is not commonly considered a WWII aircraft by many. Production version did not fly until April 1945. Did not see combat in WWII. A good example of an early jet, but perhaps not truly WWII. Wooden components make for few project survivors that could readily become flyers, although a few flyers/close to flyers available.
- The P-59 project at Chino has been "almost complete" for years.
- Sponsor a new build replica of a type. VERY expensive for a real replica/new build built to WWII specs. Perhaps a look alike using modern materials could get you something that would look the part. I always thought a He-162 Volksjager clone using modern homebuilt type materials would be a neat project. Small and light, and with a small modern jet turbine in it. Sure it would only be a clone look alike, which purists and judges (and some WIX'ers ) might scoff at, but it would be an attention getter- and likely much more economical to build and operate than some other types. Reportedly handled well (unless the glue came apart)

One flew a lot in Southern California in the 70s-80s. It's a NF 11 (two-seater) now in the Edwards museum. From the accounts I've read, a nice flying airplane.
A (very) few fly in the UK, Martin-Baker has/had two for ejector seat work....but rare on the UK warbird circuit. Probably a reason for that, and not the cost of fuel.
Spares might be the bigger issue, especially in the US.



Depends on your definition. First flight Sept, 29, 1943. Production aircraft first flew April 20, 1945. No operational or combat experience in the war (or Korea, unlike the Meteor which saw combat with the Aussies).



Not unless you rebuild one, but there aren't many spare F-80 airframes lying about. The best chance would be to shorten a T-33.
Over the years, I've heard of someone doing that, but I've never heard of it flying.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

If "a man of means" was going to do a replica WW2 jet, I think the Bell P-59 would be an appropriate choice since it was America's first operational jet airplane. My hypothetical replica would use modern airframe materials, engines, systems, and avionics, but it would be built to accurately depict the real thing... basically the same thing that was done with the Me 262 replicas. Even as a replica, it would be a great attraction at air shows and would go a long way in telling a story that few people (outside of the aviation history community) really know anything about.

Dang... if only I had won the PowerBall lotto last night...

I hope that PoFAM will be able finish their P-59 restoration. I've seen the airplane, and I can't wait to see it fly!

_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Port Charlotte, Florida

Thanks for the input. I guess I have this daydream idea of when my kids go off to college in 6 years of buying something and doing an extensive restoration. WHat I call my "IA project" since I already have an A&P. The WW II figter projects and wrecks have all been found or far too expensive for a regular working guy. I would love to have something that when completed would be a real tribute to the WW II or later vets and that might be desired on the airshow circuit and also have a nice re-sale value.
It's getting extremely difficult to find anything that fits that criteria. I think the GLoster Meteor is extremely cool but only God knows what the fuel burn is in those at lower altitudes. My guess is 1200 gph. when flying fast and low. The Me-262 replicas are very nice but out of my price range. I also suspect they are difficult to fly. The Vampire prototype was flying before the end of WW II but generally isn't thought of as a WW II design.
Last, I don't feel the T-33 reverse design back into a P-80 is all that great of an idea. A small fortune spent on something that when finished is still just a replica. Would be better to scour the earth and find one or purchase a P-80 from a collector. They are quite rare. I tried in 2013 to bid on that F4D Skyray that came up for bid in an estate sale. I was working overseas at the time and it got away. That's an example of something quite rare and nice. They were supposed to be a dream to fly according to USMC General Marion Carl, his favorite aircraft.

To be practical, I'd say the T-33 is the way to go. There should be plenty of parts out there.
You could even perhaps import one from Europe, Japan or Canada. The Canadian ones have a different engine which is supposed to be rather nice.
Not the sexiest thing around, but not too exotic but did I mention, plenty of parts and restoration expertise?

There used to be some Vampires (and Venoms) around...and rather inexpensive. No idea what their status is. Evergreen has one..it might be available.
Or perhaps if you ask museums, they might have a F-84 that would make a neat project...something they've thought about restoring but don't have the time.

I have old cars, I place parts availability at the top od my priorities....and being cautious, that would go triple for an aircraft project. But that's just me.
Besides, a T-33 is a good looking ship and should be do-able.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

The T-33 is a great choice. Acquisition price is very reasonable for a flyer or one that was flying until recent years. I was looking at the copy the Smithsonian has on display. It was donated about 50 years ago . It is polished aluminum and still shimmers like "new money". The quality of the Alclad aluminum on it wasreally superb.The aircraft looked almost new except for dents and scratches around the intake areas from enlisted mechs banging their workstands against it. Other than fuel burn, there aren't any negatives with the T-33.

The Canadian built T-33's still possess the best safety record of any single engined a/c operated by the RCAF.

The Gloster E.28/39, sometimes called the "Whittle" or the "Pioneer" would make a cool, little home-built. Not a combat vet, but a very, very significant early jet. You could probably power it with a Goblin out of a Vampire.

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

Ed Maloney had his He-162 for sale a while back. Not aware that it ever sold.

I think the POF screwed up on their P-59. Yes there are only 4 or 5 remaining in national museums, never to fly again. It represents to things to me. 1) first U.S. jet airplane and 2) first jet engine operated in the U.S. If it were mine, I would've retained the second seat, which it had in military service. I also would replace the original engine with a more reliable, responsive, fuel efficient turbofan engine. SImilar to the Temco TT-1 Pinto jets or the T-33 turbofan conversion Nelson Ezell did for a customer.
An underpowered airplane is an underpowered airplane. One reason why there aren't any Grumman Panthers or Cougars flying today is the horribly inefficient and now unreliable engines . SO, put a reliable engine in it and retain the second seat. IT would probably be their most sought after airshow bird. It would generate much needed revenue to their operations. Unlike the Sakae engined Zero, it could be flown away from the airport and across country.
As it stands today, it's almost as though it's being restored to be flown once and sold to a major name collector.

I politely disagree. I think as a YP-49 it would have rolled off the assembly line as a single seater, and the crude second seat (open, in the nose) was a later modification. The aircraft later served as familirization tool/trainer or drone controller (happy to be corrected if it rolled off the line as two-seater). I think the original single seat configuration is more represeantive of the type in service, and painted to look like the XP makes the best historical representation to the public. POF made the choice to go single seat, it is likely accurate for that airframe early in its life and I support that. I think it would attract more interest if displayed as a single seater, and perhaps in the green XP colors. I realize it is not a XP, but close enough for me, but I realize not all purists share my view. Many warbirds owe their existence today by serving as test beds and trainers, but have been backdated or outfitted to look like war time models- I see plating over the second cockpit on this YP as a similar path. I loved when POF put the dummy/disguise wood propellor on it to look like the XP at Muroc.

I doubt it being a huge money maker as a experience flight aircraft. I can't imagine many folks beating down the door to pay a few thousand for an experience flight in it. I also think it will never be "their most sought after airshow bird". Don't get me wrong I have a soft spot for early jets, and would love to see the 59 and more early jets flown. It will create a buzz for enthusiasts once it flies, but I do not seeing it having star warbird billing.

And besides the two seater is awfull looking. barf.

As for engines- that is a tough one- authenticity or reliabilty? Costs and testing would also come into play. I agree a more modern turbine would help tremendously in terms of availability for display, cross countries and reliabilty. If I had the means and it were mine I would also go modern to maximize it's demonstration potential - better re-check my lottery ticket....

just my 2 cents.

As it looked in 1983. Can't say I disagree...

By the way, POF has (had?) another P-59, 42-108786, that came (IIRC) from Jack Hardwick - does any part of this airframe survive? Was the nose used for 777?

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

AFAIK the engines used in the P-59 were pretty reliable. GE overhauled the ones they have. They also have a number of spares. The engines were also used in the Ryan Fireball I think.

I heard a rumor the jet was purchased by a German museum.