Most difficult warbird to resurrect?

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 8:11 pm

What would be the most difficult warbird to ressurect (built from scratch) if money were no object?

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 8:21 pm

Messerschmitt 321 or He-111Z.

Ollie · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 8:28 pm

X-wing?

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

Randy Haskin wrote:

Messerschmitt 321 or He-111Z.

Naw, He-111Z is easy. Just need a couple of CASA's for that.

How about a Zeppelin or the Akron?

If you're going to stick to warbird airplanes, how about an He-177?

Here's another question... What is the most difficult warbird built to date? 262 Project aircraft?

The most dangerous? Me-163??? I don't think the Natter went into service.

How would you limit or define this question?

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 9:12 pm

Ollie wrote:

X-wing?

Already been done... now an airworthy one could be difficult :lol:

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 9:14 pm

Randy Haskin wrote:

Messerschmitt 321 or He-111Z.

How about a Bv 222 or Bv 238? That would be insane. Or the big Russian Pre-WWII beast.... Maxim Gorky or something like that.

AndyG · **Joined:** Thu May 06, 2004 4:39 pm **Posts:** 93

I'd imagine that scratchbuilding a Wellington Scott, with its geodetic construction would be quite a challenge at any price. They reproduced a lot of fuselage on the Brooklands 'Loch Ness' one, though that was only a static.

FYI: For those who collect the metal Corgi Aviation Archive in 1:72 scale, they have just released a Wellington. Very nice too. The Liberator is fine and dandy too.

Antone else like to confess to a Corgi habit? ;-)

mrhenniger · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2004 8:09 am

bdk wrote:

Randy Haskin wrote:

The most dangerous? Me-163??? I don't think the Natter went into service.

The Heinkel 162! I have heard it was dangerous even when they were flight testing.

Mike

Cees Broere · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2004 9:18 am

Short Stirling surely, (closely followed by the AW Whitley)

As there are no complete airframes left and the recent finds of two fuselage sections were without undersides, it is a hell of a job to reconstruct one even when knowing that all drawings were destroyed.

I hope the Stirling Project succeeds in the end with reconstructing one, even if it takes fifty years.

Ceesn (still only a corporal)

J Scheil · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2004 11:04 am

How about the He-177 for most overlooked Heavy,

Just wishing, a B-32, YB-35!!!, of course Akron or Macon would be awesome. For three engines, Bv-138

Twins needed today.

Number One.

G4M Betty- definitive Japanese type, with no really good intact examples, although the display of the mostly complete Betty at Planes of Fame is superb!

Flyable Bf-110, Ju-88 and Do-17 for a Flying Legends BOB show.

Oh yea, Stirling, Halifax and Wellington in a flyby...

but I'd settle for just having the RAF Museum preserve that poor last Beverly. Why does that aircraft have to dissapear?

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2004 1:57 pm

AndyG wrote:

Anyone else like to confess to a Corgi habit? ;-)

I have about a half dozen 1:72 fighter and another half dozen or so of the smaller ones. Mostly bought from E-bay before E-Bay became just another online store.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2004 1:59 pm

mrhenniger wrote:

Randy Haskin wrote:

The most dangerous? Me-163??? I don't think the Natter went into service.

The Heinkel 162! I have heard it was dangerous even when they were flight testing.

Mike

Yeah, the tail wasn't structurally sound. I'm sure with modern materials it could be strengthened. I think it would be an interesting plane to see fly. I always thought it was one of the best looking WWII Jets.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2004 2:07 pm

J Scheil wrote:

G4M Betty- definitive Japanese type, with no really good intact examples, although the display of the mostly complete Betty at Planes of Fame is superb!

I agree, maybe fit it with American radials for maintainability, that would be a site.

J Scheil wrote:

Flyable Bf-110, Ju-88 and Do-17 for a Flying Legends BOB show.

I'd like to see a Bf-110 fly though my prediction is that a Ju-88 will be the first Luftwaffe twin to fly.

J Scheil wrote:

but I'd settle for just having the RAF Museum preserve that poor last Beverly. Why does that aircraft have to dissapear?

Unfortunately its the ugly versus sexy issue again. Transports are traditionally the most overloocked and unappreciated warbird out there (with notably exceptions of course) Fighters and bombers get all the attention while transports languish. It's like the thought of eating a horse freaks most people out, yet those same people will happily eat a cow. (Horseburgers anyone?) Its a shame really, I'd like to see the Beverly preserved. We should start a Museum of Misfit aircraft

agent 86 · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2004 2:18 pm

i'm thinking that the twin engine plane with counter rotating props(XF-11?)
that almost killed Howard Hughes when he augered into a residential neighborhood would be a most difficult repo.if I'm not mistaken one of the props went into reverse pitch and the plane stopped flying.left him addicted to various drugs for the rest of his life.Was a VERY beautiful airplane.....................................Tim................... :shock:

AndyG · **Joined:** Thu May 06, 2004 4:39 pm **Posts:** 93

I'd think the Focke Wulf 189 currently being restored is more likely to be the first Scott? Unless you know of any 88's more advanced?

http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/fw189society/index.htm

I'd really like to see a B36 as well though, as far as large piston engine bombers are concerned that one takes the biscuit.

Warbird Information Exchange

Most difficult warbird to resurrect?

Who is online