A good, if not new question, and some very interesting responses so far. It's interesting that one of the proposed 'what ifs' (Glynn Powell's Mosquitoes project, as mentioned) has been underway for some time...
k5dh wrote:
lestweforget wrote:
Are modern aircraft too complex, expensive and potent to ever be future warbirds?
Yes, to all three of those.
Excellent post. For the purpose of the exercise, let me argue the other way.
No to all three.
Today's cutting edge technology is tomorrows rustic oddity. I'm sure the first flint knives were regarded as too advanced for the next generation to manage,
while in 1918 (essentially the start of the ex-military aircraft scene) scout / fighter types were used by civilians (such as a doctor in the south of England using an SE-5 as a run around to visit his patients.) They seem simple to us now, but reading contemporary accounts there's a remarkable similarity to today's 'it can't be done' response, due to, guess what - complexity, cost and risk.
There has been exponential cost, complexity and regulation growth since then, but the noise against flying ex-militatary aircraft and the will to do so has remained
essentially permanant, albeit fluctuating in size from 1918 to date (and a gap from 1939 - 1945 when everyone was busy)... It's a fact that 'they'
said Spitfires and Mustangs would be 'too hot' for civilians.
So what. Let's have some current facts. Art Nails has successfully flown a Sea Harrier, which is highly complex, and foreign (to the user) in the US. They said it could not be done; no one would fly a Harrier just 'because they want to' or even with an intent for public display. Art has - whatever happens from now on. (And he writes a great blog.) The Avro Vulcan XH558 is, unarguably the most complex 'warbird' or ex-military display aircraft in the world - and it is in flying trim, in civilian ownership as I write. While there are serious reservations about the Vulcan operating team's management and fund-raising, and thus the aircraft's future, both technically and in terms of legislation, they've proven it can be done. They did it.
Quote:
Ask the Collings guys how challenging and expensive it is to maintain and operate their A-4 Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom II, which are literally 1950s technology. Our current front-line fighters, such as the F-15, F-16, and F-18, were designed in the 1970s. Look at how complex they are (and how dangerous!). Our resident F-15 driver, Randy Haskin, can probably give us an idea of how many man-hours of ground labor are required for each hour of flight. The number will shock you. There are a small number of 1950s-era American high performance jets flying in private hands, such as A-4, F-5/T-38, F-100, F-104, etc, but their operating and maintenance costs have got to be staggering, and you can't just run down to the local airplane parts dealer and buy spares for jets like those.
Exactly the same can, and has been, said of each generation of military aircraft from 1945 onwards. There's a significant decrease in the cutting edge types in private hands, but someone somewhere seems always prepared to shovel green cash into the hangar and burn exponentially more of it 'just because'. Rick's post is a much better qualified comment than I could make, but I think he's more correct than Dean, IMHO, on this point.
Quote:
Here in the US, because of the increased concerns over homeland security, there's no way you'd be allowed to operate a modern warplane because it could be used as an effective weapon if it got into the wrong hands. The Collings Foundation has the ONLY civilian (display category) Phantom II, and it literally took a special act of Congress to make that happen. You can be sure that it won't happen again. Look at the fuss that was made over the de-militarization of F-14 Tomcats because the government was worried that their parts would somehow end up in Iran. Two older Tomcats were confiscated from legitimate museums because they had not been properly demilitarized. The government is even taking a long look at vintage warplanes because they could be armed and used as a weapon again.
Again, not quite the whole story, and current paranoia isn't necessarily a guide to future opportunities. Up until 1975, warbird type ops were essentially banned in Australia, which is why numerous CAC Mustangs were traded at bargain prices (even for then) to the US. Bureaucracy and inertia
was overcome, and Australia now has a healthy (small) warbird scene. (it's not a direct comparison, but it's worth bearing in mind.) As I've said above, the US
isn't home to the biggest warbird project in history; that's a British story. Likewise the operation of Buccaneers and EE Lightings in South Africa show that sometimes people
will take complex aircraft to somewhere where they
can operate them, despite the other restrictions of cost, complexity, poor utility and serviceability records and so on. The EE Lightning is probably as hard to service as a more modern fighter because it's such a swine to maintain! The success of Thunder City in SA, Wanaka in NZ, Flying Legends in the UK and so on shows that if you build it, thy will come, even from such homebodies as the US enthusiast market.
Quote:
Eventually, we might see a few more Century-series fighters restored to flying condition, such as an F-105 or perhaps even an F-106, but you can bet that it won't be easy to license anything that isn't already.
It's
never been easy, or cheap. It might have escalated faster than a very fast thing, but we don't seem to have run out of people able to make it happen, albeit fewer of them and in smaller numbers. We won't see it, but it's possible that people will look at F-22s as we see a Nieuport 17.
Quote:
It would take a small army (or Navy!) of mechanics to get it flyable and keep it that way, and can you imagine how much it would cost to keep it fueled? It might be difficult to get an F-18 type rating, too, unless you flew them in the military.
See the Art Nails Sea Harrier story. That even uses fuel for
weight, lift and drag!
Military complexity is a bit misleading, as Rick's very well explained. The real next hurdles are civilian operated ex-military aircraft with swing wings... oh, been done... and fly-by-wire and after then the un-stable types, or whatever they're called. Beyond me. These milestones will go past, perhaps without notice while we miss the point worrying about which type of (removed) munition weapon system will rule out a machine...
The cost / value aspect is often misunderstood. Restoring most W.W.II and beyond ex-military aircraft
will cost more than any value placed on it after completion. However, that does not factor in volunteer labour or support, nor do many people really do it 'as an investment', despite the PR saying so.
Like the complaints about insurance and gas prices, if you need to ask, you can't afford it. While lots of people got into the eastern European jet scene when they were cheap 'entry', the shake-out is happening now; some kill themselves, more find it too rich for their blood, and that leaves a few really dedicated people still playing. But the MiG 15 and 17 aren't going to disappear from the US scene from some time yet.
If you can afford a fighter you buy a Mustang, because you heard of it when you were a kid. If you want whiz, you might go for an L-39. Some move on beyond these entry level types to trying to fly Beaufighters, 109s, FW-190s, Me 262s and He-162s (not going to happen at the moment, but maybe tomorrow) and so on, even including P-38s etc. Funding the build or rebuild of 262s, Oscars or Mosquitoes needs people who've moved through being a Mustang jock, onto more interesting things, and we need more of them, but they do seem to be out there, nonetheless. Making a profit is only a consideration for some players in those businesses, most are just managing the cash burn to look a little less like magnesium rate.
As Warbird kid said, something like a Willow trainer (less systems and complexity than a W.W.II fighter type) has potential. Things like a run of P-26s, F3Fs, or PZL P-11c types are all 'viable' if the right people come together, given their lower system requirement than the next generation of fighters. The
profit is staying in the game and having a flying aircraft at the end, NOT an investment return. But the more 'off the shelf' P-40 or in the case of the Willow, the N3N or Stearman is currently competition in an over saturated market. If all the US trainers suddenly vanished, there'd be production lines set up, and a new Willow would cost about the same as a new N3N. That would be 'interesting times'.
Quote:
In addition to the potential security threat (real or perceived), there is also the safety aspect. Many people feel that high-performance jet fighters are very risky to operate, and one little mechanical problem or one little lapse in judgement by the pilot could send one crashing down into a schoolyard full of little ones or a busy shopping mall. Of course, the same thing could happen with a Cessna 150, but that's beside the point. The public views light planes as much safer than fighter jets.
A modern jet fighter (apart from the accident potential of the man at the stick)
is far more risky, on a mass / velocity / things that go bang basis.
Basic risk analysis - a) what are the chances? and b) if it does go wrong, what is the potential effect? So; C-150 - a) higher than most other aircraft, b) bug-splat. Jet fighter a) lower than most other aircraft b) Oooo very messy, over a lot more landscape. However it does seem to be true (Vulcan, Lightning, Phantom) that if you can jump through endless hoops, demonstrating the patience of Job, and demonstrate a competent safe operation, a licence can be got. Will we see a privately flown F-111 in Australia? No, not for the foreseeable future, if ever. Is it impossible? No, just
almost impossible. In theory, it could be done. The benefits are too low against too high a cost and a paperwork deterrent.
So, if you have enough
money and will, you can make just about any aircraft fly. Some types would be plain dumb to try - the Me 163 being one,
yet a replica glider 163 (based on an original pre-production aircraft) has been made,
and flown
in Germany. Amazing, and a bit of lateral thinking.
In rounding up, I'm continually surprised by what people
achieve in the warbird field. On
paper, the CAF, or Duxford, or a run of FW-190s Polikarpovs or Me 262s are 'impossible' to do, yet they exist.
Remarkable.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
