Warbird Information Exchange

Let's say you have a Spitfire VI, the only one surviving, and there are a number of Vs and VIIs around (this is all hypothetical). Is the VI really more valuable because it is the only one of it's marque left? Every Spitfire V and VII is unique in itself after all, and each Spitfire has a unique wartime history. Obviously Bader's Spitfire, Bong's P-38 or Tex Hill's P-40 is more valuable than a plane without notable history, but I'd like to bypass that part of the discussion for now.

One would think a P-51A or an A-36 more valuable than a P-51D, but I'm not confident that is the case. Or maybe it is now more so than in past years?

Your thoughts?

Really interesting question.

I think that in most "collectable" markets there are intangibles that greatly affect the value beyond rarity. Whether it's some kind of general historical significance, beauty, popularity in an earlier time, popularity now or what, I'm not sure.

I dabble (but not much) in collecting old Lionel trains and that market often seems driven as much by the popularity of the item when it was in production, ie everyone had to have one or really wanted one, as by the actual rarity of the item.

Why do Cubs command a premium over TCrafts or Champs? Why do considerably rarer Wildcats seem to go for far less than a P51-D?

_________________
Steve
www.eaglesmereairmuseum.org
www.net2nite.com

An interesting question indeed. Many answers are valid, I'm sure. The highest-buck Warbirds (like many of the highest-buck cars) will have that magic mix of performance, charisma, historicity and practicality all going for them at once. The P-51D has all those. So does the Corsair. So does the Spitfire. But then you come to the types that are two- or three-for-four: the aforementioned Wildcat, for example, has historicity and practicality, but it's more cute than charismatic, and (compared to a '51 or mid-mark Spit, say) it isn't an especially hot performer. And it could be that its comparative rarity detracts from its natural practicality, too. The D-model 'stang, on the other hand, also has that critical mass of population going for it, along with everything else...contributing to its viability of operation.

An interesting case in point is one of my favourite types, the Hawker Tempest. Most surviving Tempests came from the famous Indian auctions in the 70s. A number of IAF airframes were scrapped-off, allegedly because one main purchaser at auction wanted his stash of Tempests to be that much rarer, therefore more valuable. But that seems to have backfired...because, I think, of the fact that the Tempest (in MkII form anyway, and the IAF aircraft were all IIs) lacks an extensive combat history, too. The resulting number of Tempest projects is below that critical-mass number that makes them more viable to restore and operate; so you've got an airplane that's two-for-four...and none has yet flown again in all these years. (Conversely the Fury series remains popular pretty much everywhere: the big Iraqi recovery, coupled with the Fury's charisma and performance, makes that type three-for-four: enough projects, and now flyers, survive to support a Mustang-style cottage industry.)

Just my tuppence...

S.

I think there is a study about what would be profitable to transport in spatial travels which arrived to the conclusion only works of art would make it. So, Spitfires are undoubtedly in this category

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

I would guess the answer would be yes, having the last one or one of the last few of a type or sub-type increases value when controlling for everything else, but other factors could easily swamp the effect.

If you were serious about finding the answer you would do something like a multiple regression analysis. This is a statistic that can analyze the independent effect of various predictors on a dependent variable (in this case sale price). You might construct a model that included several proxies for this concept: how many are left of this type, how many are airworthy of this type, etc. You would also have variables that reflect other things that we know affect price, such as what country it comes from, to what extent a maintenance network exists for it, how important the type's combat history was, and so forth.

You would find that some of your predictors give you problems because they are intercorrelated. The rarity of a type is inversely correlated with the extent to which there are ready sources of parts and knowledge about maintenance and operation of that aircraft, which is a known positive influence on market value. Airplanes, like computer operating systems, are subject to "network effects," meaning that their utility to an individual user is increased by the presence of large numbers of other users of the type.

With the right data, the regression might be able to tease out the impact of rarity, controlling for the network effect. You might find that a very rare aircraft that uses a common engine and systems, and requires no special infrastructure to maintain and operate, is worth more than a more common type -- for example, a rare Waco type having generally similar systems to a UPF-7 probably will be worth more than a UPF-7 in the same condition. I would expect that, properly controlled for, rarity would be found to affect value positively.

August

Interesting question.

If we are talking of 'rarity' as in not many / one left, then on its own that has no additional value (to equivalent models). There's a lot of rare aircraft out there; few have extra 'value' in cash terms.

If we are talking 'rarity' as in historical significance, that has an additional cash value (but you excepted that).

Moving from the price issue, rarity works two ways with museums. Most museums want representative (i.e. common) or historic examples of their aircraft artefacts; or better, historically significant examples. Sometimes neither is available, so a rare examples is preserved by default. Other times that rarity has a particular relevance to a particular museum, so is preferred by them. None of these are directly index linked to cash values.

Your choice of (I presume) an arbitrary mark for your Spitfire throws up a real world example. The Spitfire Mk.V is a straight fighter. The HF.VI and HF.VII were both high altitude fighter (HF) versions and, IIRC, the only Spitfires intended as such. There is one Spitfire HF Mk.VII preserved at the Smithsonian. It's therefore the only high-altitude fighter version of the Spitfire surviving. Should you find another Mk.VI or VII, while it would be the only one on the market, I don't think it would have a cash value any greater than a standard wartime fighter version, although there are numerous examples of most fighter versions around.

The Smithsonian's web page (link below) long description of the aircraft has 881 words in the long description, of which only 86 words relate to the specific example, its specific role and don't even acknowledge the rarity of the version. Even a museum like the Smithsonian, with their historical and technical mandate, overlook the rarity and technical significance (one of very few dedicated W.W.II high-altitude fighters in preservation) of the example they hold in preference to repeating the same old blah about Spitfire history in general.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/arti ... 9600331000

Regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Lots of great points here from all directions! Interesting thoughts. Not sure I'm ready to do that regression analysis quite yet though!!!

Heck....I'm not sure I even know what a regression analysis is. Sounds like something a shrink would come up with.

_________________
Steve
www.eaglesmereairmuseum.org
www.net2nite.com

BDK,

Had to chime in on this one, you've helped me alot on here so here is my detailed analysis on your question.
My experience in rare cars, old cars, rare parts, old parts, has taught me one thing.
Things also are valued by headache factors. P51-D's (@ 1.5-3 million bucks market price) have alot of people and places supporting them and parts are generally easy to come by. Not too big of a headache in the end......... B25's (400K to 850K market price) have the same support situation but they are more of a headache than a P-51, hence the lower price, and both are numerous.
That 85% complete ME-110 wreck recovery in amazaing shape sold out of N.Z for 175K about a year ago.
Personally that thing was a buy of a lifetime to me because of its rarity. But it is a huge headache to most hence the low price.

Dont forget the headache factor.......

Neely

_________________
To be in the hardware business you must first have a screw loose....

$175k for an me-110 ! And almost complete , dam I mustnt be looking hard enough cause thats exactly what Im looking for !

Don't forget the ""I want that one" factor.

In buyiing and selling anything, one of the main determinants is how much the seller needs too sell, and how much the buyer wants to buy.

For example, if the buyer flew that particular airframe as a youth, or his/her Father did, the offer goes up.

And conversely if the owner suffers a financial decline, or dies and the Estate needs to liquidate, the asking price goes down.

Also, sometimes the owner decides to "pass the torch". I personally bought my Fairchild 24W at a low price because the previous owner met my wife and myself and thought we were a good team, and likely to preserve and display the airplane well for the next decade or 2. He had turned down many previous, higher offers from people with no tailwheel time.

Value is a totally subjective thing.

Another example: some people value diamonds and other gems very highly, and will spend millions on them. To me, they're merely silly coloured rocks. There isn't one I wouldn't trade for a zero-time Warner 185.

Dave

The way I see it is its worth what someone will pay for it. How would you put a price on an aircraft that theres only one of like the n9mb or pof zero?

Hi Dave,
Good points.

That's true, but comes a definite second to the aircraft's overall fame. F'rinstance Spitfires and Mustangs will always remain more valued in cash terms - and therefore remain less rare than Hurricanes, P-40s and Wildcats, because the generic fame of the glamour planes out-values any specific value of personal connection.

The Hurricane is an interesting case in that it's taken a long time to build the infrastructure to build a number of the type airworthy and the infrastructure to keep them there. The rise in historic cash-translated value finally overtook the cost of restoration and infrastructure establishment, cash seeded by Tim Wallis and Tony Ditheridge and technically enabled by several others - with a view to multiple restorations. The P-40 and F4F / Wildcat have always been 'sleepers' with a lower complexity of design and systems, relatively strong infrastructure and support, yet they don't have the fame of the P-51D and Spitfire, and won't ever attain that. The TBM/F Avenger is arguably the most under-cash valued warbird in this model.

This ranking of fame values, against genuine (rather than 'old aeroplane') rarity and the interlocking is something that's been touched on already, and if I understand correctly, is modelable by Augusts' wizard plan.

Regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

.


Not that its intended to undermine the argument being put forward, but I understand there were HF versions of other marks of Spitfire, and I understand the two survivors originally from the Syd Marshall collection in Australia were both HF VIII, including the one now flying with Temora.

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Fair comment Mark.

I was thinking of the dedicated pressurised high altitude types rather than the multi-role fighter types. I'm reasonably comfortable with Spitfire designations, but certainly admit I can still get caught out!

Watch out for a forthcoming Spitfire post on this machine...
Cheers,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com