Warbird Information Exchange

How about using that money to have an extinct type built from scratch. My suggestion would be to have somenone build you a Brewster Buffalo. YOU could put a jump seat and dual controls in it, plus any horsepower R-1820 you want YOu would have zero competition for airshow bookings at military bases, etc. Plus it was flown by every branch of the military so not limited in your markeiting. You could put lots of New surplus stuff in it as you can economize along the way. T-28 wing tanks, DHC Otter tailwheel or whatever.

I am wondering why this guy has not chimed in since his first post to give more feedback about his flying experience.

Mark D

Why hasn't he chimed in about his flying experience.... Troll...

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

On the other hand, why give him a second thought? There's been some very interesting information and ideas given on this thread that might not have been posted otherwise. Could you really bring a Brewster Buffalo to life for that kind of $$$???

_________________
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas

PIC, Ford 6600 pulling Rhino batwing up and down the runway

Kurt: It would require a detailed look at the drawings and a determination of how many extrusions used in the design would require new dies and production runs. The bigger the number, the closer you would be to blowing out of that budget limit. Forgings can be replaced with machined fittings. This assumption also includes being able to find a machine shop that will do aircraft work and not get the freaks about it, and not overcharge for time and materials. If one had a fairly complete machining capability already, that would help keep the costs within a more reasonable level. With minimal farm out of work and a builder with decent skills and available time, it wouldn't be a super complicated build. One would probably be in the 4-5000 manhour build time as a rough order estimate, not having seen the drawings, but based on the typical production practices for it's day.

I am wondering why this guy has not chimed in since his first post to give more feedback about his flying experience.

Mark D


Mark D.,

I think we lost him with this post:


If I had the resources, I would do the PT-17/AT-6 work first and then see what happens (as recommended above).

And if he comes up with the $2M, then he needs money to keep the airplane running and to keep himself current.

TM.

_________________
.
.
.

"Welcome back Mr. Lasky."

A reasonable choice to "resurrect" an extinct warbird might be the Vultee P-66. There was some commonality with other Vultee aircraft, so parts might be easier to find or fabricate. The landing gear on a Buffalo looks to be very busy.

So what are the odds on anyone ever doing some new-build F4U or F2G Corsairs? Not semi-scale composite replicas, but 100% authentic to the originals. It's a very large and complex aircraft, and there are a fairly large number of originals left. I've seen that some people are working on building new main spars, which was a major hurdle to overcome for restorations that needed one. On the plus side, it's very popular, and there appears to be a lot available in terms of blueprints and such. The Corsair82 guy said in a post somewhere that he had all of the lofting for the Corsair.

Would the cost to build an all-new F4U Corsair exceed what you could buy a flyable original for? Anyone know what F2G Race 57 sold for?

I'm just curious. I don't have that kind of money. I just remember reading somewhere that it cost something like $10 million to restore the Glacier Girl P-38, and I was wondering if it would have been cheaper and easier to just start from scratch when you have to replace just about everything anyway. Not to mention the cost of the expedition to extract it from the ice.

You guys are not thinking of a couple of interesting points. One is that the Buffalo was built both as an all metal aircraft in the U.S. and in Finland with an all wood design. YOu could take bids from both types of workshops. Second, there aren't going to be any "real" ones showing up on the scene in the U.S. for it to be compared to , so compromises can be made and tweaking in places. ie, "value engineering" and newer and cheaper methods of construction. ALso, with a new build , you aren't trying to work with the old stuff, so it goes faster and you can skip things that arent needed, like self sealing fuel tanks, and other fittings, and brackets. Off the shelf stuff can be used by modifying the design before construction starts.
NO doubt this was done on the Tischler F3F's and on a lot of the replicas built of racers and other early civil types.

the Finns kicked some bootie with Buffalo,many aces on that beer barrel with wings.

Mike: Despite having sections closely resemble BT series parts and assemblies, the P-66 and BT series have little commonality in structure. it was originally planed to have a series of 4 different purpose designs that shared many structual components to keep costs down, but by the time the P-66 was ready for production, the commonality was gone. If you were going to build a static example, then you could get away with using a significant number of BT components to do it.

I'm not against the P-66, because like the P-43, it is extinct and desrves to be resurrected. The Buffalo has some kills and flew in so many militaries and theaters. The other thing about the Buffalo is that a) a few people have heard of them and b) there are two originals; one U.S. built and one Finnish (both located in Finland.) SO there is a way to make measurements, and inspections to fill in any missing blueprint details.

Building a new , good luck. She was the most complicated prop fighter built. There are so many parts! We are working with an intact bird with major damage from corrosion and the cost is seriously starting to mount up. Also could you get a TC or would it be classified as being a homebuilt? At the end of the day if your going to go to that level, you might as well make a real 2 seater if that could be made legal. That is what I understand to be the case.

Buy a AT-6 and go have some fun.

Thats just my 2 cents

_________________
Andrew King
Air Museum Director with no Museum to Direct
Open to Suggestions

Yup, one original Brewster(BW-372) on loan to Finland for a few years and one Finn built on display. Tho in
light of your previous comment, the Humu(Whirlwind) has a steel fuselage frame and presumably alloy
skin with wooden wings. (I hope I have that correct.) In view of todays lack of worry about strategic materials,
the entire fuse could be done in alloy. Lack of the need of guns etc. would allow one to move things around a bit more.



Yep, and one wonders if the Finn factory drawings survive as well?

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

Having seen a picture of the 2-seater F4U, I'd have to say it wasn't exactly the prettiest bird ever. It looked like they added the 2nd seat ahead of the normal pilot's position, where the fuel tank normally goes. A 2-seat F2G-style bubble top would probably be easier to get in and out of and would certainly look better. I know I've seen an F4U with blue-tinted windows for a jump seat behind the pilot, but I'd think that would be a bit claustrophobic, and not the greatest view. I can't see anyone with a real F4U converting it to a bubble top configuration, but I guess if you were starting from scratch there'd be nothing to stop you.

I've seen some of the pictures of what the corrosion's done to that Corsair. It's just tragic. I don't think real planes belong on poles. I wish you success in your project, and it's definitely a huge task.