Any HE-111's Gonna Fly?

[Speedy]

A Casa with Merlins painted in a Battle of Britain scheme is really
a replica rather than a genuine example.

Not to split hairs but I see it as more of an aircraft representing another aircraft. And if not for nothing it would be flying in an authentic 1969 scheme that it wore during filming. To me replica is an aircraft thats not really close to the original (i.e. T-6 converted to resemble a A6M2 Zero). Heres a question: Aside from the Merlin Engines, are there anything else thats different between the original German made version and the CASA example?

I kind of see it the same way. Is an Avenger or Wildcat that was designed by Grumman, but built by General Motors even though they might have a different engine variant, STILL an Avenger or Wildcat? (I know, I know...unless it's a Marlet....cheers!)

Well, if a Mustang was built in Dallas then technically it's a P-51K. I wonder how many Dallas-built P-51K's are actually masquerading as P-51D's. Oh the horror. Sheesh. I bet Jerry Gabe must lose hours of sleep at night actually having the gall to call Polar Bear a 'real' P-51 then.

The CASA 2111's were licence-built HE-111-H-16's They originally had Junkers Jumo engines in them, but the supplies ran low so they had to replace them with what they could find. Just like how a HA-1112 is a license-built BF-109G airframe with the same problem.

There's nothing "replica" about that. I wonder how many flyable B-17's are actually license-built by Lockheed or Vega...but (again, GASP) are actually painted to represent an aircraft made by Boeing? Those planes have a distinct designation too...but I doubt anyone is calling those 'replicas', or worried if they are 'genuine examples'.

Maybe I'm off base. Sorry if this offends any delicate sensibilities. Just my uneducated way of looking at airplanes.

[51fixer]

A Casa with Merlins painted in a Battle of Britain scheme is really
a replica rather than a genuine example.

Not to split hairs but I see it as more of an aircraft representing another aircraft. And if not for nothing it would be flying in an authentic 1969 scheme that it wore during filming. To me replica is an aircraft thats not really close to the original (i.e. T-6 converted to resemble a A6M2 Zero). Heres a question: Aside from the Merlin Engines, are there anything else thats different between the original German made version and the CASA example?

I kind of see it the same way. Is an Avenger or Wildcat that was designed by Grumman, but built by General Motors even though they might have a different engine variant, STILL an Avenger or Wildcat? (I know, I know...unless it's a Marlet....cheers!)

Well, if a Mustang was built in Dallas then technically it's a P-51K. I wonder how many Dallas-built P-51K's are actually masquerading as P-51D's. Oh the horror. Sheesh. I bet Jerry Gabe must lose hours of sleep at night actually having the gall to call Polar Bear a 'real' P-51 then.

The CASA 2111's were licence-built HE-111-H-16's They originally had Junkers Jumo engines in them, but the supplies ran low so they had to replace them with what they could find. Just like how a HA-1112 is a license-built BF-109G airframe with the same problem.

There's nothing "replica" about that. I wonder how many flyable B-17's are actually license-built by Lockheed or Vega...but (again, GASP) are actually painted to represent an aircraft made by Boeing? Those planes have a distinct designation too...but I doubt anyone is calling those 'replicas', or worried if they are 'genuine examples'.

Maybe I'm off base. Sorry if this offends any delicate sensibilities. Just my uneducated way of looking at airplanes.

I believe there was a point they gave up on the K model and it just became a P-51D-XX-NT. I believe Dallas also built some D models concurrent with Inglewood.
From Inglewood it was a P-51D-XX-NA.
Parts book lists-
P-51-5-NA, P-51-5-NT, P-51K-5, the same format for -10 and -15. At -20 there is only P-51D-20-NA and P-51D-20-NT, no Ks and the same for -25, 30 and 35.
Earlier on the B and C it was listed as P-51B-5-NA and P-51C-5-NT ect.
There is always the difference in what was ordered and what gets produced. I'm unsure whether that fact is incorporated into the official parts book.

[needle]

A Casa with Merlins painted in a Battle of Britain scheme is really
a replica rather than a genuine example.

Not to split hairs but I see it as more of an aircraft representing another aircraft. And if not for nothing it would be flying in an authentic 1969 scheme that it wore during filming. To me replica is an aircraft thats not really close to the original (i.e. T-6 converted to resemble a A6M2 Zero). Heres a question: Aside from the Merlin Engines, are there anything else thats different between the original German made version and the CASA example?

I kind of see it the same way. Is an Avenger or Wildcat that was designed by Grumman, but built by General Motors even though they might have a different engine variant, STILL an Avenger or Wildcat? (I know, I know...unless it's a Marlet....cheers!)

Well, if a Mustang was built in Dallas then technically it's a P-51K. I wonder how many Dallas-built P-51K's are actually masquerading as P-51D's. Oh the horror. Sheesh. I bet Jerry Gabe must lose hours of sleep at night actually having the gall to call Polar Bear a 'real' P-51 then.

The CASA 2111's were licence-built HE-111-H-16's They originally had Junkers Jumo engines in them, but the supplies ran low so they had to replace them with what they could find. Just like how a HA-1112 is a license-built BF-109G airframe with the same problem.

There's nothing "replica" about that. I wonder how many flyable B-17's are actually license-built by Lockheed or Vega...but (again, GASP) are actually painted to represent an aircraft made by Boeing? Those planes have a distinct designation too...but I doubt anyone is calling those 'replicas', or worried if they are 'genuine examples'.

Maybe I'm off base. Sorry if this offends any delicate sensibilities. Just my uneducated way of looking at airplanes.

Speedy...in my book you are safe on base

CASA 2.111 was merely the Spanish Air Force designation for the CASA built He111-H16.
Every external CASA id plate on a CASA 2.111 lists just the following: CASA HE111-H16.

The CAS 2.111 was an exact match for the He111-H16, part for part. Every CASA built He111-H16 was built as per the Heinkel plan and were to have been fitted with Jumo engines, since the Spanish were merely adding to the fleet of 100 He111s originally given to them by Germany. However, when CASA reached airframe 60, in approximately December 1950 (count and date are approx, as I don’t have the exact figure with me) they ran out of the supply of Jumo engines. All of the rest of the airframes (70) were still completed and placed in storage, in the hope that they could get the necessary engines at a later date.

The airframes that had no engines remained in storage until about 1953, when an agreement was made to acquire 173 Rolls Royce Merlin engines. Over a period of about 3 years, the engineless airframes were modified, firewall forward, to have Merlin engines, and were then put into service. This firewall forward modification was the only airframe modification to the already manufactured aircraft. All aircraft that were still in service with the Jumo engines were subsequently modified to use the Merlin engines as part of a maintenance standardization program, since the Spanish built 109s were also using the same engine.

The CASA 2.111 is therefore, in my opinion, as much a license built He111-H16, as an FM2 is a licensed built F4F. It therefore has as much “right” to be referred to as an He111 as the FM2 has to be called a Wildcat.


Also, to quote from above: A Casa with Merlins painted in a Battle of Britain scheme is really a replica rather than a genuine example.
I disagree, since for the Cavanaugh example:
1. It’s a CASA
2. It has Merlins
3. It has a B of B paint scheme
4. It was actually in the movie

Hence it is the genuine example of a Casa with Merlins painted in a Battle of Britain scheme

[L2Driver]

I would somewhat agree with your assessment right up to the point $$ enters the equation. Two equal condition aircraft are for sale, one a German-built Bf-109 and the other a Buchon. For sake of discussion, say the price is $1.8M. There you are. Cash in hand. Which one are you taking home?

Do the same for an fully restored German-built He-111 and a CASA 2.111. Same condition. Same price tags with lots of zeros. Which one is the more prudent purchase?

Chances are pretty high that you opted for the German-built examples. Why?

At the end of the day, the German-built examples are Bf-109s and He-111s while the other two are not. Produced under license or not.

[Speedy]

I would somewhat agree with your assessment right up to the point $$ enters the equation. Two equal condition aircraft are for sale, one a German-built Bf-109 and the other a Buchon. For sake of discussion, say the price is $1.8M. There you are. Cash in hand. Which one are you taking home?

Do the same for an fully restored German-built He-111 and a CASA 2.111. Same condition. Same price tags with lots of zeros. Which one is the more prudent purchase?

Chances are pretty high that you opted for the German-built examples. Why?

At the end of the day, the German-built examples are Bf-109s and He-111s while the other two are not. Produced under license or not.

So...using that logic, is an Australian-built Mustang worth more or less than an American-built Mustang? They built less of the Australian-built version...so does that make them rarer?

Not trying to argue...just curious as to what your opinion on it is.

[John Dupre]

I would somewhat agree with your assessment right up to the point $$ enters the equation. Two equal condition aircraft are for sale, one a German-built Bf-109 and the other a Buchon. For sake of discussion, say the price is $1.8M. There you are. Cash in hand. Which one are you taking home?

Do the same for an fully restored German-built He-111 and a CASA 2.111. Same condition. Same price tags with lots of zeros. Which one is the more prudent purchase?

Chances are pretty high that you opted for the German-built examples. Why?

At the end of the day, the German-built examples are Bf-109s and He-111s while the other two are not. Produced under license or not.

As I see it the main difference between the Spanish built 111s and 109s is that they don't look like the German types. So if I had all the zeros I needed in my wallet I would want the original even if the others are genuine. The Commonwealth built Mustangs look exactly like the NAA built examples. There are probably detail differences but over all I can't tell the difference so I would be willing to pay the same for either example.


So...using that logic, is an Australian-built Mustang worth more or less than an American-built Mustang? They built less of the Australian-built version...so does that make them rarer?

Not trying to argue...just curious as to what your opinion on it is.

[DaveM2]

Speedy, answer the question -don't answer with another question

Where are you slapping your millions down -German built or Spanish built?

Dave

[AvroAvian]

I wouldn't drag "Polar Bear" into this argument. I remember this one when Air Classics ran an article on its "return to flight". Back in those days, a major restoration in Air Classic's eyes was an aeroplane cobbled together with whatever was lying around at the time and a coat of paint blown over it, preferably gloss and in favorite ace's markings. "Polar Bear" was a wreck recovered in a condition that, I believe, would now be considered to be a very viable rebuild. Unfortunately, a lot of the wings and fuselage was considered to be "too far gone", so it ended up with mostly D model parts in it. The warbird restoration scene has come a long way since then....

[Speedy]

Speedy, answer the question -don't answer with another question

Where are you slapping your millions down -German built or Spanish built?

Dave

Since I think the Buchon is kind of cool, I wouldn't mind it at all. And if I had all that money, I'd buy one of each.

[bomberflight]

I knew I was asking for trouble using the word "replica" !

It was a bit rash of me and I should have spent a bit more time and thought before I posted.

And of course ~ I'm swayed by the views set out on this thread An example of WIX at it's best

I love seeing Buchons in BoB colors ~ especially if they wore them during the filming of the movie !

P.S.

Oh ! And I've bought a ticket for tonights Euromillions lottery ~ it stands at approx USD 125 million ......

I promise if I win it to spends most of it on warbird restorations and squander the rest on women and beer

[cwmc]

Speedy, answer the question -don't answer with another question

Where are you slapping your millions down -German built or Spanish built?

Dave

Since I think the Buchon is kind of cool, I wouldn't mind it at all. And if I had all that money, I'd buy one of each.

Yeah,
Me too. But it'd be one Hispano from Michigan along with one Cobra, to be yellow and black!
Chris...

[Speedy]

Speedy, answer the question -don't answer with another question

Where are you slapping your millions down -German built or Spanish built?

Dave

Since I think the Buchon is kind of cool, I wouldn't mind it at all. And if I had all that money, I'd buy one of each.

Yeah,
Me too. But it'd be one Hispano from Michigan along with one Cobra, to be yellow and black!
Chris...

Well, yeah...John Slack and I have already decided that WHEN (not if) we hit the lottery we're going to get matching Cobra I and Cobra II "replica's".

[Invader26]

so we could have the Bell B-29 or the Lockheed B-17 or the Ford B-24 or the Douglas B-17 or the Canadair F-86......

all of these operated under the original design name....