Warbirds have the same issues.

[b5blue]

  A recent issue of Air Classics covered the debate over how much of an aircraft's original parts must survive to be considered the "original aircraft." Much like our cars they have folks rebuilding aircraft with very low percentage of actual parts from plane they claim to be. A Spitfire in question had crashed and burned badly leaving only  enough parts that would fit in the bed of a pickup truck. Worth millions the difference between a reproduction and an actual hangs in the balance.
  Finding you can own your fighter for around 3 million or pickup a B-17 for 9 million proves my boyhood dreams of buying one live on in others today with deep pockets. With P-38's selling for around 1,200.00 after the war who wouldn't want one? Personally I feel the echo of those aircraft ring through our muscle cars in style and heritage. I think I need a spin in my 70 Charger as my P-51 still waits for me to win some lottery.

[HANDM]

Funny you should relate them to Mopars, We have up in Everett, the Flying Heritage Museum with an extensive collection of WW2 aircraft which they used to fly regularly. (not this year for which you know the reason)
Whenever they would fly them my wife would say "the Mopars of the sky are out"

[John_Kunkel]

I'm also a regular reader of Air Classics and I've often been baffled by the statement "using the paper work from XXXX, the aircraft was brought back to life". IOW, an aircraft crashes and is a total write-off but the firewall tag and the registration paperwork survives so they built an aircraft from the parts/pieces of several donors and NOS parts. This would be akin to building a classic car starting with nothing but the VIN tag and registration.

What baffles me is that one of the most restrictive government agencies (the FAA) blesses this while doing this with a car is frowned on in most (all) states. 

[b5blue]

Right the FAA is concerned with "air worthiness" safety and such. They don't concern over value variability.  

[tan top]

I'm also a regular reader of Air Classics and I've often been baffled by the statement "using the paper work from XXXX, the aircraft was brought back to life". IOW, an aircraft crashes and is a total write-off but the firewall tag and the registration paperwork survives so they built an aircraft from the parts/pieces of several donors and NOS parts. This would be akin to building a classic car starting with nothing but the VIN tag and registration.

What baffles me is that one of the most restrictive government agencies (the FAA) blesses this while doing this with a car is frowned on in most (all) states.  

yes ive wondered that also , i watch a lot of those warbird  crashed  WW2 aircraft documentaries  on youtube &  when on tv , thought about it straight away a wadded up plane that was shot up & nosed dived in to the ground at 400 mph 80 years ago say, been dug up  all thats left is a pile of twisted shrapnel & prolly a partially smashed engine block ...is OK though as as long as we can prove the identity & has the engine id plate its ok  we can rebuild / restore it to flying condition ... what they mean it make a new one & use if they lucky a few bolts  maybe a minor small part of a wing spire or .... 
  the same thing been done with the Ted Stephens Daytona a lot of people are , & they prolly think nothing about new ww2 aircraft being made & wear the original planes id plate serial number etc , there is  hope for the  daytone that was pushed down a ravine , & the one that was used to burn trash in ! if those cars are sitll saved & in storage 10 -20 years from now resto guys will think nothing of doing to these daytonas  , whats been done to the ole warbirds

[Mike DC]

 
The collector car hobby decided a long time ago that they value VIN numbers over originality. 

They don't mind if you start with a VIN and build a car from basically nothing.  But they will throw a fit if you build a second copy of it. 

[Kern Dog]

Right the FFA is concerned with "air worthiness" safety and such. They don't concern over value variability. 

I don't think that the Future Farmers of America (FFA) care at all about aircraft.

[Daytona R/T SE]

Right the FFA is concerned with "air worthiness" safety and such. They don't concern over value variability.  

I don't think that the Future Farmers of America (FFA) care at all about aircraft.

Crop Dusters Matter.  

[JB400]

It's getting to the point with the warbirds, one has to ask, "Do you fly it, and risk it, or park it in a museum?  I respect those that fly them, and enjoy them, especially when they do public appearances with them. 80 years old on some of those airframes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BMaUBeaiHnQ

[b5blue]

It's getting to the point with the warbirds, one has to ask, "Do you fly it, and risk it, or park it in a museum?  I respect those that fly them, and enjoy them, especially when they do public appearances with them. 80 years old on some of those airframes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BMaUBeaiHnQ

The crashes listed in the magazine are not few and far between. A P-51 doing acrobatics did a pile-driver nearly straight down. The airspeed indicator was stuck at something like 512 MPH. 

[Mike DC]

 
IMO a lot of those WW2 birds are too rare and should be parked.  Or at least flown VERY sparingly.  

I love seeing them flying as much as the next guy but it's playing russian roulette with them.  They weren't that reliable on the day they were built, never mind 80 years later.  (I think there are only two airworthy Japanese zeroes left on the planet.  FFS, don't fly those unnecessarily.)  



The smallest dogfighters are in the range of building flyable replicas.  Yeah, I know it's not cheap, but nothing with aviation ever is.  Piecing together real old warbirds isn't cheap either. 

With something like a four-engine bomber it's a tougher question.   It's beyond the size range of where people might build flyable replicas.  

[b5blue]

They make a 3/4 scale P-51 knock off! I wonder about airworthiness of 10 year old planes. In 1976 we had a 1955 made B-52 on the tarmac. That plane is most likely still in service. 

[AKcharger]

I want a T-28...and I want it NOW!

[b5blue]

Sweet!  One sat out at Clearwater/St.Pete for sale for years. I drooled every time I drove by! 

[John_Kunkel]

Sigh, I remember when you could buy a nice T-28B for under $10K; now a really nice one might bring $250K.

My personal want list would be a P-51D, F-7F or A-26 in that order. The most recent Air Classics has a P-51D for $2.25M and an A-26C for $800K.

Here's a video of Julie Clark flying her T-28C out of Cameron Park AP, CA (where she lives)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhKoIsNda8s

[AKcharger]

Im actually on the hunt for one. I want an "A" model...less fuel burn and no "type" rating, plus I used to be Air Force they flew A models (and D's) costs go from a low of $130k-$180k. The B and C models are much more popular and hence more $$. He's a B model I looked at this summer in Chino CA, was $90K but BONE stock with an engine 200hours over TBO...MONEY PIT.  But still fun to look at and goo for taxi ride (Last annual 2014)

[426HemiChick]

Hi Folks,               10 October 2021

There was a time when you could PU a surplus P51 for $500.00 . . . . right after WW II. Fast forward 23 years they were going for $12K. Caviler Aircraft in FL was selling "refurbished" and modernized 51's for $50K. Didn't last too long and always out of reach.

There was a "C" with a "Birdcage" cockpit / Canopy that was built up from parts. Had the RR engine and this model was the fastest and IMO, the best looking 51. Problem was pilot visibility so they went with the bubble in the "D" model.

Sometime in the 80's, Trade-A-Plane featured the "C" model mentioned above. It was painted black and has been sold and may have been repainted. My guess is that plane would command $5mil or more due to its rarity.

If memory is working and not hallucinating, the A and B models were Birdcage and had Allison engines. The C got the Packard V-1650 license built Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 as did the D and all subsequent 51's.

Somewhere in all our packed up stuff is an original issue of the Trade-A-Plane with the aforementioned rebuilt P-51 C on the cover and a nice article on the rebuild.

Best Always

426 Hemi Chicks

[AKcharger]

Hi Folks,               10 October 2021

...There was a "C" with a "Birdcage" cockpit / Canopy that was built up from parts. Had the RR engine and this model was the fastest and IMO, the best looking 51....

same here, the D model is the Camero/firebird of warplanes, everyone has one

[426HemiChick]

same here, the D model is the Camero/firebird of warplanes, everyone has one

Hi AK,                 11 October 2021

Thanks.

Now go find the T-28 of your dreams. You look like you were born to have one. They are a neat plane; that big Radial on the front does add real sex appeal and there's no mistaking the sound of a radial, which kind of reminds us of a 426 Hemi. Where have we heard several of them before?

Take Care.

Best Always

426 Hemi Chicks

[Mike DC]

  
This thing blew my mind.  A guy built a downsized flyable B-17 replica.  1/3rd-scale.  34ft wingspan.  Four working engines.


https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/a-pilot-spent-17-years-building-a-13-scale-replica-of-the-b-17-flying-fortress-bomber-and-yes-it-flies-1234634969/

[b5blue]

WOW! 

[AKcharger]

 
This thing blew my mind.  A guy built a downsized flyable B-17 replica.  1/3rd-scale.  34ft wingspan.  Four working engines.

WAIT!!!! I thought it was an RC plane...Someone FLIES IT!! holy smokes!

[LaOtto70Charger]

That is cool! 

[Troy]

 
This thing blew my mind.  A guy built a downsized flyable B-17 replica.  1/3rd-scale.  34ft wingspan.  Four working engines.

WAIT!!!! I thought it was an RC plane...Someone FLIES IT!! holy smokes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-1_JwlHO-8

Troy

[426HemiChick]

Hi Folks,                 13 October 2021

This project just proves what can be accomplished with Talent, Dedication and an obsession for perfection.

Congratulations, your B-17 is Fabulous.

We want one just like it; where's the order line?

Best Always

426 Hemi Chicks