Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on July 21, 2010, 05:47:51 PM
-
If ya got a few pennies saved up. you can own a real P51.
Including this one
(http://www.controller.com/images/Controller/fullsize/79395099.jpg)
You can get a replica for even less
http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?OHID=1133327&Manu=NORTH%20AMERICAN&Mdltxt=P-51%20MUSTANG&MdlX=Contains¬found=1
-
Chalenge is selling his P-51?
ack-ack
-
If ya got a few pennies saved up. you can own a real P51.
You can get a replica for even less
You are probably better off to save a little more though as the replicas are a little dodgy :lol :lol :lol :lol
(http://www.rv10project.net/images/Oshkosh2004/IMG_2245.jpg)
-
You are probably better off to save a little more though as the replicas are a little dodgy :lol :lol :lol :lol
(http://www.rv10project.net/images/Oshkosh2004/IMG_2245.jpg)
What... the.. hell!? :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
You are probably better off to save a little more though as the replicas are a little dodgy :lol :lol :lol :lol
(http://www.rv10project.net/images/Oshkosh2004/IMG_2245.jpg)
Ummmm....
That's an Van's RV-8. Nobody is trying to, nor ever has tried to pass it off as a P-51 replica. And they are in no way "dodgy" IMO Van's makes the best kit planes on the market today. I watched an RV-6, RV-8 and RV-4 do a formation low pass at the local airport a few weeks ago when I went to see the B-17 Aluminum Overcast. They came in fast, buzzed the tarmac, then banked to at least 60° while climbing out a heck of a lot faster then any Cessna, Piper or and Cirruss prop plane could even dream of. Build one yourself and save's a bunch of money over a factory plane too.
Also I seem to recall that Hitech flies a RV-8... so it must be fantastic. :aok
There are some good P-51 kits out there though, used to be a really neat composite airframe turbine powerplant one called thunder mustang... but I don't think they sell them any more.
I've seen a 3/4 scale home-built P-51 replica with a Lycoming 540 powerplant once, it looked, and sounded fantastic.
-
Ummmm....
That's an Van's RV-8. Nobody is trying to, nor ever has tried to pass it off as a P-51 replica. And they are in no way "dodgy" IMO Van's makes the best kit planes on the market today. I watched an RV-6, RV-8 and RV-4 do a formation low pass at the local airport a few weeks ago when I went to see the B-17 Aluminum Overcast. They came in fast, buzzed the tarmac, then banked to at least 60° while climbing out a heck of a lot faster then any Cessna, Piper or and Cirruss prop plane could even dream of. Build one yourself and save's a bunch of money over a factory plane too.
(http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz193/sf633/hulkavl3.jpg)
-
These replicas are NOT dodgy:
http://www.thundermustang.com/
http://grand51.com/
-
There are some good P-51 kits out there though, used to be a really neat composite airframe turbine powerplant one called thunder mustang... but I don't think they sell them any more.
They are looking for investors but... seriously... would you start up something right now?
-
i found this P-47 for sale... :(
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/REPUBLIC-P-47D/REPUBLIC-P-47D/1145915.htm
We started the restorations in 91-92...
too bad i didnt have an extra 2mil so i could buy it and bring it back to AH...
-
=/ I wish I got the money :lol
-
You are probably better off to save a little more though as the replicas are a little dodgy :lol :lol :lol :lol
Then why don't you buy a brand-new one?
I AM DEAD SERIOUS. (http://www.skandalshirt.com/Flugwerk/html/page.php?GID=20&SID=5) There is a German company that is building brand-new P-51 airframes, to original factory spec (with the one difference being that modern machinery can put it together much better then the originals.) They started out building brand-new Fw-190 airframes! And there's even a group out there building brand-new Me-262s, including the engines, (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html) although they are not at the point where they're outright manufacturing new airframes for commercial sale.
I want to be perfectly clear- brand-new P-51 and Fw-190 airframes are being built. Not a 3/4ths replica with a lawnmower engine; no, a real P-51 airframe. (You'll still never be able to afford one in your lifetime, but hey, it's cool!) One of the problems with old warbirds is that they've got 60+ years of strain and metal fatigue on their airframes; you have to fly them conservatively and they won't last forever. With these kits being built... these planes can take to the air in mint condition once again. And for "cheaper," too; the kit is $475,000 and the site claims you can put together a whole aircraft for around $750,000. (That translates to buying the Merlin engine, of which there are quite a few still floating around, in great condition.) Of course there are approximately eleventy billion small parts (landing gear light mounts and the like) which one would have to aqquire, but the point is that odds and ends of complete P-51s are much more plentiful then P-51 airframes themselves.
Apologies for the words words words, but every time I think about the rebirth of two of the most iconic fighter planes ever to fly, I get excited. :banana:
-
Ummmm....
That's an Van's RV-8. Nobody is trying to, nor ever has tried to pass it off as a P-51 replica. And they are in no way "dodgy" IMO Van's makes the best kit planes on the market today. I watched an RV-6, RV-8 and RV-4 do a formation low pass at the local airport a few weeks ago when I went to see the B-17 Aluminum Overcast. They came in fast, buzzed the tarmac, then banked to at least 60° while climbing out a heck of a lot faster then any Cessna, Piper or and Cirruss prop plane could even dream of. Build one yourself and save's a bunch of money over a factory plane too.
Also I seem to recall that Hitech flies a RV-8... so it must be fantastic. :aok
There are some good P-51 kits out there though, used to be a really neat composite airframe turbine powerplant one called thunder mustang... but I don't think they sell them any more.
I've seen a 3/4 scale home-built P-51 replica with a Lycoming 540 powerplant once, it looked, and sounded fantastic.
You from Eastern PA?
-
@ Demetrious
its not a brand new P-51 though. Its a replica. even though its full scale, the only way it could be a "real" P-51 is if it was made by Boeing as they own the Rights to the model since they bought out NAA.
and if you are talking about the 262 that i think you are, its also a replica as they had to make it completely from scratch.
But here is the thing. What do people consider replicas and what are the real thing?
personally, if its not the same scale and not made by the origional company or whoever has the rights to the origional plane, then its a replica. If its a war bird and is made by a new company way after it was withdrawn from service, its a replica.
-
He was careful to say they are building brand new airframes, but I kind of think you're just splitting hairs here anyway. :bolt:
-
He was careful to say they are building brand new airframes, but I kind of think you're just splitting hairs here anyway. :bolt:
and he also references a 3/4 scale P-51 with a lawnmower engine as an airframe. So in that context, i assumed that the P-51 Airframe above woud be a fair good size kit with alot of new parts.
But even if it is just the frame itself, i still wouldnt call it a new P-51. If they are building them for the purpose to make "new" P-51 i still say its a replica. Now if they are building a frame to keep an existing, "old" but an actual P-51 flying then i would say its still a real P-51. There is a double standard there, but if i were to buy one, thats how i would look at it.
if i bought the new airframe to make into a P-51, i would say its a P-51 replica as some finishing parts were from real P-51(s) but the airframe itself was built to be made into a "new" P-51.
-
and he also references a 3/4 scale P-51 with a lawnmower engine as an airframe. So in that context, i assumed that the "P-51 Airframe" above woud be a fairly complete aircraft.
But even if it is just the frame itself, i still wouldnt call it a new P-51. If they are building them for the purpose to make "new" P-51 i still say its a replica. Now if they are building a frame to keep an existing, "old" but an actual P-51 flying then i would say its still a real P-51. There is a double standard there, but if i were to buy one, thats how i would look at it.
if i bought the new airframe to make into a P-51, i would say its a P-51 replica as some finishing parts were from real P-51(s) but the airframe itself was built to be made into a "new" P-51.
-
I dont think the FAA would approve of the parts being used in original P-51s. They might be precisely the same but the way the FAA regulates things I dont think that would be allowed. Producing "kits" is one thing...
The copyright on the original NAA design will not run out until at least 2034 (maybe longer) so this company is likely paying a licensing fee. I find it interesting that it is cheaper to produce in Germany than it would be here but its a good thing to have more Mustangs even if they arent original.
-
I dont think the FAA would approve of the parts being used in original P-51s. They might be precisely the same but the way the FAA regulates things I dont think that would be allowed. Producing "kits" is one thing...
do you mean the old parts being used on the "new aircraft" or new parts on old aircraft?
I know some current "old" warbirds are multiple aircraft mixed and matched to have a complete aircraft. I also know that some aircraft have had new major parts made as you cant find the old ones.
I know on our F24 Maggies Pride the metal-tube fuselage is origional and the main wooden Wing spar is origional (was inspected and found to be in good condition), but the rest of the wing was made from completely new wood. But our conditions for restoration might be different because of the fact that it is wood...
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/airplanes/DSC01033.jpg)
-
I mean that the industry the Germans entered into is a "kit market" and that entirely new regulations (and probably fees) would come into play if they were trying to make parts for the older aircraft "type rated" as they were (or fully built aircraft either one).
If Im not mistaken the Silence Twister has the fuselage made by DG-Flugzeugbau primarily to save Silence on further regulation but also to allow DG-Flugzeugbau a small amount of business that they have lost with a decline in the sailplane market.
BTW the Twister can be purchased for around $40k (US) and is just one step above an ultralight yet its fully aerobatic and has tremendous range (600 km or so).
http://www.twisterduo.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk4_qE-nD_Q
-
would be interesting if 1 time on Mtv cribs u saw someone have a bunch of p-51's instead of all the other shat they spend there money on like gold plated toilet that has a seat that goes down on its own
-
You from Eastern PA?
Nope...
The 3/4 scale mustang I saw was at the Pocetello, ID airport. My brother and I where refuelling, (Cessna 152 :rock ) so was he. I don't think it lived there, have no idea where it was based.
-
There are a few guys in RVs who fly around as you described and we just had a B-17 nearby. It was completely surreal a little over a month ago we were waiting for an ATC release to takeoff from our Philly Metro Area airport. Looking at the TCAS page we see an airplane that'll end up being about a mile north of the field going East to West. Looking through the early morning sunlight and mist emerged a B-17 lumbering along as it positioned itself for what I imagined to be a flyby for the small airport an airshow was taking place. I have to admit I've never looked up just to see a B-17 happening along...much cool.
-
The Flugwerk 190s have either P&W or Russian radials.
http://www.flugwerk.de/ (http://www.flugwerk.de/)
-
Apologies for the words words words, but every time I think about the rebirth of two of the most iconic fighter planes ever to fly, I get excited. :banana:
The spitfire and the 109? :P
-
This kit plane WISHES it had a lawnmower engine.
(http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz348/MajChaos/Airport%202010/IMG_1262-Copy2.jpg)
And a RV-8 that flew in for the day. :salute
(http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz348/MajChaos/Airport%202010/IMG_1262-Copy2.jpg)
-
But even if it is just the frame itself, i still wouldnt call it a new P-51. If they are building them for the purpose to make "new" P-51 i still say its a replica.
Personally, I consider a "replica" to be an exact reproduction of the original. For example, Springfield manufactures a 1911 .45 pistol that is an exact replica of the original GI army pistol the Springfield Armory manufactured in WWII- they make the same gun, from the same factory drawings. These are replicas, yes, but if you tried to look me in the eye and tell me they aren't a "real" GI 1911, because they were manufactured 50 years after the war- despite being identical- I would be forced to punch you in the gizzard. Literally forced; it's an involuntary reflex.
You sound exactly like those guys at gun shows who try to sell me beat-to-shit M1As for twice the price of a new one because they're "all original matching serial numbers." Or those people who insist that the prints of a great ink-drawing artwork are just "trash reproductions" and only the original paper with the ink on it can be called "art," although they all hit the eye and the emotions with the same weight.
Now I'll readily agree that the "intangible" nature of historical value is important. Whether it be as grand as the Flying Bockscar or as chillingly humble as a beat-up Mosin Nagant at a gun show with a stock still stained with the blood of the Russian soldier who died holding it, the fact that you are looking at or touching a remnant of a history that happened is powerful. But by the same token, a new creation of an old model has an intangible value all it's own. The fact that you can buy a brand-new Springfield GI 1911 makes the gun a part of living history, not just a remembered one. Recall the awe of the characters in Jurassic Park when they saw living, breathing dinosaurs again walking the earth- that's the same magic to be found in a new P-51.
I dont think the FAA would approve of the parts being used in original P-51s. They might be precisely the same but the way the FAA regulates things I dont think that would be allowed. Producing "kits" is one thing...
You're right- the German kit frames are designated "AP-51s" (The "Palamino" Mustang) to distinguish them from 1940s originals per FAA regulations. One reason for that (as stated on their site) is to avoid confusion with "original" Mustang parts. Even though they're identical parts, the difference is important to note for the same reason people advertise old rifles having "matching serial numbers-" simply because many people do care about the "originality" for whatever reason.
The reason that matters to the FAA, I suspect, is one of simple safety- in a complex vehicle that's going to be put under physical strain while carrying a person in it, it's important to know the age of the materials constituting the airframe. If your right main spar was manufactured in 1945- in an era where metallurgy and quality control thereof were less advanced- and it's been put through 50 years of strain and stress in flight, and your left main spar is brand-spanking-new- well, you need to be aware of that. Unknowingly putting together a "Frankenstien" plane can be dangerous.
-
Personally, I consider a "replica" to be an exact reproduction of the original. For example, Springfield manufactures a 1911 .45 pistol that is an exact replica of the original GI army pistol the Springfield Armory manufactured in WWII- they make the same gun, from the same factory drawings. These are replicas, yes, but if you tried to look me in the eye and tell me they aren't a "real" GI 1911, because they were manufactured 50 years after the war- despite being identical- I would be forced to punch you in the gizzard. Literally forced; it's an involuntary reflex.
You sound exactly like those guys at gun shows who try to sell me beat-to-toejam M1As for twice the price of a new one because they're "all original matching serial numbers." Or those people who insist that the prints of a great ink-drawing artwork are just "trash reproductions" and only the original paper with the ink on it can be called "art," although they all hit the eye and the emotions with the same weight.
Now I'll readily agree that the "intangible" nature of historical value is important. Whether it be as grand as the Flying Bockscar or as chillingly humble as a beat-up Mosin Nagant at a gun show with a stock still stained with the blood of the Russian soldier who died holding it, the fact that you are looking at or touching a remnant of a history that happened is powerful. But by the same token, a new creation of an old model has an intangible value all it's own. The fact that you can buy a brand-new Springfield GI 1911 makes the gun a part of living history, not just a remembered one. Recall the awe of the characters in Jurassic Park when they saw living, breathing dinosaurs again walking the earth- that's the same magic to be found in a new P-51.
You're right- the German kit frames are designated "AP-51s" (The "Palamino" Mustang) to distinguish them from 1940s originals per FAA regulations. One reason for that (as stated on their site) is to avoid confusion with "original" Mustang parts. Even though they're identical parts, the difference is important to note for the same reason people advertise old rifles having "matching serial numbers-" simply because many people do care about the "originality" for whatever reason.
The reason that matters to the FAA, I suspect, is one of simple safety- in a complex vehicle that's going to be put under physical strain while carrying a person in it, it's important to know the age of the materials constituting the airframe. If your right main spar was manufactured in 1945- in an era where metallurgy and quality control thereof were less advanced- and it's been put through 50 years of strain and stress in flight, and your left main spar is brand-spanking-new- well, you need to be aware of that. Unknowingly putting together a "Frankenstien" plane can be dangerous.
"punch you in the gizzard"
What a great post! I couldn't agree more. :aok
<S>
-
The reason that matters to the FAA, I suspect, is one of simple safety- in a complex vehicle that's going to be put under physical strain while carrying a person in it, it's important to know the age of the materials constituting the airframe. If your right main spar was manufactured in 1945- in an era where metallurgy and quality control thereof were less advanced- and it's been put through 50 years of strain and stress in flight, and your left main spar is brand-spanking-new- well, you need to be aware of that. Unknowingly putting together a "Frankenstien" plane can be dangerous.
In a way your right but I suspect the restrictions are more of a burden when proving compliance for approval. Surplus military aircraft are a special restricted category and would probably require more time in paperwork and incur greater costs in certification.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgOrders.nsf/0/58D0FAB19EBE74ED862574A5005232D8?OpenDocument
This is why a lot of "kit" manufacturers do not produce the same plane as a completed type.
-
There are a few guys in RVs who fly around as you described and we just had a B-17 nearby. It was completely surreal a little over a month ago we were waiting for an ATC release to takeoff from our Philly Metro Area airport. Looking at the TCAS page we see an airplane that'll end up being about a mile north of the field going East to West. Looking through the early morning sunlight and mist emerged a B-17 lumbering along as it positioned itself for what I imagined to be a flyby for the small airport an airshow was taking place. I have to admit I've never looked up just to see a B-17 happening along...much cool.
I loved that my HS was nearby the 101 freeway and aproach to Van Nuys Airport, you would get about once a month a random flyby during lunch or resses of a group of old WWII warbirds flying low in formation on their aproach to Van Nuys, typicaly some P-47s but once a year about you'd see a B-25, 17, or C47 flying along in with the "regulars".
-
In a way your right but I suspect the restrictions are more of a burden when proving compliance for approval. Surplus military aircraft are a special restricted category and would probably require more time in paperwork and incur greater costs in certification.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgOrders.nsf/0/58D0FAB19EBE74ED862574A5005232D8?OpenDocument
This is why a lot of "kit" manufacturers do not produce the same plane as a completed type.
hell, the FAA is rediculous with paperwork... We have been trying to get 3 aircraft registered now for the last 3 or so years and have just now gotten one of them done.
-
I meant this kit
(http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz348/MajChaos/Airport%202010/IMG_1306.jpg)
-
They are looking for investors but... seriously... would you start up something right now?
Typically, people invest when the economy is "down".. as it is right now because typically it is going to up since it is as low as it typcially gets.
-
One decent P-51 replica outfit was the Thunder Mustang. Unfortunately they have fallen on
hard times, so it is no longer an option. I admit to not being as up on aviation stuff as I was before
I got canned, I seem to remember something about the original owner being killed in a test flight.
http://www.thundermustang.com/ (http://www.thundermustang.com/)