PDA

View Full Version : Build new WWII aircraft



Wildnoob
02-12-2009, 12:44 PM
hello ladies and gentlemens!

I creat a topic yesterday focused in know the reasons of not build much new WWII aicraft today. the topic stay too long and not clear with wat I was in mind and I don't liked, so I delete it and if you folks allowed I creat this one try expressive me better of a doubth I have.

today I know that a few WWII planes where built in limited production lines of course. in Germany some original ME-262's where build (but not using their original engines), alongside with a FW-190 D9 if I'm not wrong (though not remember if was a o genuine model or a small replica). in Australia a limited production line of Ki-43's was opened and in the own Russia if I'm not wrong piston engine Yak's models 3 and 9 where also build. but I was thinking, there are many WWII aicraft that not a single exemplair exist today.

for example, one of my favorite aicrafts - the B5N - that just a few parts exist today.

take a look at this link :

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b5n/5353.html

"Although reported as a restorable airframe, with so few parts available, and general lack of interest in Japanese aircraft, it seems this wreck will remain unrestored, at least for the time being."

"The wreckage consists of a wing set, and center fuselage, missing everything forward of the cockpit".

let's say a person would buy this B5N wreckage intended to be restored. the wings, the engine, in pratical terms a new B5N would be build. the point I want to get is to know why a new B5N or any other new non existed WWII today can't or why is so difficult to be build ? just lack of interess as it was with the case of the B5N wreckage ? I know that you guys are may thinking that this isn't simple as my words, but if happen with other planes, I are in doubth if cannot be done by others. but I don't know if they can be build with historical precision with the industrial machines of today. say that because the Yak's production I cited above where build with original production machines. but we have modern drawing computers for design with precision all aicraft. we have their specifications, so I don't belive that is not possible to build a new non existed WWII aicraft today. but would like to have a confirmation. the production costs of course would not be very low, but it's possible. I would like to ask the same about engines. many WWII aicraft today don't use their original engines but rather similary ones. the coasts would be very high, but isn't possible to build their original engines ?

in a summary, I would like to know if it's possible to do this in fact. sorry for the idiot doubths, it's just curiosity from my part to know the reasons of this not be very comm today.

Woke_Up_Dead
02-12-2009, 03:28 PM
I think a lot of those planes that were rebuilt/restored from a wreck were done as a labour of love by old airplane mechanics or even pilots who flew them. Not many of those people are around anymore.

Wildnoob
02-12-2009, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
I think a lot of those planes that were rebuilt/restored from a wreck were done as a labour of love by old airplane mechanics or even pilots who flew them. Not many of those people are around anymore.

I understand buddy.

even that they are not going to be used for war anymore and thefore are used mostly by civilians, most civilian flyiers preffer modern and more simple planes. but of course not everybody. me for example, would want to fly a Ki-27 for aerobatic fligth then a Extra or Su-31 for example. there are risks I belive, because the Ki-27 has a very fragile structure. in a hipotetic case of own one, for fly it with frequency it would need constant mechanic revisions to see the condition of the structure of the plane. but even like that I wouldn't think in not be able to fly it in a utopic oportunity. the engines for the ME-262's produced in German that I cited above where similary but modern ones. in this case it's a basic thing for the pilot's safe, because we all know how unreliable and dangeours the original engines are.

there are replicas of the B5N's for example, that where constructured for the movie tora tora tora and used in others using the T-6 stucture. they make frequent fligths in the USA if I'm not wrong. but like in the link of the news of the only B5N wreckage that was found on land, there are generally lack of interess for other less relevant types aircraft. even because the replicas that with sure give the idea of how the plane was to the public in airshows. if everyone here from the community would be milionary I think that things would be much different. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

but even like that, I still hope that much more non existence or few WWII planes for all sides be constructed or restored for us apreciate then, even that just in musems. though I are still in doubth, because even that few millionares like WWII planes, they exist. I gonna search for this subject to see wat I gonna find and gonna post the informations here.

thank you very much for everybody who just acess this topic. this community is like a familiy for me, because you guys have the pacient to always help me.

ElAurens
02-12-2009, 05:49 PM
The issue is simply about money.

The folks that will put up the huge number of dollars to build or restore an aircraft all want something that is "cool" to them, and largely they want an aircraft from their own country.

Japanese torpedo bombers come pretty low in that set of criteria.

If I had the cash, I'd want a Ki61, but the fact that there is no appropriate engine would stop me from doing it. I might settle for a Ki100 as you could substitute a Twin Wasp and get away with it.

I'd also seriously consider a Curtiss Hawk 75, or even more exotic, a Curtiss Hawk III.

jarink
02-12-2009, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
I want to get is to know why a new B5N or any other new non existed WWII today can't or why is so difficult to be build ? just lack of interess as it was with the case of the B5N wreckage ? I know that you guys are may thinking that this isn't simple as my words, but if happen with other planes, I are in doubth if cannot be done by others. but I don't know if they can be build with historical precision with the industrial machines of today. say that because the Yak's production I cited above where build with original production machines. but we have modern drawing computers for design with precision all aicraft. we have their specifications, so I don't belive that is not possible to build a new non existed WWII aicraft today. but would like to have a confirmation. the production costs of course would not be very low, but it's possible. I would like to ask the same about engines. many WWII aicraft today don't use their original engines but rather similary ones. the coasts would be very high, but isn't possible to build their original engines ?

Having all the drawings and technical manuals is only one small part of the puzzle. Lack of the proper machine tools, jigs and other specialized equipment that was used on most production lines is usually very hard to come by, especially for Axis aircraft. Sure, with modern techniques many specialized parts can be fairly easily replicated, but these techniques often don't lend themselves well to mass production.

Let's suppose for a moment that someone decided to manufacture all-new build B-25s. Not only would there have to be enough interested customers, but the manufacturer would also have to have the planes inspected and approved by the FAA. (Even Experimental class planes must have some proof of airworthiness). Experimental class planes are also much more costly to insure than regular production planes. The overall costs just don't justify building obsolete planes.

Most flying warbirds have been rebuilt to some extent, but such restorations typically take several years and a lot of money.

Wildnoob
02-12-2009, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Japanese torpedo bombers come pretty low in that set of criteria.

had constructed the B5N replicas that where used in some movies where the B5N took part in and more comm in airshows in the USA was very interesting for know a very relavant plane for it's nation conquests early in the war. you guys may be thinking "Wildnoob is a B5N fanatic, he just talk about this plane". before anything similary to this be say, I would like to say that not, I don't have obcession for this plane at point of fanatism. it's my favorite attack aircraft in all the military aviation history. I like all sorts of planes. may I have been a little extremist saying this, but it's just something that I would say to people understand my way of think about it, even because I think that I are using this plane as example many times. but I gonna use other examples in this subject.

Wildnoob
02-12-2009, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
I want to get is to know why a new B5N or any other new non existed WWII today can't or why is so difficult to be build ? just lack of interess as it was with the case of the B5N wreckage ? I know that you guys are may thinking that this isn't simple as my words, but if happen with other planes, I are in doubth if cannot be done by others. but I don't know if they can be build with historical precision with the industrial machines of today. say that because the Yak's production I cited above where build with original production machines. but we have modern drawing computers for design with precision all aicraft. we have their specifications, so I don't belive that is not possible to build a new non existed WWII aicraft today. but would like to have a confirmation. the production costs of course would not be very low, but it's possible. I would like to ask the same about engines. many WWII aicraft today don't use their original engines but rather similary ones. the coasts would be very high, but isn't possible to build their original engines ?

Having all the drawings and technical manuals is only one small part of the puzzle. Lack of the proper machine tools, jigs and other specialized equipment that was used on most production lines is usually very hard to come by, especially for Axis aircraft. Sure, with modern techniques many specialized parts can be fairly easily replicated, but these techniques often don't lend themselves well to mass production.

Let's suppose for a moment that someone decided to manufacture all-new build B-25s. Not only would there have to be enough interested customers, but the manufacturer would also have to have the planes inspected and approved by the FAA. (Even Experimental class planes must have some proof of airworthiness). Experimental class planes are also much more costly to insure than regular production planes. The overall costs just don't justify building obsolete planes.

Most flying warbirds have been rebuilt to some extent, but such restorations typically take several years and a lot of money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was against the obviosly really. if it's not comm should be have some reason. thank you very much for your explanation jarink. I was thinking that things where much more simple, even when I say that was not thinking that way in my first post on this topic.

Zeus-cat
02-12-2009, 06:53 PM
I literally just got home from working on a B-17 that is being restored. We are over three years into the project and we expect it will take a total of 8 to 10 years. I put in 2.5 hours after work as I typically do every Thursday. Other people work 20-40 hours a week. Most are volunteers, but a few are paid. The cost to restore this plane will easily be several million dollars.

Many of the parts must be hand made. Two of us have been working on the pilot's seat for several months. We have weeks to go before it is finished. All of the parts that Boeing made in seconds takes us hours as most parts are made without the tooling they had.

To get an idea of the cost factor in the raw material, the tools, the paid labor, drawings, computers to view the drawings, large printers/plotters, paint, paper, ink, rivets (tens of thousands of them in all sizes), rent for a hangar for 10 years, electricity and heat for the hangar, the cost of all the parts that MUST be purchased (example is four new engines), etc.

Wildnoob
02-13-2009, 04:54 AM
sorry for the creation of this topic guys. I have to repeat that I though that things where much more simple even when say that wasn't thinking that way. I'm very ashamed for been created this topic with my child thoughs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

thank you very much for your soberb pacient and attention folks!

M_Gunz
02-13-2009, 07:43 AM
Perhaps instead of thinking badly of your effort, you may see an open door into interest in understanding manufacturing processes.
Even to small things, hobby or shop, creating models, all productive and educating ways to spend time.

Wildnoob
02-13-2009, 07:53 AM
thank you very much for your words M_Gunz!

Wildnoob
02-13-2009, 08:32 AM
I gonna try improve this topic :

http://www.j-aircraft.com/relics/relics.htm

take a look at this site folks. I discovery many interesting things about Japanese aircraft wreckages that where rescued and restored.

K_Freddie
02-13-2009, 04:30 PM
Flugwerk (http://www.flugwerk.de/)

Xiolablu3
02-13-2009, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
sorry for the creation of this topic guys. I have to repeat that I though that things where much more simple even when say that wasn't thinking that way. I'm very ashamed for been created this topic with my child thoughs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

thank you very much for your soberb pacient and attention folks!

CHill out Wildnoob, the topic and thread is fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In fact its interesting compared to many of the daft topics that sometimes get posted here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tully__
02-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Another factor is safety, many of the aircraft of WW2 were at the cutting edge of technology for the time and hadn't been in use long enough to iron out all of the safety kinks. I've seen comments from pilots who've flown examples of the A6M (Zero) who were almost too scared to climb in the cockpit for fear of accidentally kicking holes in the aircraft skin because it was so thin to save weight. This sort of design choice was acceptable at the time because of the military need, but to try to get type approval for production of exact replicas would be difficult and insurance would be even more of a problem.

Of course if you haven enough money, exact replicas are not a problem. There are quite a few examples around of people who have built exact scale miniature versions of historical engines, and in some cases life size versions. All that is required is money and time. Unfortunately as has already been pointed out, it requires a very large amount of money and time and you may not be able to legally fly the end result in many countries.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2009, 03:36 AM
Sometimes restored aircraft contain a large amount of new build.

eindecker
02-14-2009, 04:20 AM
To build replica US aircraft you will have to deal with law suits.
Most if not all US combat planes of the era are protected
in some way by copywrights.
The other problem is the items that are not easily reproduced such as engines and landing gear.
Engines are another copywright and patent problem.
If you are building a radial powered aircraft, engines
are not a big problem as there are
a lot of surplus commercial and military engines on the world market
from the US and former eastern block nations.
Liquid cooled engines are as scarce as hens teeth.
I doubt Rolls Royce / Allison (they merged) would
let you build new Merlins or V-1710's.
Curtiss is still alive and well, but not in the airplane business.
Piper holds the rights to the P-51.
All the big airframe companys are still around
although merged many times.
I bet their lawyers will happily sue you into the stone age if you sttempt a new manufacture.

Tully has a valid point. Fighter planes are inherently dangerous.
Few of the combat planes of WWII are airworthy by todays standards.
None, not even the airliners could get certafied for passenger use if built new today.

That said the "restoration" market is doing well.
In the US all you need is a serial number and a data plate.
Sorry, that is a slight exaggeration.
But take the case of the restoration of the only P-61 that will be airworthy.
I bet there is not one gram of original material in the aircraft.
It is entirely new built from prints and copied from a recovered wreck.

Same went for the "Texas Airplane Factory" Grumman F3F-3 biplanes.
Recovered wrecks gave them the numbers and a few odd bits.
The planes were entirely new.

Eindecker

Wildnoob
02-14-2009, 05:40 AM
I don't have words about your soberb attention and pacient with me folks. my english and grammar are very poor, hope that it's possible to understand wat I say.

thank you very much great ace aviator's!

ElAurens
02-14-2009, 09:17 AM
wildnoob, you are quite understanable, and it's good post.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BTW, new build P51s are available from a firm in California.

Wildnoob
02-14-2009, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
wildnoob, you are quite understanable, and it's good post.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BTW, new build P51s are available from a firm in California.

thank you buddy, really thank you. I have very few friends, I mean the ones that I can really say that are my friends. and gonna have to say that I considerate everybody here as my finest friends.

and thank you for the info about the P-51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I promisse that if I gain in the lottery I gonna buy a lot of warbirds as the money allow me and gonna make a encounter and envite everybody here to apreciate and fly them. even if have to pay a basic fligth school for you folks. maybe I gonna have to gain not one but a few times to be able to do this, but I promisse that if happen it's really going to be. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

eindecker
02-15-2009, 10:40 AM
The only company offering major P-51 airframe comonents
is Flug Werk.
Those are the folks offering complete Fw-190D kits.
Read it here.
http://www.flugwerk.de/p51.shtm

Note they plan to offer the complete airframe in it's
various components parts sold seperately.
Note also they can not be registered in the US.
FAA, insurance and copywright issues prevent anyone
from offering complete new buit airframes.
Piper has the rights and last built a P-51
in the 1980's as the Piper "Enforcer".
I did some web searching and found that the plans to
build complete airframes in California was scrapped.
I bet Piper was the primary reason.

Eindecker

Wildnoob
02-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by eindecker:
The only company offering major P-51 airframe comonents
is Flug Werk.
Those are the folks offering complete Fw-190D kits.
Read it here.
http://www.flugwerk.de/p51.shtm

Note they plan to offer the complete airframe in it's
various components parts sold seperately.
Note also they can not be registered in the US.
FAA, insurance and copywright issues prevent anyone
from offering complete new buit airframes.
Piper has the rights and last built a P-51
in the 1980's as the Piper "Enforcer".
I did some web searching and found that the plans to
build complete airframes in California was scrapped.
I bet Piper was the primary reason.

Eindecker

thank you very much for the informations buddy!

I respect the opinion from their comapanies of course, even because is was they that create the planes and have the copywrights from them. but at same side in my personal opinion it's sad that Piper and other companies don't let build their planes, even that without any modifications and totally like the historical production ones. anyway, we have to respect their opinions. altough not all companies think that way. the Mitsubish that build or restored a original Sake 12 engine for a A6M5 is an example. I only know of two A6M's in fligth condition today, and only one, this I have sure that have his original engine. the other used a similary one. sad that in IL2 Grumman did not allow by copywrights the TBF Avenger be modeleted as flyable and Oleg don't modeled the B5N as flyable as well, thefore we didn't have any flyable carrier born torpedo bomber though the history of the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Buzzsaw-
02-16-2009, 05:31 PM
Salute

Unless you have a LOT of money, you will not get the opportunity to own one of these aircraft.

There are also companys which produce replica, lower scale versions. Some are pretty amateurish, the best is the Supermarine Company which produces a 90% version of the Spitfire:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/2/9/1020923.jpg

Woke_Up_Dead
02-16-2009, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Unless you have a LOT of money, you will not get the opportunity to own one of these aircraft.

There are also companys which produce replica, lower scale versions. Some are pretty amateurish, the best is the Supermarine Company which produces a 90% version of the Spitfire:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/2/9/1020923.jpg

Aaaah, now I know why those brand-new looking Spitfires and Mustangs I saw at an airshow years ago seemed too small to me.

Your picture looks like a replica of a plane from the 303 (Polish) squadron. I think the ace Jan Zumbach had the Donald Duck insignia.

Viper2005_
02-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The issue is simply about money.

The folks that will put up the huge number of dollars to build or restore an aircraft all want something that is "cool" to them, and largely they want an aircraft from their own country.

Japanese torpedo bombers come pretty low in that set of criteria.

If I had the cash, I'd want a Ki61, but the fact that there is no appropriate engine would stop me from doing it. I might settle for a Ki100 as you could substitute a Twin Wasp and get away with it.


Given enough money you can just build a new engine. As you said, it really does just come down to money. The thing is that most people <span class="ev_code_red">dramatically</span> underestimate just how much money it takes to build aeroplanes. Especially "interesting" ones.