Why were almost all of them scrapped?

[[email protected]]

Didn't ANYBODY after WW2 have the love of airplanes and the foresight
to buy at least one military airplane, especially since they were so
cheap? What were they thinking?! Did they not see the value of these
planes for future generations? Why didn't some civilians simply buy a
B-17 for $700 and park it in their yard? Land is cheap in rural areas.
These airplanes are so precious to me. I have loved the glory of ww2
fighters and bombers since the earliest childhood.

Another question: if someone had the money, would it be possible to use
blueprints to build perfect reproductions of airplanes like the B-17
and P-40?

[Roger]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:34:46 -0500, Chuck Harris
> wrote:

wrote:
>> Didn't ANYBODY after WW2 have the love of airplanes and the foresight
>> to buy at least one military airplane, especially since they were so
>> cheap? What were they thinking?! Did they not see the value of these
>> planes for future generations? Why didn't some civilians simply buy a
>> B-17 for $700 and park it in their yard? Land is cheap in rural areas.
>> These airplanes are so precious to me. I have loved the glory of ww2
>> fighters and bombers since the earliest childhood.
>>
>> Another question: if someone had the money, would it be possible to use
>> blueprints to build perfect reproductions of airplanes like the B-17
>> and P-40?

Back in the 70's I had a chance to purchase 5 P-51s down in Texas. for
something like $4,000 or $5,000 each. They even had gas in them. I
had a good paying job, and this would have been about a years wages.
course I had enough skill to fly a Piper Colt and about a half hour in
a tail dragger.
>
>At the behest of the US airplane manufacturers, most were scrapped
>to avoid flooding the US market with cheap planes... something that surely
>would have forced many manufacturers out of business.
>
"Boat loads" of new airplanes still in crates on the lend lease
program were pushed overboard into the ocean. Being these were planes
like the F4U Corsair they would have had little impact on the the us
manufacturers as there were few with the ability to fly them and fewer
still who could have afforded to maintain and fly one.


>But they weren't all scrapped. Tens of thousands were bought by civilian's
>for various reasons. Some became water bombers used by the forest service,
>some became shelters and hunting cabins, some were bought by enthusiastic
>collecters, and parked in fields until the mice and birds destroyed all
>but the hulks, some are flying on poles acting as canapies for gas pumps,
>some are posed to look like they crashed into buildings... and some are
>in the skies thanks to the efforts of some of the most generous restorers
>in the world.
>
>Mustangs have been built almost entirely from scratch, you can buy new
>manufactured replica parts for just about any part in the plane. There

And they give new meaning to "expensive parts"<:-))

>is a group that is manufacturing replica German fighters too. Money

If you are referring to the ME262 they are only doing 5 last I heard.
That project has moved around a bit, but I think they have at least 2
flying now.

http://www.rogerhalstead.com/me262.htm Is a photo of the original
loaned to the project to use as a model for the construction of the
new aircraft. It was on static display in front of the Willow Grove
Naval Air Station a ways north of Philadelphia. The photo was shot in
the Fall of 1984 as were the ones of the Orion P-3s.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>talks, but remember, the effort required to tool up the US manufacturers
>to make these planes in the first place was greater in scope than the
>NASA moon launches.
>
>It only takes about 10 minutes of research to find this out. I thought
>you said WWII planes meant a lot to you?
>
>-Chuck

[vincent p. norris]

> Being these were planes like the F4U Corsair they would have had little impact on the the us
>manufacturers as there were few with the ability to fly them .....

There were thousands if not hundreds of thousands of guys who had
been through military flight training; any of them should have been
able to fly the F4U--perhaps after a few refresher hours in the SNJ
(T-6). After all, the guys who flew them during WW II and Korea got
into them after only a little more than 200 hours of flight training.
Possibly less than that during the early days, when we desperately
needed pilots. (Yes, I realize some managed to kill themselves, but
people do that in cars and Piper Cubs, too.)

>and fewer still who could have afforded to maintain and fly one.

Now you've hit the nail on the head! I would have bought a U-bird in
a minute had I been able to afford one.

vince norris





>
>
>>But they weren't all scrapped. Tens of thousands were bought by civilian's
>>for various reasons. Some became water bombers used by the forest service,
>>some became shelters and hunting cabins, some were bought by enthusiastic
>>collecters, and parked in fields until the mice and birds destroyed all
>>but the hulks, some are flying on poles acting as canapies for gas pumps,
>>some are posed to look like they crashed into buildings... and some are
>>in the skies thanks to the efforts of some of the most generous restorers
>>in the world.
>>
>>Mustangs have been built almost entirely from scratch, you can buy new
>>manufactured replica parts for just about any part in the plane. There
>
>And they give new meaning to "expensive parts"<:-))
>
>>is a group that is manufacturing replica German fighters too. Money
>
>If you are referring to the ME262 they are only doing 5 last I heard.
>That project has moved around a bit, but I think they have at least 2
>flying now.
>
>http://www.rogerhalstead.com/me262.htm Is a photo of the original
>loaned to the project to use as a model for the construction of the
>new aircraft. It was on static display in front of the Willow Grove
>Naval Air Station a ways north of Philadelphia. The photo was shot in
>the Fall of 1984 as were the ones of the Orion P-3s.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>>talks, but remember, the effort required to tool up the US manufacturers
>>to make these planes in the first place was greater in scope than the
>>NASA moon launches.
>>
>>It only takes about 10 minutes of research to find this out. I thought
>>you said WWII planes meant a lot to you?
>>
>>-Chuck

[109]

flugwerk.de also make a new fw-190, and replica P-40s have and are
still being made around the world, but your looking at over $1m usd for
something airworthy, replica or original.

[Roger]

On 18 Nov 2005 21:27:51 -0800, "109" > wrote:

>flugwerk.de also make a new fw-190, and replica P-40s have and are
>still being made around the world, but your looking at over $1m usd for
>something airworthy, replica or original.

I think you can still find the occasional airworthy P-51 for a bit
over half a million, but that is because there are so many of them,
relatively speaking. The F4U is very rare and they are up into the
millions.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:05:27 -0500, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

>> Being these were planes like the F4U Corsair they would have had little impact on the the us
>>manufacturers as there were few with the ability to fly them .....
>
>There were thousands if not hundreds of thousands of guys who had
>been through military flight training; any of them should have been
>able to fly the F4U--perhaps after a few refresher hours in the SNJ
>(T-6). After all, the guys who flew them during WW II and Korea got
>into them after only a little more than 200 hours of flight training.

According to a program on the Discovery channel they were putting guys
into Spitfires that would be the equivelant of a low time solo student
now days.

>Possibly less than that during the early days, when we desperately
>needed pilots. (Yes, I realize some managed to kill themselves, but
>people do that in cars and Piper Cubs, too.)

The F4U also is *big*, heavy, and although a carrier bird is not
exactly a short field plane.

>
>>and fewer still who could have afforded to maintain and fly one.
>
>Now you've hit the nail on the head! I would have bought a U-bird in
>a minute had I been able to afford one.

I don't remember if they hald a larger engine than the "Jug", but I
think they did. The Jug ran a miserly 80 to 90 gallons per hour at
economy cruise as I recall.

I'd like to have one of the tricycle gear Skyraiders. I think most of
those were tail draggers. That thing is huge and had the largest
radial engine we ever used, as far as I know.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>vince norris
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>But they weren't all scrapped. Tens of thousands were bought by civilian's
>>>for various reasons. Some became water bombers used by the forest service,
>>>some became shelters and hunting cabins, some were bought by enthusiastic
>>>collecters, and parked in fields until the mice and birds destroyed all
>>>but the hulks, some are flying on poles acting as canapies for gas pumps,
>>>some are posed to look like they crashed into buildings... and some are
>>>in the skies thanks to the efforts of some of the most generous restorers
>>>in the world.
>>>
>>>Mustangs have been built almost entirely from scratch, you can buy new
>>>manufactured replica parts for just about any part in the plane. There
>>
>>And they give new meaning to "expensive parts"<:-))
>>
>>>is a group that is manufacturing replica German fighters too. Money
>>
>>If you are referring to the ME262 they are only doing 5 last I heard.
>>That project has moved around a bit, but I think they have at least 2
>>flying now.
>>
>>http://www.rogerhalstead.com/me262.htm Is a photo of the original
>>loaned to the project to use as a model for the construction of the
>>new aircraft. It was on static display in front of the Willow Grove
>>Naval Air Station a ways north of Philadelphia. The photo was shot in
>>the Fall of 1984 as were the ones of the Orion P-3s.
>>
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>
>>>talks, but remember, the effort required to tool up the US manufacturers
>>>to make these planes in the first place was greater in scope than the
>>>NASA moon launches.
>>>
>>>It only takes about 10 minutes of research to find this out. I thought
>>>you said WWII planes meant a lot to you?
>>>
>>>-Chuck

[vincent p. norris]

>According to a program on the Discovery channel they were putting guys
>into Spitfires that would be the equivelant of a low time solo student
>now days.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's true, but I've heard a lot of
"facts" on the Discovery Channel (and the History Channel) that were
NOT true.

I doubt their writers are well-trained in historical research and
evaluation of sources. There's a lot of nonsense in books, too, which
those writers probably draw on as 'gospel."

Did you know, for example, that the top speed of the Vultee BT-13 was
190 miles per hour?
>
>The F4U also is *big*, heavy, and although a carrier bird is not
>exactly a short field plane.

There was a recent discussion of that in another newsgroup and I was
surprised at how quickly an F4U can get off. I don't remember the
number, but I think it was around 2,000 feet.

>I don't remember if they hald a larger engine than the "Jug", but I
>think they did.

Both the P-47 ands the F4U had the PW R-2800 engine. I vaguely recal
that the Goodyear FG-1, based on the F4U, may have had a larger
engine.

> The Jug ran a miserly 80 to 90 gallons per hour at
>economy cruise as I recall.

That sounds about right.
>
>I'd like to have one of the tricycle gear Skyraiders. I think most of
>those were tail draggers.

I've never even HEARD of an AD that was not a tail dragger. Do you
know if there's a picture of a tricycle gear AD on the net?

>That thing is huge and had the largest
>radial engine we ever used, as far as I know.

I think it was a 3350. I think there was a 43XX radial that was used
on the Connie or the DC7, but my memory is quite vague on that.

vince norris

[109]

the average P-51 price is 1.5m usd, ive seen stock p-51's not flown
since ww2 for 500k, and some for 1.1m in need of restorations but
ferriable.

definately not worth the money.

[109]

roger, as for the spitfire comment they got it wrong. they were basic
pilots (50 or so hours) then had 9 hours of COMBAT training before
joining the bob

[109]

vincient i think he has the skyraider confused with the T-28, both look
similer, one trike one taildragger, both navy.

[Roger]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:46:14 -0500, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

<snip>
>
>> The Jug ran a miserly 80 to 90 gallons per hour at
>>economy cruise as I recall.
>
>That sounds about right.
>>
>>I'd like to have one of the tricycle gear Skyraiders. I think most of
>>those were tail draggers.
>
>I've never even HEARD of an AD that was not a tail dragger. Do you
>know if there's a picture of a tricycle gear AD on the net?

I've been searching, but not found any yet. It may just a faulty
memory, but I'm sure I saw one some place.

>
>>That thing is huge and had the largest
>>radial engine we ever used, as far as I know.
>
>I think it was a 3350.

Same engine as on the B-29.

Early versions were 2500 HP and later versions were 2800 HP. How'd
you like to feed that for a trip from coast to coast? All that fuel
with about the same cruse when light (maybe 15,000#?) as a Bonanza..

I believe the 3350 was the largest every used on a single engine
airframe, but here were larger on multi engine planes.


> I think there was a 43XX radial that was used
>on the Connie or the DC7, but my memory is quite vague on that.
>
>vince norris
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On 19 Nov 2005 19:28:25 -0800, "109" > wrote:

>roger, as for the spitfire comment they got it wrong. they were basic
>pilots (50 or so hours) then had 9 hours of COMBAT training before
>joining the bob

That sounds more like the times, but it's still less than the average
to get the PPL now days<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Robert Bates]

The Goodyear FG Corsairs ran the 4360 as did the Martin Mauler and the
Republic XP-72 until the contract was cancelled just after acceptance
testing. The 4360 was also in the Boeing 377, B-36, B-50 and some others.
There was also the Lycoming 7755 which was 36 cylinders with variable valve
timing. Initial tests indicated 5000 hp with projected top hp of 7000
but... then came the turbines. I think the Smithsonian has the only
remaining example.



"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:46:14 -0500, vincent p. norris >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >> The Jug ran a miserly 80 to 90 gallons per hour at
> >>economy cruise as I recall.
> >
> >That sounds about right.
> >>
> >>I'd like to have one of the tricycle gear Skyraiders. I think most of
> >>those were tail draggers.
> >
> >I've never even HEARD of an AD that was not a tail dragger. Do you
> >know if there's a picture of a tricycle gear AD on the net?
>
> I've been searching, but not found any yet. It may just a faulty
> memory, but I'm sure I saw one some place.
>
> >
> >>That thing is huge and had the largest
> >>radial engine we ever used, as far as I know.
> >
> >I think it was a 3350.
>
> Same engine as on the B-29.
>
> Early versions were 2500 HP and later versions were 2800 HP. How'd
> you like to feed that for a trip from coast to coast? All that fuel
> with about the same cruse when light (maybe 15,000#?) as a Bonanza..
>
> I believe the 3350 was the largest every used on a single engine
> airframe, but here were larger on multi engine planes.
>
>
> > I think there was a 43XX radial that was used
> >on the Connie or the DC7, but my memory is quite vague on that.
> >
> >vince norris
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[vincent p. norris]

>Many of the higher performance military machines had construction or
>flight characteristics that were not acceptable in a civilian
>environment. An example of this was the de Havilland Mosquito, which had
>a 'dead man's gap' - an engine failure just after lift-off and before
>the aircraft attained a certain speed just could not be controlled, and
>would always result in an uncontrollable roll towards the dead engine
>and a crash.
>Peter
>
I flew some multis in service but haven't flown them since (too
expensive!). But it's my impression that students are taught to
quickly cut the good engine and land straight ahead.

Wouldn't that work with a Mosquito?

(I realize that landing a plywood box straight ahead at around 100
knots might not be the most pleasant thing to contemplate.)

vince norris

[flyernzl]

Don't know about the USA, but in my country (New Zealand) you could not
legally fly a military warbird as a civilian aircraft until about the
mid-1970s.
Those few ex-military aircraft that were used were either based on an
original civilian design (e.g. C-47, L-4 Cub) or were operated by
commercial operators (such as airlines) that had enough financial
resources to put the design through the full civil aviation assessment
process.
Many of the higher performance military machines had construction or
flight characteristics that were not acceptable in a civilian
environment. An example of this was the de Havilland Mosquito, which had
a 'dead man's gap' - an engine failure just after lift-off and before
the aircraft attained a certain speed just could not be controlled, and
would always result in an uncontrollable roll towards the dead engine
and a crash.
Peter

wrote:
> Didn't ANYBODY after WW2 have the love of airplanes and the foresight
> to buy at least one military airplane, especially since they were so
> cheap? What were they thinking?! Did they not see the value of these
> planes for future generations? Why didn't some civilians simply buy a
> B-17 for $700 and park it in their yard? Land is cheap in rural areas.
> These airplanes are so precious to me. I have loved the glory of ww2
> fighters and bombers since the earliest childhood.

[Brian Johnson]

After the war the U.S. government did offer up considerable quantities of
surplus birds for sale. The sadly there were few takers. In the early
1950's you could have bought a P-51, B-17, B-25, etc., with only the ferry
time from the factory to the storage base on the log, for just a couple
hundred dollars. Movie studios purchased some for film work, others became
executive transports, still others became fire bombers. Most were purchased
by metals dealers and melted down for their aluminum which was in short
supply after the war. The birds that were in inconvenient locations like
the South Pacific were pushed into piles and burned, or dumped in the ocean.

The fact of the matter is, as I have confirmed from conversations with lots
of WWII veterans, when the guys were released from the service the last
thing most of them ever wanted to do was sit in another cockpit. Most just
wanted to get home and resume their interrupted lives. In addition, the
dawn of the jet age had made the old prop birds obsolete over night. The
guys that stayed in the service wanted to fly F-86s or F9Fs, not Mustangs or
Corsairs. It is only through the efforts of a few individuals after the
war, and a few Museums, that we have any preserved WWII birds at all.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Didn't ANYBODY after WW2 have the love of airplanes and the foresight
> to buy at least one military airplane, especially since they were so
> cheap? What were they thinking?! Did they not see the value of these
> planes for future generations? Why didn't some civilians simply buy a
> B-17 for $700 and park it in their yard? Land is cheap in rural areas.
> These airplanes are so precious to me. I have loved the glory of ww2
> fighters and bombers since the earliest childhood.
>
> Another question: if someone had the money, would it be possible to use
> blueprints to build perfect reproductions of airplanes like the B-17
> and P-40?
>

[Ron Natalie]

Brian Johnson wrote:

> The fact of the matter is, as I have confirmed from conversations with lots
> of WWII veterans, when the guys were released from the service the last
> thing most of them ever wanted to do was sit in another cockpit.

Ain't that the truth. This was a blow to some of the aircraft
manufacturers like North American who thought that all these
pilots would start snapping up personal GA aircraft like they
were buying post-war cars. Didn't materialize.