building reproduction aircraft

[mah]

This thought was brought on by the thread on legality of owning
ex-military intercontinental aircraft. If someone had more money than
intelligence (the lottery jackpot is 150 million tonight) - what would
be the impact of making a B-36, B-47, or B-52 similar to the way the
Me-262's were reverse engineered. Get plans or a museum aircraft and
build your own with improvements in design or engine from current
technology.

The plane would have to be FAA registered as experimental so getting an
N number would be legal.

Any thoughts?


MAH

[Ed Majden]

"Mike Marron"

> Plausible scenario (given money was no object) but who wants to fly
> huge, heavy and cumbersome bombers for fun? In order to maximize the
> sheer enjoyment of flight -- less is more and the lighter the better.
>
Probably not very practical and very costly to fly a B36! As for
wanting to fly one, a number of WWII bombers like the B25, B17, B24,
Lancaster, etc are kept in flying condition by various organizations and
possibly some well healed individuals.. Sadly, fewer every year. I'd be
first in line for a ride in one! Why not early production jet bombers?
Cost, cost cost, I expect. It is costly keeping an F-86 in the air let
alone a B47 or B36. Too bad! :-(

[Ed Majden]

"Ed Majden"
> Probably not very practical and very costly to fly a B36! As for
> wanting to fly one, a number of WWII bombers like the B25, B17, B24,
> Lancaster, etc are kept in flying condition by various organizations and
> possibly some well healed individuals.. Sadly, fewer every year. I'd be
> first in line for a ride in one! Why not early production jet bombers?
> Cost, cost cost, I expect. It is costly keeping an F-86 in the air let
> alone a B47 or B36. Too bad! :-(
>
Forgot to add, a group of very enthusiastic individuals are re-building
a Halifax bomber in Trenton Ontario. They hope to get it in flying
condition, I'm told. The Halifax served well with the RAF and RCAF during
WWII. Some even preferred it over the Lancs..

[Tex Houston]

"steve gallacci" > wrote in message
...
> A B-36 might not fall into the modern
> definition of "stratigic" (even with payload and range, it is little
> more than a great slow target, less of a threat than a rouge privately
> owned airliner) and a B-47 might fall into a SALT grey area?

Why would an airliner have to be painted red?

Tex

[B2431]

>"steve gallacci" > wrote in message
...
>> A B-36 might not fall into the modern
>> definition of "stratigic" (even with payload and range, it is little
>> more than a great slow target, less of a threat than a rouge privately
>> owned airliner) and a B-47 might fall into a SALT grey area?
>
>Why would an airliner have to be painted red?
>
>Tex
>
Perhaps some mascara and eye shadow around the cockpit windows?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired