I build a Me262 and went out of control with it (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Why would you bother to make something like that? It is impressive, but is there a market for such a thing? It's really just a very nice 1:1 model.
Cheers
Steve
 
What museum will pay that kind of money for a 1:1 model with a few original pieces included? Is there really a market for this kind of thing?
Most museums I know of are cash strapped to put it politely and are not going to be able to make that kind of investment, even for the real thing.

Years ago a particularly irritating British TV presenter parked an E E Lightning in his front garden. It wasn't his, it was owned by a company who were planning to put it on static display close to DERA (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) at Farnborough. The local council wouldn't allow it, hazard to motorists and all that. I think it has since been scrapped, but I bet it didn't cost as much as the Me 262 replica.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
I'd rather they did that than buy a flyable aircraft and turn it into a static.

Aircraft can't fly for ever. It's not just the funding that can ground them. The last flying Vulcan is now grounded as much for technical as financial reasons. The aircraft had far exceeded the 250 hours promised, post restoration. Eventually the 'technical authorities (BAE Systems, Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group and Rolls-Royce) ended their support.

As the operators explained.

"At the heart of their decision are two factors. First, although we are all confident that XH558 is currently as safe as any aircraft flying today, her structure and systems are already more than ten percent beyond the flying hours of any other Vulcan, so knowing where to look for any possible failure will become gradually more difficult. Second, maintaining her superb safety record requires expertise that is increasingly difficult to find. Our technical partners already bring specialists out of retirement specifically to work on XH558; a solution that is increasingly impractical for those businesses as the necessary skills and knowledge become distant in their collective memories."

The last flying Sea Vixen may never fly again following her belly landing earlier this year. The operators estimate £3 million is required. That is a lot of money. I hope they are lucky and find their very rich knight with a shining cheque book...but...

There are already flying replicas of some famous types. Some, not strictly classified as replicas, like the data plate restorations of some Spitfires, are really, if we're honest, flying replicas. Some have got fewer original parts in than the Me 262 which is the subject of this thread. It's something we'll get used to in the future.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
What museum will pay that kind of money for a 1:1 model with a few original pieces included? Is there really a market for this kind of thing?
Most museums I know of are cash strapped to put it politely and are not going to be able to make that kind of investment, even for the real thing.

Years ago a particularly irritating British TV presenter parked an E E Lightning in his front garden. It wasn't his, it was owned by a company who were planning to put it on static display close to DERA (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) at Farnborough. The local council wouldn't allow it, hazard to motorists and all that. I think it has since been scrapped, but I bet it didn't cost as much as the Me 262 replica.

Cheers

Steve
There used to be an EE Lightning on a roundabout in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It looked very sad. These 1:1 models are great but shelf space is always a problem.
 
Every currently flying warbird that is not a replica will be either a static display, scrapped, or a wreck by the end of this century. The only viable way forward for flying warbirds will be replicas. The costs of maintaining the original airframes are already in the stratosphere and will only get higher as they age.
 
The real issue with replicas is the engine(s). It's relatively simple to build a Fw 190 air frame, but whose going to build the correct BMW engine from nothing, it's hardly even possible.
There are several current restorations flying with the 'wrong' engines, but at least they are the right type of engine.

How many genuine WW1 aircraft are still air worthy? I'm aware of a few, but don't know how original they are.

Cheers

Steve
 
The real issue with replicas is the engine(s). It's relatively simple to build a Fw 190 air frame, but whose going to build the correct BMW engine from nothing, it's hardly even possible.
There are several current restorations flying with the 'wrong' engines, but at least they are the right type of engine.

How many genuine WW1 aircraft are still air worthy? I'm aware of a few, but don't know how original they are.

Cheers

Steve
Its getting easier to (re)build engines.
We're still able to overhaul WW1 engines, and can build new ones, 30 years ago it was said that we couldn't do it, but now there are two companies in New Zealand manufacturing new engines. The only thing stopping us with WW2 engines is money. Agreed that it is harder than building the airframe, but still doable.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but the RE8 and Avro 504 that are airworthy down here are original, down to the engines, and repairs that have been carried out to original methods. But there were far fewer aircraft produced during WW1 than WW2.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back