Me 110 today?

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

About the "reasonability" of flying WWII birds, I can add this.

I have been working the anual airshow at the Planes of Fame for 10 years now. We usually fly some 80 - 100 sorties per day for 3 days of our airshow. That 's 240 - 300 sorties par day for 100 yeas, or 2400 - 300 sorties. For ewach of numbers, let's call it 2,500 sorties, of which perhaps 2,300 were warbirds. The planes that attend include our won and various private and other "group-ownerd" WWII birds. "Group-owned" includes things like Collings Foundation, CAF, and other museums.

In that 10 years I have seen two or three non-starts due to flat tires, one non-start due failure of a hydraulic valve and a Corsair couldn't get one wing to come down once he had the engine started and running. Turned out to be a hydraulic valve. It was fixed and flew twice more that same day, later. I saw one aborted takeoff due to a rough engine (safety abort), and one DC-3 lost an engine on crosswind after the arishow, during show departure (it was not during the show). He flew around and landed without incident on one engine. We had one Grumman F3F backfire when throttled back on final and blew out a gasket (R-1820) and dropped a lot of oil while taxiing in. It took a week to fix, but the sum total of the trashed parts was a gasket. We had one P-40 get stuck in mid-prop-pitch and it turned out the brushes on the Curtiss-Electric prop were worn out. We supplied new brushes and mechanics.

Basically, that amounts to about 8 events, 2 or which were tires, and one was a hydraulic. The rest, while still incidents, were handled just fine on emergency procedures. When the prop failed, it failed in place and remained flyable in mid-pitch. When the gasket blew, the pilot simply continued the landing and monitored oil pressure. He shut down when it dropped and had no real damage other than a well-oiled belly and a gasket to replace. The rest were not flyability-related.

Every single airshow has featured warbird aerobatics including loops, rolls, aerobatic military and warbirds fromation shows, and high-performance warbird demonstrations, as swll as the occasional Renor acer demo , complete with high-speed passes.

That compares pretty well with other private flying. It doesn't look so good compared with commercial airlines, but they get commercial maintenance and commercial parts replacement. Net result was no danger to anyone and no planes even scratched. I didn't count dead batteries becasue we have battery carts at the airshow and just wheel them over and start someone up when required. We also had to shut down one airshow for 20 -30 minutes when some idiot in a private plane violated the airspace in AND the aerobatic box the middle of a warbird aerobatic demo to land. He was arrested and the aerobatic act finished after the interruption. As far as bad things, we had one bird strike to a B-17 wing that put a hole in the leading edge between the cockpit and inboard engine. It finished the airshow flight, was cleaned up (defeathered), repaired, and flew out a couple of days later, missing a few flights in the show, but not ever in any danger. It was a big bird!

Nothing in that series of events was due to aircraft age or was significantly dangerous. There were NO safty violations by warbirds. The Friday practice show is to ensure the warbird acts that will do aerobatics meet the show safety standard that include no rolls on down-lines unless preceeded by an up-line first, no low-altitude horizontal rolls at all, and no other low-altitude rolls unless started on an up-line of at least 25°. The dedicated acerobatic palnes, like Sean Tucker or Kirby Chambliss, etc. can do whatever low-altitude things they normally do and their performances, but not the warbirds. You can fly them low, but not while rolling them.

My entire point is that WWII warbirds, when properly maintained and flown, are reliable and present no age-related issues. That's why they do inspections. When and if cracks are found, the plane is repaired or grounded until airworthy, assuming it EVER is. I recall when The "Back Six" Messerschmitt Bf 109 in the UK had an engine failure and was statically repaired and grounded. I'm glad we don't subscribe to that avenue of thought. If it happened here, we'd likely restore it and fly it again, but only when safe to do so.

Not safe? Don't fly it! Not current? Go GET current, or as current as you can, and THEN fly it. When I say, "as current as you can," what I mean is this. There is no trainer for a Bf 109. So, if you're going to fly one, go get time in a high-horsepower, conventional gear plane with a reputation for being difficult to handle, and talk with current Bf 109 pilots as a refresher.

Want to fly a P-51? 200 hours in T-6 is great preparpation. Then get signed off by people who do P-51 signoffs.

So, I'm NOT advocating go buy one and fly it. But flying one that is certified as airworthy, when you are current and trained to fly it, is not a dangerous or unreasonable thing to do ... from the standpoint of reasonable risk. If it's inherently THAT dangerous, how can you justify having an Air Force? Or medevac helicopters? Or any flying? Also, airshow aerobatics are not dangerous unless flown by people not trained and practiced in doing aerobatics, and in a defined performance, that has been practiced many time and also in front of the air boss, the day before the show. No "last-second," spur-of-the-moment warbird arobatic additions! If you DO that and even if you get away with it, you'll not fly our show again, and other people will find out about it.
 
That compares pretty well with other private flying. It doesn't look so good compared with commercial airlines, but they get commercial maintenance and commercial parts replacement. .

In my working life I flew mainly in Europe but also long haul to Japan Mexico Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Thailand. I had 3 flights cancelled completely due to "technical difficulties" another for a "burst tyre on landing" no tyres for Fokker Friendships in Paris CdG, a four hour delay because "we cannot communicate with the control tower". I am not implying that commercial airlines are dangerous but they have huge resources to throw at problems so that no one has the impression that there is any safety issue at all. Of course I never knew when a plane was replaced, however whenever a plane crashes and its history is examined there are almost always small technical issues and reports of malfunctions, I am sure there are such reports on almost every aircraft flying, they are not an indicator of how dangerous civil aircraft are they are part of how civil airliners are kept safe.
 

I suppose much of this part of the discussion depends on what people expect from a museum exhibit or preserved machine.To illustrate my point I will move off aviation to railways. In my region there are two steam locomotives named "Locomotion number 1"
The "original" is now in a museum in Darlington, it was the first steam locomotive to pull a passenger train and because of that it forms part of railway history, much of the worlds railway gauge is 4 ft 8 1/2 inch because locomotion number 1 was. However it is not completely original, it was dismantled some time in its history and "bodged" to be an exhibit, the levers and rods as it was when I used to see it on Darlington Station were the wrong length for it to actually run. Even if it was in perfect as built condition no one would run it. There were two "locomotion" locomotives numbered one and two, number two exploded because in 1825 safety valves had not been invented.

The museum piece is a part of world industrial history, when built it certainly cost more than the most expensive super car in equivalent terms today, good steel (if anyone knew what it was) and cast iron cost a lot at the time.

Then there is the replica built to look and work as the original with modern (1975) boiler standards watching it move gives a completely different impression to a static display. Here is a video watch it with sound, I took a short trip on it at Beamish museum. To people used to seeing horses struggle pulling wagons it must have seemed like a miracle especially since it hardly made a sound.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwCcYUOXE6A



I have the same view on aeroplanes, some like Enola Gay and many others have real historical significance for world history but also some like everyones favourite plane here can just be enjoyed for their beauty which you cant see in a museum hangar.
 
Talking about replica aircraft - anyone know what happened to 2007 project to build a flying Heinkel He-51?
There were a couple of forums that monitored the progress - up until 2016 - and then nothing more was heard.

Did it get built?

 
We had a guy in the US build a replica Bugatti 100 racer. I hope this He 51 lasts longer!

Most of the replicas and reproductions I have seen come out of Europe are very good-looking aircraft. Then again, I love planes! Maybe this Bf 110 will fly sometime soon. We're starting to see a few Mosquitoes flying.

Would be wonderful to see a Mosquito - Bf 110 formation, complete with Spitfire - Hurricane (or Tempest) and Bf 109 - Fw 190!

If there are those in Europe (or elsewhere) wanting a good WWII replica project, may I suggest a DB-powered Fw 187! Now THAT would be a great airshow bird! Of course, so would a Ju 88.

Which are easier to find, DB 600 series or BMW 801s?
 
Yes, if somebody owns an aircraft they have every right to fly it, but that doesn't mean that they should. I am sure Planes Of Fame has a rigid qualification process but there are a lot of warbird operators that have more money than talent. They take the ego that made them good business men or doctors aloft in an aircraft and there is potential for disaster. My personal unicorn is a intact TBD Devastator. I wouldn't want the only one of those flying. I would want to visit in Pensacola.
 
Last edited:
If it was airworthy and if I were qualified, I'd fly it.

The Devastator was a gentle-flying, pussycat aircraft with no bad habits. It would be like flying a PT-19 with more power. Why NOT fly it?

At the Planes of Fame we have:

The last Northrop N9M-B flying wing. We fly it.
We have the last Seversky AT-12. We fly it.
We have the last airworthy Pilatus P-2 in the U.S.A., as far as I know. We fly it.
We have the last Douglas Dauntless. We fly it (the rest are Army A-24's made to look like Dauntlesses).
We have the second to the last Curtiss P-47G. We fly it. There is one more ...
We have the last Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero flying, and doing it on the original Sakai 31 engine, and we fly it, rather obviously.
We have the last airworthy Boeing P-26 Peashooter and we fly it.
We have one of two North American P-51As. We fly it and finished Reno last year at 365 mph! A brand new stock P-51A was no faster.
We have one of the last Tora, Tora, Tora "Vals" that was really a Vultee BT-15 and we fly it.

We have others that aren't the last and fly them, too. There are about 8 flyable P-38s. We fly our P-38J regularly. Even warbird formation and individual aerobatics.

We fly an F-86F in a three-F-86 team called "The Horsemen." Google them. They fly a very good performance. Look up "the horsemen in three bearcats," or "the Horsemen in three Corsairs."

Wanna' see our P-38? Google "The Horsemen in two P-51s and a P-38." You'll find our 2012 airshow routine there. Nothing dangerous there. The P-38 had a new right engine (left-turning), but it ran just fine all weekend. It's still flying in the plane, with only a main bearing change since then. Running just fine.

Can't agree with you about not flying the planes at all, but that's what makes the world interesting, isn't it. When you own them, you get to choose. Ain't it great? Want to preserve them without flying them? Purchase them and do it. Or be entertained by people who fly as well as watch flying. Almost nobody buys a flyable plane without the intent to fly it. They buy shells that wouldn't fly anyway, most likely. But hey, go for it if you want to.

If I had a flyable warbird and lost my medical (and didn't have a flying museum), I'd sell it only to someone who would fly it on a regular basis and guarantee that, ownership reversion to go with that, but not money reversion. But that's just me and my opinion.

Your own feelings are obviously in another camp, and I respect that. No problem. If it is yours, YOU decide, right up until it isn't yours. Replicas would suffice just fine for people who aren't into flying. A flyable plane is NOT a thing to ground ... until it isn't airworthy. Then, it's OK to ground it if it isn't going to be repaired. In fact, it's the law. Not airworthy? Can't fly it. Might as well display it as it ain't gonna' be flying.
 
Last edited:
GrepP I think you answered your own question, "the last of" and "we fly it". It is to me rather selfish to deprive future generations of the ability to experience the thrill of seeing one of these aircraft intact. Statistically speaking you will loose one or more of these fine aircraft to accidents the longer they fly. That would be my argument against flying them especially if they are truly the last of a type.

List of air show accidents and incidents - Wikipedia
 
Actually I don't have a question and it isn't selfish at all, just because you feel it is. That's just the way YOU feel, and that's your right. These are flyable aircraft with reliable engines. Our Zero has been flying regularly since 1978. All the damage that has been done to it has been while on the ground in hangars and while at airshows by the touching public. We had a cracked bulkhead in one of our P-51Ds, grounded it, drilled the rivets out of the tail, repaired the damage by fabricating and installing a new bulkhead, riveted the tail back on, and it is flying again as well as ever.

We do NOT fly them if they are not airworthy ... we return them to airworthy condition, and THEN fly them.

There is nothing selfish about flying an airplane. It is just property and a machine. If it's the last one, so what? People who aren't seriously into aircraft are just as happy to see a replica as they are to see the real thing, especially since it looks just like the real thing. People who ARE interested want to see them flying, at least the vast majority of them, anyway.

Again, if that's the way you feel, more power to you. Save each and every one of the planes you own in good health, with no ill feelings from me at all. I have no axe to grind at all, and have always enjoyed your posts. I expect to in the future as well. I'll just keep on working to restore the plane I'm on now and hope to see it fly someday, even if it IS somewhat homely. It's an old North American O-47.



Not very sexy, is it?

By the way, in the 1950s, our museum was asked to supply a fill-in to finish the movie "Flight of the Phoenix" when Paul Mantz was killed in the crash of the half-aluminum, half-wood thing that was built for the film.

Our replacement was another old North American O-47. Here it is, in the movie guise:



It flew for many years until a 20,000-hour airline pilot landed it gear up at a small airshow. It was, in fact, too small of an airshow to have a fire engine, so it burned to the ground. The one I'm working on now is intended as it's replacement, many years after the fact. The pic above is the last scene where it is approaching the oasis and final rescue! There were small wheels in the skids and it landed on pavement to fly again and was returned to stock condition soon afterwards.

For those familiar with the movie, the O-47 does NOT feature a shotgun cartridge starter, but one was fitted for the movie scenes, per Hollywood request, so the startup could be made more dramatic. Poetic license, I suppose ...
 
Last edited:
I get where Rob is coming from. On one hand I agree with Greg, acft are meant to be flown. On the other hand though, I would rather the last one of a type be viewable for all time.

Imagine if we flew the original Wright Flyer and balled it up? Gone forever...

Think about it.
 
I find it strange that almost no prototype aircraft or last of production were preserved by the manufacturer or the state. If the state and the manufacturers couldn't be bothered, it isnt fair to hang it on people who actually paid for these machines. Lease lend machines like Corsairs were simply shoved over board, almost unbelievable that they scrapped ALL of some types.
 
I believe the original Wright Flyer was piece-mealed out into other planes and nothing remains today. We DO have a replica of it at the musuem. I understand, and cannot agree, but that's OK. I don't have to, and the idea isn't all wrong.

I understand that. I just bridle at other people trying to tell me what to do with my property, and will not put up with it, ever. If I bought a property that gives some rights away knowingly, then it is what it is. Usually, I just won't consider it. Just me, and of no import otherwise.

I have no objection to preserving an unairworthy airframe and, in fact, welcome it and hope for it. But I wouldn't ever ground a flyable aircraft just for the sake of preservation ... again, IF it were mine and IF I was qualified in it. Otherwise, I have little to say about it and it will likely go how the owner wants it to go.

If some government makes a LAW that decides for us, owners of fliers will just move the planes to a place that doesn't mandate grounding flyable aircraft and continue. In the end, it isn't all that important and whatever happens ... will still happen. So I'm not going to be upset over it in the least.

I worked on one plane (a Morane-Saulnier MS.760) that had been donated to a museum ... to NEVER fly again. Then, some years later, it was ferried to the avionics shop I was working for, and we removed the old GPS and installed a Garmin GTN 650 / 750 combo, and updated some other avionics including a new encoder. It was sold to a new owner, who took possession and cheerfully flew away!

As far as I know, there are only a small handful of airworthy MS.760s flying in the USA today. Neat aircraft and you'd be sorely tempted to pull more than the rated 4.4g it is rated for! The POH is quite interesting. To me, seeing it rescued from display was wonderful. I wanted a ride, but the cost of a ride was a bit steep! The fuel burn is not trivial ... unless you already fly jets. Then it probably IS trivial.

Here is an oddball early executive jet that was going to be developed from a DH Vampire!



Now that is interesting! Wonder if it was still to be made of wood?
 
Last edited:

Negative. The Flyer at the Smithsonian is the original wood frame and metal parts. Only the fabric skin is new, having aged since the last restoration in 1927.
 
I hear you, Adler ... but which YEAR Wright flyer is it? 1903?

I am under the very disinct impression the original flier (17 Dec 1903) was modified into other fliers, and the original has been lost to history, with some original wood still in the airframe, but far from all. Perhaps I am mistaken, but have heard same from multiple sources who should know, having spent years looking into it.

But ... I am open to that not being the case, if the entire airframe can be traced back to the original 17 Dec 1903 flier. That means fuselage, wings, canards, engine, and props.

Fabric and lines? Don't care and it probably could NOT have survived and be in display condition. But the hardwood and metal should be OK, or nearly so.

I have a circa-1850 hammer with a wood handle that is known to be original (by my grandfather, before he passed). This handle has no oil on it, is strong, and I still occasionally USE it as a hammer. It "feels" like a good unit, even today. I don't "baby it" and have resurfaced the face several times ona sanding wheel, as I did with the old brass hammer from grandad, too. I DID fit a new handle on that one since it was cracked from long ago, before I got it. No modern handle would fit, so I sanded one down to fit. Works fine. Hammer is from 1914.

We have an aircraft with a similar situation. It is a very nice Bristol replica, but the interwing struts were sanded to fit custom attach fittings that were a bit wrong, and are too thin to be airworthy, so it is static at this time. All it would take is new attach fittings and new wood struts, and you could then fly it. But, and here's the important point, there is NO interest in doing so, by anyone at this time, either in or out of the museum.

It was the same for the Nakajima Ki-84 'Frank" we used to have. At the time, there was NO INTEREST in it for airshow or Hollywood work, so it got sold as an uninteresting aircraft (to a Japanese museum, who subsequently cut the sings off with a chainsaw!). Today we'd LOVE to see it flying! It was later repaired and is now on display in Japan (away from any airport). If you wanted to FLY it, you'd need a new wing spar along with a major overhaul! The spar would be expensive! Don't know about the rest as I haven't seen the aircraft or, more importantly, inside the aircraft inspection covers. Go figure. It IS restorable as far as I know. including engine ... but it would need a prop. One blade was slightly bent when it was sold. That prevented any "performance" tests when we had it, as max rpm was not possible due to increasing vibration from the very slightly bent prop. That was a long time ago ... decades. Probably would be declared unairworthy today and be red-tagged. Things were a bit "looser" some 40+ years ago, when we were young and foolish.

We're still foolish, perhaps, but no longer young.

Time heals all wounds ... or wounds all heels, one or the other.

Maybe both.
 
GregP I totally agree with you or anyone else being able to do whatever you want with your property. Kind of the whole foundation of personal freedom. It is more of a case of while I support your right to do so, I feel that it is perhaps not the best thing to do with a one of kind historical artifact. I do agree most folks, myself included, would probably be quite happy viewing a replica and if not told it was not the real deal would probably not even know the difference.

It is just that every time I see a video or photo of an authentic war bird in flames or wrecked at an airshow or while on tour I shudder and think, well another one gone. The selfish remark was not meant personally but rather as a statement to the effect in some sense these aircraft belong to history more than an individual. Or at least they do in my way of thinking. Yes I love to hear and see them fly, but I also cringe.

Almost every aircraft that has ever crashed and burned was airworthy right before the crash part, so airworthy did not enter into my thoughts, I assume no sane pilot would deliberately fly an aircraft they knew not to be 100% airworthy. Yet recently we had that fatal crash in the Hudson river that was a perfectly airworthy aircraft that had a mechanical breakdown. It happens with brand new aircraft and obviously with aged ones.

Please do not take my remarks as aimed at you personally, I do support your right to do as you wish, I just personally feel when we get down to last of territory it might be the better part of valor to retire the aircraft to static display and instead fly a replica.
 
Question on the wright flyer, how any times did it fly? I doubt if the wrights would take it for a spin even 5 years after its first flight.
 

Users who are viewing this thread