New built ME-262s

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

have seen the Chino Recon 262 years ago, and there was even talk behind the scenes of getting that thing operative.............no thanks !
 
I never saw details or an in person flight of one of the new built 190s either. I'm sure and expensive top. But I'd still like one.

Dear Santa.........
 
I thought that too. The new canopy windscreen doesn't have the correct sweep angle of the original. It's shallower giving the appearance of being more upright. You'd have thought this was an easy mould to shoot. But, it may be accurate if the original armored front glass is removed. Regardless, it looks wrong.

There is definitely a noticeable difference, but I think that it might have something to do with how tall the modern day pilots are.
I mean: There isn't much point in being curled up and getting tucked into a plane where there isn't much space, especially if you have to fly for a while. Plus I guess that even though the pilot's strapped in, there needs to be a bit of space if he - by some reason unknown to me - gets to fly upside down.

I know from experience that no matter how hard you strap in, your body gives a little from gravity when you're suspended upside down (- no naughty thoughts, boys! :lol: ), and therefore your body elongates a bit, demanding more space "topside".

Plus I think that there might be a little difference in height - from the pilots back then, who grew up in the 1910's and 1920's (The Great Depression/malnourishment) where ppl didn't know as much about the proper nourishment for babies and children, to today's men, who has grown up with proper food, care and under circumstances that might be lightyears better than what could be experienced back then, thus improving their growth, and therefore demanding a larger cockpit canopy.
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. *scratches head*
 
I know from experience that no matter how hard you strap in, your body gives a little from gravity when you're suspended upside down (- no naughty thoughts, boys! :lol: ), and therefore your body elongates a bit, demanding more space "topside".

<Blank>

Wonder what'll be next a Arado 234, Heinkel 162....8)
 
The Me262s are an exact replica, designed and built with the original plans with of course, the few mentioned upgrades.

It is so accurate, that the Messerschmitt Foundation has granted the new '262 actual production model assignments.

Me262A-1c - model based on the Me262A1-a

Me262B-1c - model based on the Me262B-1a

Me262A/B-c - convertable model, switches between the A1-a and B-1a

Not only that, but they were assigned Messerschmitt werknummern to each individual airframe that picked up where the original werknummern left off in 1945.
 
If you want to be daring, build a Natter

A beautiful 1 to 1 scale Hughes H-1 was in the USA some years ago, but sadly crashed killing the pilot/owner.

A lot of these birds require major skills most recreation pilots lack
 
A lot of these birds require major skills most recreation pilots lack
Sorry Yerger, but you're dead wrong.

Many of the war replicas and warbirds you see are flown by highly experienced pilots, many of them have military backgrounds. For certain recips and jet warbirds you need a "type" rating specific for the aircraft, so there's a lot more training that goes into acquiring one of these ratings. BTW the Hughes H1 that crashed a few years ago was the result of a propeller that came apart when the pilot was flying it back from Oshkosh.

As you say "recreation pilots," I could assure you that the lowest time pilots you might find say flying a T-6 might have 500 hours, so for the most part most of the pilots who fly these warbirds are far from "recreation" pilots. Sometimes many of these warbird owners have more money than brains and crash these aircraft by doing plain stupid things, but in the bigger picture many of these same guys have 1000s of hours and usually hold commercial, instrument, multi-engine and even ATP ratings.

Bottom line, it has nothing to do with skill, it has everyting to do with operating the aircraft safely.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Yerger, but you're dead wrong.

As you say "recreation pilots," I could assure you that the lowest time pilots you might find say flying a T-6 might have 500 hours, so for the most part most of the pilots who fly these warbirds are far from "recreation" pilots. Sometimes many of these warbird owners have more money than brains and crash these aircraft by doing plain stupid things, but in the bigger picture many of these same guys have 1000s of hours and usually hold commercial, instrument, multi-engine and even ATP ratings.

Bottom line, it has nothing to do with skill, it has everyting to do with operating the aircraft safely.

Just to back-up what FLYBOYJ said, you could say that I come from a "warbird family"; at one time or another, my family has owned and operated a Cessna O-2, several North American AT-6/SNJ's (most of which were rebuilt from the ground up by my family) and, most recently, a couple of Waco UPF-7's. My father got his A P rating back in the '70's, and my oldest brother followed him shortly thereafter (in fact, he now works for a company in Dallas-Ft. Worth that rebuilds gas turbine engines, both flight-rated models and gas turbine generators). Neither one of them had lot of money, but they never messed around when they were flying the 'birds, they always kept the a/c well within it's flight parameters (which is why they're still around). I don't know how many flight hours they both have, but it must be in the hundreds, if not thousands, of hours each (and that's not including all the rotary-wing hours my brother has).
 
Bottom line, it has nothing to do with skill, it has everyting to do with operating the aircraft safely.

I'll second that. Most of the NZ warbirds AT-6's have a minimum of 500 hours, with 25 tail-wheel time. But I can guarantee you that you would expect to do a 10 hour type conversion if you had those minimums, or if you were an unlnown pilot to the instructor. This isn't so much about teaching the skills, as assessing your attitude.

Skills can be taught, but attitude is everything.
 
These new jets can fool me, a great aircraft reproduction. I'm sure it takes a lot of work.


I wish George Lucas would use them for his new film, not just CGI.
 
Last edited:
Yeah they just started making them as well.

I'm curious Chris, since your in the same country and speak the language, could you get in touch with Flugwerk and find out why they are making P-51's and not something a little more rare? I mean, there are a over 150 flying P-51 and there are less than 10 of most of the other WWII planes in flying condition, sometimes not any.

I'm sure the answer is the all mighty $$$$, but you know if they can sell 262's, then they could sell 190D's or He-162's or a Do-335 or heck, make a Zero from scratch.

Sorry, it just bugs me that we have types vanishing from existance, but they make types that there are hundreds of. GRRRRRRRRR

Ok, I'm off my soap box.
 
Thor, there are a few outfits out there either planning or working on, some interesting reproductions.

I think it was the Texas Airplane factory that was building a rare japanese aircraft, Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar because they had restored a number of them in the past.

We had a thread about this a while back with some good points and counter-points regarding reproduction warbirds: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/world-war-ii-aircraft-new-production-17048.html
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back