|
|
Post by aeromedia on Feb 17, 2012 14:33:41 GMT 12
Whilst there are some astounding and outstanding restorations coming to fruition both here and overseas, the news that has warmed my heart the most in recent times is the return to NZ of the ex OFMC, AFC Avenger. (due now, next week). That machine just ooooozes character to my mind (though admittedly the instrument panel isnt as pretty as my Mk II Harvard ;D Anyhow, consider this. When comparing market values against pure pleasure watching these machines in the air, is a Hurricane really 12 times more enjoyable to watch than an Avenger?  ?? yeah yeah I know the historical values of the top end stuff, but really if you were tipping your own cash into a purchase or project, - bang for your buck,- which Warbird gives the biggest bang ? ? ? Let the show begin . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Feb 17, 2012 15:25:10 GMT 12
Many jet warbirds (faster and louder the better - ie the Hawker Hunter) must have the most bang for their buck in regards to their purchase price....might be a different story when it comes to running costs though. I am amazed how cheaply you can pick up an L-39.
For the pistons, the new build Yak-3s are relatively cheapish as are Hawker Furys IIRC...it seems that the genuine WW2 fighters attract the very high prices
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Feb 17, 2012 16:36:34 GMT 12
I'm with you aeromedia. Have pined since the loss of the Avenger. Genuine WW2 type, big burly, USEFUL, and propellor driven! Doesn't need to be a show-pony to be a show-girl in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 18, 2012 10:27:55 GMT 12
The problem with the L-39's is their engine life is so small and rreplacement cost is so high. You are seriously better off buying a Blunty than an L-39 economically, I am told.
I've seen the Hurricane fly only at the 2006 WOW show and nowhere else but that was a huge thrill for me, especially because I had known Bill Kain who actually flew that exact aircraft in France in 1940, and that his pade grip was in it. But the Avenger I have seen display on numerous occasions and the thrill factor was always just as high, and having had a fly in it I know I'll never get that same opportunity with the Hurricane. If you buy an Avenger you can take up all your mates to share the joy, and give them a lifetime memory as I now have.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Feb 18, 2012 19:33:26 GMT 12
The Avenger is a beautiful machine, no matter that USN and USMC pilots nicknamed it 'The Turkey' during it's WWII service. A very workmanlike machine, that performed sterling service during and after the war. Grumman really did build some great aircraft.  |
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Feb 18, 2012 19:46:32 GMT 12
The only issue with the Avenger is it has fairly high maintenance costs and it drinks oil (well it it is a radial but the Wright Cyclone is thirsty!).
Still if a gun was pointed at my head and I was told to choose a Hurricane or an Avenger I choose the Avenger. Take up a few friends, has a RNZAF connection (ok strictly speaking Brendon's one is a later TBM-3e but the only external differences are different cowl flaps and an extra intake on the ring cowl all the rest is the same as our TBF examples we operated) ANd you can fold the frikin wings baby!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by flarebounceflare on Feb 18, 2012 20:02:07 GMT 12
Starting from the buck side, what do the high end warbirds cost to fly?
I read in kiwiflyer a while back that per hour once in a syndicate the T28 was about $500/hr, the CT4 was about $220/hr and a Harvard about $380/hr.
What about the usual ultimate bang suspects discussed above like a Spitfire, Hurricane, L39 or Strikemaster? (assuming of course you are adequately rated and find someone willing to let you loose in the aircraft).
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 18, 2012 20:23:22 GMT 12
Personally I think that in terms of " bang for your buck " , the good old Harvard takes a lot of beating . They have alot of " character " ( you cant mistake that noise ) and seem to be reasonably priced . The only thing required to make a great Harvard display is the right person to fly it . Okay , so they are no Spitfire , but what is ?
|
|
|
|
Post by aeromedia on Feb 18, 2012 20:24:08 GMT 12
Did I hear a figure of 2k per hour somewhere for a Strikemaster?
|
|
|
|
Post by aeromedia on Feb 18, 2012 21:05:29 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Feb 19, 2012 12:22:15 GMT 12
I'd like a Stuka. One friend in the back seat and a few more pals under the wings. The centre line rack is reserved for drinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Feb 19, 2012 16:59:09 GMT 12
ex-Military Auster Mk. 5 must be the most economical warbird.
|
|
|
|
Post by raymond on Feb 19, 2012 17:42:53 GMT 12
How about a J3 Cub, cheaper to run than an Auster?, you could even paint it in Luftwaffe markings as a genuine paint scheme!
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 19, 2012 19:29:45 GMT 12
Unless I misunderstood the question , it wasnt just about the cheapest warbird , it was about " biggest bang for your buck ". Not many people would even look skywards to watch a Cub or Auster pass over ( no offence Baz , still a cool plane and I would look ) , but fly a Harvard over , and people notice ! ( at least I do )
|
|
|
|
Post by aeromedia on Feb 19, 2012 19:46:54 GMT 12
yeah, we all understand that an Auster, Cub, or even a Chippie can be a delight, but the question is, when it comes to the heavier stuff, - which ones give the biggest bang for your buck. I wont argue against the Harvard, have always loved it. But when you get into some of the 40's tail draggers, which among those meet the criteria?
And as has been pointed out here, sometimes jets can be quite cheap-ish to acquire initially, but the operating costs are horrendous. I know of an airworthy Hunter available in the UK recently for less than 20k gbp. But to run it . . . . . . . . . . .
Courtesy have a very nice Avenger on their books at the moment, stock cockpit and all the military gear, turret, bomb racks etc for 375k. For a real class piece of WWII active aviation heritage, . . that seems pretty reasonable. Can anything beat that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 19, 2012 19:56:41 GMT 12
Exactly Grant. There is no bang in a Cub or Auster.
A Yak 52 or Nanchang is about the bottom end of the range of a decent warbird I'd think. But as for a WWII combat aircraft that is plentiful now and still reasonably cheap and puts on a top notch display it would be hard to beat an Avenger. Anything bigger then perhaps a Dakota or Mitchell.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Feb 19, 2012 21:04:36 GMT 12
However very few of todays warbirds actually saw active combat.................. however a lot of Austers did ;D ;D Flame on cowboys!
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 19, 2012 21:07:59 GMT 12
Warbirds, Bang for Buck...
I would be looking for some recent warzones. Africa is always good for stuff but some Asian countries have aircraft laying about also.
I saw some Dornier 28's pushed to one side in a hangar at the ZAF Base in Lusaka. I could have had them for a song.
Went to a Government Stores Board sale the next day and got a snip on truckloads of Buffalo stuff. We are talking five figures here... nothing.
I had an offer of $15,000 accepted for a Chieftain with only 2000 hours on it, in Tanzania.
I reckon you would be hard pressed to get a better deal than some of those retired aircraft in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia.
Isn't Mit floating about those parts at the moment ?
Obviously the old Eastern Bloc has many machines available but the scalpers would have been all through there by now.
India may be worth keeping an eye on... I have never been there but the next Bangalore airshow this time next year should be a cracker.
|
|
|
|
Post by crewdog on Feb 20, 2012 7:43:00 GMT 12
Intersting thread indeed.
The best bang for your buck will obviously depend on how many bucks you have. Assuming I had the coin and the ongoing money to sustain it I would strap my bum into a Mustang.
I agree with Lumpy about the Harvard and as a Harvard pilot they certainly do provide you with a "money well spent" feeling and people love them (well anyone with half a brain does!) just look at the 39 page thread on them - however I have also been for a decent strop in a Mustang and like I said if I had the money, even though I'm biased to Harvard's I'd own a Mustang.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 20, 2012 16:52:32 GMT 12
I guess the Hurricane has more value because of it's rarity and its desirability, but also its history. Not many Avengers and certainly no Austers will have had actual dogfights with German Bf109's like the Wanaka based Hurricane has. France, Britain and Russia, quite a history there. Most of the flying Avengers around were merely training aircraft. I think the history adds a lot of monetary value to the whole deal. In fact there can't be too many flying Hurricanes that don't have genuine combat history attached, maybe the BBMF pair.
|
|
??
