Random musings - cheapest way into a ww2 era plane

[Zippee]

Sitting here at duxford waiting for the show to start and I'm having random thoughts a to what the cheapest ww2 era aircraft would be. A spitfire or a mustang would require a fairly major lottery win but its there anything a more normal private pilot could ever afford (obviously still need to be fairly well off)
I was thinking chipmunk but they came in just after the war.
What about a harvard? Or tiger moth?

[andyA700]

This may give you some idea. Douglas Skyraider for $750K, T28 for $215K, Yak 9 for $569K, Harvard $450K,

https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/pisto...

[Simpo Two]

What about that little Auster they used for reconnaissance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorcraft_Auster

[Equus]

andyA700 said:

This may give you some idea. Douglas Skyraider for $750K, T28 for $215K, Yak 9 for $569K, Harvard $450K,

https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/pisto...

I've always thought that actual purchase costs for WWII warbirds were pretty reasonable... £3.5 million for a Spitfire IX seems an absolute bargain in terms of historical importance, ownership satisfaction and even the amount of practical use you could get out of it, compared to a lot of modern hypercars, for example.

I suspect that it's only the tip of the iceberg in terms of overall costs, though.

[Mark V GTD]

Piper L-4 Grasshopper is the entry level.

[Simpo Two]

Equus said:

£3.5 million for a Spitfire IX seems an absolute bargain in terms of historical importance, ownership satisfaction and even the amount of practical use you could get out of it, compared to a lot of modern hypercars, for example.

My man maths is quite good but I'm struggling to see how a Spitfire is practical - unless you want to shoot things down, which could be contentious.

[Equus]

Simpo Two said:

My man maths is quite good but I'm struggling to see how a Spitfire is practical - unless you want to shoot things down, which could be contentious.

You can use it to fly around in:
a) Being able to land it at pretty much any aerodrome without worrying about somone running a key down it and;
b) To the limit of your and the plane's safe ability (although I assume that the permitted g-loadings are less than were allowed in combat).
c) In a way that makes money (TV/film-making; airshows)

....Which is more than can be said for most hypercars, which cannot be parked anywhere or exploited to within a 10th of their ability on the road, yet will be pissed all over by an old F3 car on the track.

[Mark V GTD]

Apart from 2-seat Spitfires, there are vanishingly few opportunities to make money operating warbirds. Any income received from airshow appearances or film/TV merely assists with offsetting the operational costs.

[dr_gn]

Mark V GTD said:

Apart from 2-seat Spitfires, there are vanishingly few opportunities to make money operating warbirds. Any income received from airshow appearances or film/TV merely assists with offsetting the operational costs.

What’s the business model for TFC then? Presumably just an incredibly rich enthusiast?

[Simpo Two]

Equus said:

Simpo Two said:

My man maths is quite good but I'm struggling to see how a Spitfire is practical - unless you want to shoot things down, which could be contentious.

You can use it to fly around in:
a) Being able to land it at pretty much any aerodrome without worrying about somone running a key down it and;
b) To the limit of your and the plane's safe ability (although I assume that the permitted g-loadings are less than were allowed in combat).
c) In a way that makes money (TV/film-making; airshows)

If it's practicality you're after, a modern high wing monoplane with tricycle undercarriage would win hands down. The Spitfire is vastly more expensive to run, has a narrow tail-dragger u/c, short range, and very little room for shopping/luggage still less the family. In aeroplane terms, the Spitfire was a hypercar of its day, and designed with one aim - to fight.

[Equus]

Simpo Two said:

If it's practicality you're after, a modern high wing monoplane with tricycle undercarriage would win hands down.

For sure. but that's why I was drawing a comparision against modern hypercars, not a Citroen Berlingo.

[Dr Jekyll]

Simpo Two said:

If it's practicality you're after, a modern high wing monoplane with tricycle undercarriage would win hands down. The Spitfire is vastly more expensive to run, has a narrow tail-dragger u/c, short range, and very little room for shopping/luggage still less the family. In aeroplane terms, the Spitfire was a hypercar of its day, and designed with one aim - to fight.

Maybe a BF108 if you can find one. Four seater and apart from the tailwheel undercarriage not massively different from a modern light aircraft. Also has a family resemblance to the BF109 sufficient for them to stand in for them in low budget films.

DH Rapide is WW2 era and you can take the family, but pretty scarce and not really a warbird.

The Tiger Moth has no real practical advantage over the Piper cub and is more expensive to buy and run.

Group ownership of a C47 might be interesting, it's been done with a Catalina and must be cheaper and easier than that.

[Gareth1974]

Dr Jekyll said:

Maybe a BF108 if you can find one.

https://www.europlanesales.com/aircraft-for-sale/nord-1002/

[Zippee]

Gareth1974 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Maybe a BF108 if you can find one.

https://www.europlanesales.com/aircraft-for-sale/nord-1002/

I like that

[aeropilot]

Mark V GTD said:

Piper L-4 Grasshopper is the entry level.

[GliderRider]

Dr Jekyll said:

...DH Rapide is WW2 era and you can take the family, but pretty scarce and not really a warbird...

Dragon Rapides were impressed into RAF service and captured ones even into Luftwaffe too. After November 1941, they were manufactured for the RAF as the Dominie and used for communications and as navigational trainers.

Despite having bomb racks fitted to counter Operation Sealion, the German invasion of the UK, had it happened, the Tiger Moth didn't see combat, so the Dragon Rapide is as much a warbird as the Tiger Moth.

[andy97]

Dr Jekyll said:

The Tiger Moth has no real practical advantage over the Piper cub and is more expensive to buy and run

A friend’s father had a Bucker Jungmanns for a few years and reckoned it was a far superior aircraft to the Tiger Moth.

[NMNeil]

A fair few are for sale.
https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/pisto...
https://www.hangar67.com/aircraft-for-sale/warbird...
https://www.globalplanesearch.com/warbirds/
Unfortunately many have the hated "Call for price" BS

[Zippee]

NMNeil said:

A fair few are for sale.
https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/pisto...
https://www.hangar67.com/aircraft-for-sale/warbird...
https://www.globalplanesearch.com/warbirds/
Unfortunately many have the hated "Call for price" BS

Those migs.... wow!

[aeropilot]

dr_gn said:

Mark V GTD said:

Apart from 2-seat Spitfires, there are vanishingly few opportunities to make money operating warbirds. Any income received from airshow appearances or film/TV merely assists with offsetting the operational costs.

What’s the business model for TFC then? Presumably just an incredibly rich enthusiast?

Yep.

I hate to think what Stephen Grey has spent in total on his warbirds over the last 40 years.....

He's bloody well enjoyed it though