A6M5 model 52 "Zero" going airworthy

[Lusekofte]

Sold: This original 1943 Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 "Zero" has been sold and will be the subject of a restoration to airworthy condition.  There is a good chance that we will see this Zero fly with its original Sakae 21 engine. 

#zero #mitsubishi #warbirdsforsale #platinumfightersales

[AndyJWest]

It will be good to see it fly if they succeed. Though I'd be surprised if the restored aircraft includes many of the original structural components when it's done. 

[Pict]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

It will be good to see it fly if they succeed. Though I'd be surprised if the restored aircraft includes many of the original structural components when it's done. 

 

Indeed it's always a trade off with older stuff when the plan is to restore it to flying condition.

 

In a similar but different sense, I own a unique Willys MB, that belonged to a guy called Maj. Gen. Sir Colin Gubbins, head of S.o.E. in the latter part of WWII who had enough clout to keep his Jeep when he retired in 1946. My father bought it from him in the 1950's and I wound up with it when he died. If I restored it to roadworthy condition about the only thing left of the original would be the makers plate

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

It will be good to see it fly if they succeed. Though I'd be surprised if the restored aircraft includes many of the original structural components when it's done. 

This is one of the reason Museums in Norway never do airworthy . It means that every little nail need to be approved. But it is pretty good handcraft. They use as much as possible and replace what must be. A wing can have up to 80 % original structural material on a bird like this, if done by the best. And I bet much of the body can be used.

If they get that engine to work and approved. It will be a winner

[ZachariasX]

The aircraft is a remarkable find. But I don‘t think much besirdes the plates of the serial numbers will make it in an airworthy state. From the engine, maybe some parts like the crankshaft block.

 

„Restoring“ in this context means that they have to drill out the rivets and take it apart completely, effectively destroying the aircraft. Then you take the parts as templates for reproduction. Maybe some of the skin can be used but any load bearing material has to be new.

 

It would probably be better just using the aircraft as template and make copies from it, then put it back together as on the photos above. Once you have the jigs, you can make as many as you want. They build Spitfires and Mustangs from scratch today…

[JimTM]

If you fold it just right, the picture above may be airworthy.  

 

I'm always amazed at what restorers can do with the wrecks they take on. It's fascinating to see the process. 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Awesome, another Zero with its original engine about to fly!

 

Now, we need a Yak with its Klimov engine.

[Supercharger]

2 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Now, we need a Yak with its Klimov engine.

An late war japanese fighter would be interesting, like a Ki-84 or J2M......just dreaming....?

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

2 hours ago, Supercharger said:

An late war japanese fighter would be interesting, like a Ki-84 or J2M......just dreaming....?

 

Im pretty sure Ive seen a video of a Ki84 flying with its original engine way after the end of the war, but it was an old vid so Im pretty sure that Ki84 is no longer airworthy.

 

About a russian aircraft with its russian engine, there was a restoration project of a Yak 1 found in the bottom of a lake and fit it with a working M-105P, I have seen a video of that engine running like 9 or 10 years ago, unfortunately I havent read any news about this project for a while.

[Cynic_Al]

On 8/5/2021 at 4:14 PM, AndyJWest said:

Though I'd be surprised if the restored aircraft includes many of the original structural components when it's done. 

 

Aside from the engine, I'm sure the rest could only serve as a parts template, so could it be called a restoration?  Strange this type of question always reminds me of Trigger's broom.

[Props]

20 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

Im pretty sure Ive seen a video of a Ki84 flying with its original engine way after the end of the war, but it was an old vid so Im pretty sure that Ki84 is no longer airworthy.

 

About a russian aircraft with its russian engine, there was a restoration project of a Yak 1 found in the bottom of a lake and fit it with a working M-105P, I have seen a video of that engine running like 9 or 10 years ago, unfortunately I havent read any news about this project for a while.

That Ki-84 did fly in the '70s and there is a video on youtube of it flying an airshow in the mid '70s. I read that it belonged to Planes of Fame at the time. It was sold to someone in Japan and has been derelict in an outdoor park forever, parts have been stolen and it's in pretty bad condition now. It's really sad as it's the only known example of the type in existence today. 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

2 hours ago, Props said:

That Ki-84 did fly in the '70s and there is a video on youtube of it flying an airshow in the mid '70s. I read that it belonged to Planes of Fame at the time. It was sold to someone in Japan and has been derelict in an outdoor park forever, parts have been stolen and it's in pretty bad condition now. It's really sad as it's the only known example of the type in existence today. 

 

Yes, thats it. And indeed, what a sad end for the last of its kind.

 

 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

I think it would be great to have a sticky thread to gather information about ongoing restoration projects. Not all updates are easily found online. For instance, whats up with the restoration project of FW190 F8 white 1? In 2019 it was close to being airworthy, then nothing? There was a Stuka restoration project to airworthy too. And 2 tempests, a mark II and a mark V....etc etc.

[cardboard_killer]

No meetings . . . er, no more stickies.

 

 

[LukeFF]

On 8/7/2021 at 7:44 PM, Cynic_Al said:

Aside from the engine, I'm sure the rest could only serve as a parts template, so could it be called a restoration?  Strange this type of question always reminds me of Trigger's broom.

 

The "standard" in the warbird aviation community is that if you have the original airframe data plate, it's a restoration - even if everything else on the plane is a new item.  

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The "standard" in the warbird aviation community is that if you have the original airframe data plate, it's a restoration - even if everything else on the plane is a new item.  

That is correct. But following the FW 189 restoration and Kermits 109 restoration 

It is quite a lot compared to what I believed 

Before that is getting used. 

When it come to the engines used. They are often serviceable if there are a lot of them around. Static display airplanes more often than not get cannibalised for essential parts. In this case I guess parts and spare engines will be a problem

[Gambit21]

On 8/7/2021 at 6:12 AM, Supercharger said:

An late war japanese fighter would be interesting, like a Ki-84 or J2M......just dreaming....?

 

Late war? Bah!!!...for shame....for shame.

A6M2-21 - to A6M5

A6M2-N

 

Late war stuff is fine for 'nice to have' but the lack both historical significance and mystique...plus it's just not going to happen.

[Pict]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The "standard" in the warbird aviation community is that if you have the original airframe data plate, it's a restoration - even if everything else on the plane is a new item.  

 

That as far I understand is also the same in the automotive world since a court case challenged the originality of a vintage racer, which had been rebuilt from the original makers serial number plate.

 

If I recall right the car had been mostly destroyed by fire and some of the components were used as patterns, but the case set the precedent so that as long as you have the original plate, it's all you need to claim originality. 

[ZachariasX]

As for late war Japanese planes, I think static display models capture the essence of the aircraft best…

 

 

19 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

That as far I understand is also the same in the automotive world since a court case challenged the originality of a vintage racer, which had been rebuilt from the original makers serial number plate.

 

If I recall right the car had been mostly destroyed by fire and some of the components were used as patterns, but the case set the precedent so that as long as you have the original plate, it's all you need to claim originality. 

I was implicitly offered a Spitfire Mk.VIII that was used for a fire drill on the airport in the 1950‘s. The left gun bay with the cannon was all that remained as structure before the dug a hole next to the wreck and kicked the sad remains into that hole. They dug it out some 10 years ago (AFAIR) and built a new Mk.VIII from that. A pristine aircraft. About 2 mio. quid asking price (the normal price for a „non-original original“). While I consider that asking price a tad steep for my budget, I‘d still be worried about running costs. But it was advertised, quiet rightly so, as an original.

 

Concerning cars, if you feel to soend that money on a single car, you might come across some Ferrari 250 GTO‘s. The problem here is again, a talented welder today can make what the best welder of back then could do. And if some garage owner comes across a piece of metal that could have been once at least part of the VIN number plate of a specific car, he might be tempted to „rebuild“ said car and sell it to you as such. There‘s a lot of shanenigans going on. With Spitfires and Mustangs you are on the safe side, as those things are bloody hard to trade. Cars you can buy in the morning and sell in the afternoon. That just doesn‘t work with warbirds.

Edited August 11, 2021 by ZachariasX
Bloody merge

[Cynic_Al]

16 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The "standard" in the warbird aviation community is that if you have the original airframe data plate, it's a restoration - even if everything else on the plane is a new item.  

 

I know, and it's not just confined to aircraft.  Isn't self-deception is a wonderful thing.

[AndyJWest]

I don't think the 'restore an aircraft  from a data-plate' thing is just self deception - I read somewhere that it is a legal work-round. Build an aircraft entirely from scratch, and you can you have to meet current certification requirements for a new aircraft. Restore an existing one, and the regulations aren't so tight. And they can't really put a limit on how many structural components you can replace while calling it a 'restoration', since that might compromise safety. Hence the 'data-plate' thing. Its fiction, but mutually convenient.

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, Pict said:

 

That as far I understand is also the same in the automotive world since a court case challenged the originality of a vintage racer, which had been rebuilt from the original makers serial number plate.

 

If I recall right the car had been mostly destroyed by fire and some of the components were used as patterns, but the case set the precedent so that as long as you have the original plate, it's all you need to claim originality. 

I think that is up to each country. I saw a program in UK based Car SOS series. They needed to have a running engine from the object if chassis was to be totally rebuilt. In order to get it as the same car

A experimental certified aircraft in US got to be airworthy.

Getting such a plane airworthy in Norway means a controller in and out all week if production rate is high.

It cannot be done without certified parts. 

Some rare planes should only be static. You loose a great deal of history otherwise.

I like to touch a plane those historical men used. If it is all new, there is no history left

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

I read somewhere that it is a legal work-round. Build an aircraft entirely from scratch, and you can you have to meet current certification requirements for a new aircraft.

As far as I know, as long as you build them exactly to the plans and type rating documents, they are still valid. For instance the Tripe in the Shuttkeworth collection is a complete new build. Yet even Thomas Sopwith said it was „a late model Tirplane“ and the nicest build he saw in his life.

 

They build Mustangs from scratch today, that‘s no issue once you have money for such. It‘s deviations from the original certification specs that matter. The „VIN“ is more of collector value.

 

Thus is why they could get away with the grotesque idea of maintaining the 60‘s flight deck in the 737 over decades. Whole new aircraft, but the type rating in large parts could be recycled, as well as training procedures.

[Pict]

@ZachariasX@LuseKofte

 

Just to be clear;

 

I not suggesting that it's either a good thing or a bad thing, neither right nor wrong. Nor making any comment as to what's involved in getting any machine up to working certification required by any bodies.

 

===================

 

What I am saying is that this is a battle that has already been fought out in a court over the right to claim an old car was original rather than a copy.

 

 

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

They build Mustangs from scratch today, that‘s no issue once you have money for such. It‘s deviations from the original certification specs that matter. The „VIN“ is more of collector value.

 

That's true of MB Jeeps too.

 

I can get a new built one for 30,000 euros. It'd never be an original, no matter how well it was made, but it'd fun. My original is worth much more to me as apart from being a rare one will a unique owner, it was the first vehicle I was ever in  

[Lusekofte]

29 minutes ago, Pict said:

Just to be clear;

I understood that. I tried to supplement some info.

By that I mean info I believe to be correct. But as always get resistance from far more clever people than me if not correct.

I try to not set it as a truth

Edited August 11, 2021 by LuseKofte