New Build B-17

[Bongo252]

Hey all, this may have already been addressed over the last few years but I haven't seen it. What I have been wondering is that with new jigs having been built for this project or that, and rebuilding or restoring an aircraft that has crashed or been salvaged....what is the possibility that a new build fortress could be constructed?
What ship today (flying or static) would come close to this?

[aerovin2]

This is happening now with the effort to rebuild 44-85734…Liberty Belle.

[terveurn]

Well we do know that there are brand new B-17 fuselage jigs that have been built.

There are outboard wing alignment jigs - the problem has always been the inboard sections; both Texas Raiders and 909's left inboards more or less survived their crash's (along with the tail surfaces) and a lot of fittings from 909's right wing survived.

The question therefor is where are 909's parts and what plans does the CAF have for the wreck of their PB-1W. It is very much possible that 909's parts were bailed (scrapped) leaving Raiders parts as a viable source for a new build ship.

So, like any other heavy bomber restoration, the final question becomes if you have around 10-million dollars and a good sheet metal shop can you reproduce a B-17 (or B-24); with todays technology (CAD/CAM) there should be no limit to what is viable.

[Bongo252]

What does a 17 go for $$ these days? How much of the "new" Liberty Belle is from existent sections of other aircraft and how much is going to be new build?
Just wondering how close we might be to a new airframe being built...those ME-262s built by what was their name, Texas Airplane Company a few years back comes to mind.

[aerovin2]

I think a B-17 will go for whatever someone is willing to pay for it and whatever someone is willing to sell it for...thus on the verge of priceless. I would guess in the $10 million range would satisfy both...but I don't think of the privately held ones are for sale at any price right now.

[terveurn]

Scott

So now the 1-million dollar question is Sentimental Journey going to Texas, or will the CAF find another replacement ship.

Wonder what is the running total of aircraft the CAF has lost in 65-years

[aerovin2]

Given the history of Sentimental Journey, I very much doubt it would go to Texas. I think the CAF will have to settle for only having one B-17.

[Bongo252]

Sooooooo.... a ten million dollar question then might be....if that amount of money would buy the tools and jigs and resulted in a new clean airframe, would there be any interest in a small production run?

[aerovin2]

Very doubtful to me. The biggest problem is the inner wing sections. The group rebuilding 44-85813 have taken about five years to build one up and it’s not done yet, and then still one to go. Complex assemblies that have to be exactly right. Boeing or/or subcontractors probably turned out a couple a hour in 1944.

And I don’t think the demand is there. It’s a small and shrinking base of enthusiasts that are also rich.

And then there is the availability of 100LL fuel, and the precarious nature of the FAA ride program that enables the small number of flyers to keep flying.

Not a pessimist, just a realist.

[Bongo252]

Unfortunately I agree.

[terveurn]

Sooooooo.... a ten million dollar question then might be....if that amount of money would buy the tools and jigs and resulted in a new clean airframe, would there be any interest in a small production run?

You have to look back at small production runs of new builds: Me 262's, F3F and Fw 190's to name a few, all three were 6 airframes (or so) and once the initial production run ended there was not much of a big demand to continue past these low numbers. Even new build P-51A / B variations had only a very moderate interest in the warbird community.

So, for a B-17 you might get lucky to produce 3-4 clean new build ships before the demand would dry-up, however a bigger demand might be in producing the jigs for the inners. As mentioned, the inners are extremely hard to obtain in any easily restorable fashion (there are numerous wrecks that could produce parts); but the question would be FAA certification and cost of investing in these jigs. The inners wing section IS the most critical to flight item, the most expensive part of any WWII restoration.

Hell, even Paul Allen with his billions and billions of dollars (and reputation for aviation preservation) never spent a dime to invest in this type of restoration - this type of investor would rather purchase a complete machine (v.s. Fantasy of Flight which has the ability but not the funding).

My answer is win the mega lottery and spend big bucks to build parts instead of airframes.

[Bongo252]

Well the 262, F3F, etc are typically a one person (maybe two) aircraft. I wonder what hoops would need to be jumped through to certify a new build B17 for commercial use? On the other hand, yeah these would fall under the FAAs experimental rating wouldn't they? So another no-starter. Ok, then here is another question... So what makes something like a B17 to keep being considered "authentic"? I mean to keep a serial number from its production run. Is it a percentage of the original airframe? The registration plate?

[terveurn]

Well the 262, F3F, etc are typically a one person (maybe two) aircraft. I wonder what hoops would need to be jumped through to certify a new build B17 for commercial use? On the other hand, yeah these would fall under the FAAs experimental rating wouldn't they? So another no-starter. Ok, then here is another question... So what makes something like a B17 to keep being considered "authentic"? I mean to keep a serial number from its production run. Is it a percentage of the original airframe? The registration plate?

Well according to the FAA, the only thing you need to make an authentic B-17 (or any aircraft) is a data plate.

80% of the current crop of hurricanes are dataplate aircraft - new build airframes with a WWII dataplate. Long story short, about 40-years ago, a junk shop in Canada sold a montoge of dataplates and photos of crashed RCAF Hurricanes (around 50 plates) and this collection became the basis of a large number of vintage WWII fighters.

[Bongo252]

I thought I had heard that before but it almost seemed a bit farfetched. So as long as you have this teeny little plate attached to what could be a totally new airframe, the aircraft can be considered the authentic item?

[aerovin2]

Officially, a dataplate-only rebuild can't be operated as anything other than "experimental" with operating restrictions. In practice, the FAA has been pretty lenient in such matters and, as stated earlier, there are a lots of examples out there of such airplanes flying.

Technically, you can pretty much build and fly whatever you want if it's in the experimental category with restrictions on carrying passengers and where you can operate. What you could not do with such a "homebuilt" is call it a Boeing B-17. It could be a " Doofus B-17N" or some such thing.'

There is one dataplate B-17 already out there...N4960V...that is active on the registry but was scrapped in the early 1960s and parts of it no longer survive. However, the airplane is technically "active" on the registry and the file has been sold a few times. It was last sold a few years as a "project" airplane with a few scattered airframe parts gathered from many sources. It would be the paperwork-easier way to build up a B-17.

You would notice also that the effort to rebuild 44-85813 in Ohio used a recognized FAA airframe for the paperwork (it flew as N6694C). Actually, only a small part of 44-85813 is in the project. It mostly comes from 44-83722 and some other donor airframes. It will be interesting to see how it gets categorized by the FAA when it finally flies...it will either be "Experimental" or "Limited." A B-17 has never and will never fit into the "standard" category due to the way it was designed and built.