How do Warbirds Make Money and Survive? 

Dale Eastern brat No truer words have been spoken.

@@MikeyMcBryan Can't you buy premium car gas and add lead and perhaps octane booster from a bottle that you can bring with you?

@@MikeyMcBryan What about Antonov An-12? An-72? C-27? An-3, 8, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 38, 74, 132, 140, 148, 158, 178? BA-146QT? CASA C-212? LET L410? Shorts 330?360? Short SC.7 Skyvan? C-23? Shannxi Y-8, Y-7, Y-9, Y-12? Sh-5? Be-12, 30, 32, 200? CL-415? US-1A? IL-18, 20, 22 or 114?

@@alan6832 Ok, send Mikey the catalog already! ;p

@@respectbossmon I forgot DHC Carabou and Buffalo, but Canucks can hardly have forgotten about them.

watsis buttndo a frankly insane choice for an aircraft in this market. Yes, can land on gravel, yes, has palatial space with gargantuan door, but the cost of twin low bypass engines, plus the systems costs, there’s a reason the airlines of the north are retiring them. First Air replaced them, Air North replaced them (both with -400’s) and Canadian North only has two, for the Ottawa flights, and the strong legs that will fill the aircraft completely both with cargo and passengers. Even if they can get one for a song, they’ll be singing a while. I’ve heard the ATR is very strong in the combi market, but I thought it was terrible in the cold.

Dosn't Nolinor have pretty much all the 737-200s in airworthy condition and with their eyes firmly set on any they don't have? I'm surprised Embraer haven't got into the the large cargo door combi gravel capable market too

Compared to the c-46 its new!

The gravel converted 737-200 is.. sort of .. newish.. well its not new new, but its a lot newer than the original 737-200. And .. they are.. or at least was, still converting them very recently

Because of the higher bypass fans on the 737-300 upwards, they're the newest gravel kit 737s available. I think I remember reading the Nolinor were going through an extensive refurbishment of theirs that included certifying new LCD screens in the cockpit. Other than something like an Antonov 70 there's nothing "new" available for gravel type operations in the jet market. Just ATRs and older model Dash 8s.

I'm glad I looked, I was about to mention that 8) From what I understand, the FAA in the US certifies them as a 0 time airframe when Basler gets done with them. So they are, sort of, new. LOL 8) --gary

🙂

@@gtr1952 The Airframe time does move over from the DC-3 to Balser. I asked that very question.

I wonder if there's any NOS Rolls Royce Dart turboprops lurking around somewhere that could be re-engineered onto a C46... That plane would then outlast and out live all of us!

@@davidjones8680 agreed, the Dart is damn near bombproof, a great engine. There are probably quite a few ex Viscount units around the globe.

Thanks, bud!! I'm. happy I finally got to answer some questions that have been on people minds

@@MikeyMcBryan why can't either of these two planes be turbo prop refitted?

@@barrysimmons4724 $$$$$$$$$$

@@MikeyMcBryan Ever think about upgrading the DC-3's into BT-67's?

Barry Simmons some DC-3s were years ago much like B-24 bombers were retrofitted to be business class aircraft. One problem is the cost of the transition and the increased operating costs of a turboprop. In the current day and age, turboprop conversions may make more sense now that radial engine parts and mechanics are becoming more and more rare but they came too soon to be really popular or cost effective.

Great idea!!

@@MikeyMcBryan or even popups with captions.

Same, not from uk though... close enough ,.. Ireland.

That seemed to be my first notion to solve this problem. Im absolutely certain that its not a simple or what we would call an "affordable" affair however. Lord only knows the costs involved, not to mention the regulatory and certifications involved in that modification... Good Lord. Seems so simple, but I'm sure thats incorrect

​@@SquillyMonyeah but a 70million $ new plane or 10million converting a dc 3?

I'm no pilot, but I flew one. My dad had a 48. Quite the bird if you can handle a tail dragger. He passed in 2007. That bird still had a current CofA when we sold it. I'm no airplane buff, but that thing sure grew an me. I even dreamed about flying it.

The new turbo prop are way better

How did the captions work on this video?

@@MikeyMcBryan captions worked great!

The run way is way to short for the 737 200

The plane pulling up to park in the beginning is a DC-3....

@@tomsamuelson8512 ya you're right. I was half awake lol

How many of those puppies are even around anymore, tho?

@@aserta well I'm not sure on the exact number they built, I am definitely NO expert, some sources say online they only built 4 of them. However I put this on the Plane Saver Facebook Group Page Feed. with a picture, just to give Mikey a razz and some people said there was a lot of them made. People stated that one of them is "under restoration now" but is being converted back to a normal B-17E. The B-17 restoration project of Desert Rat. So I messaged them, and told them, about this latest video from Mikey, and told them they should give him a bit of a razz too. As far as I could tell from them messaging me back they stated they had the cargo door still to show him. Mikey's reaction on the Facebook page was like "What the hec" apparently he never knew about this cargo configuration. Some people on the Facebook chat, said they were used in to the 70s for cargo purposes. There is quite a story in history about this conversion. I just learned about all this since I posted this earlier this afternoon. When I posted this it was just a joke to give Mikey a razz, as the B-17 is one of my favorite aircraft of all time, and when he said this in this video, I remembered that there was a cargo version, but I didn't know much about it, till I Googled it. So there's everything I've learned in the past few hours. Check out the Facebook your Page, and please do your own research, I would like to know some answers now myself too.

A B17 makes no cents as a freighter. They are to rare and expensive to purchase. Plus they really do not have the capacity to carry enough freight to make money, even if they had a big cargo door. The transition away from aviation gasoline to just turbine fuel is a significant barrier, and I do not know of much in the way of Diesel engine piston engines which could be substituted which could operate on the jet fuel.

There was one B17 converted to turbine power and operated as a fire bomber. It used 4 British made turbines. It’s performance was actually very good and cost effective, but unfortunately it crashed and was destroyed while being used on a fire fighting mission with the fatal loss of its crew. There was a 2nd test article B17 modified to carry a test turboprop motor in the nose to provide air testing for the new motor. It retained its 4 radial engines for normal flying.

@@americanrambler4972 B-17 we're not rare to find back in the day "as they say" after the war... The cargo model however was very rare. A B-17 had plenty of cargo capacity especially with the modifications that were done to make it a cargo plane. The only limiting factor at the time of why a DC-3 was the saved warbird of choice over the B-17 was simply fuel cost, most cargo flights could easily be done "distance wise" with a DC-3 which only had two engines burning fuel, the B-17 had much greater range, but with its four engines, however typically the extra engine burning fuel for range it just was not needed. Now with the problem that Buffalo is now facing with trying to get fuel in different locations, that greater range would help... however ultimately they're not going to be able to get the fuel anywhere. Not to mention also the extra cost, and work to converting a B-17 into a cargo model, even back in the day, when there were already plenty of DC-3 is that already had cargo doors, why would you convert a B-17... The B-17 that we're already cargo planes, did continued serving as cargo planes for 30 years after World War II, but with the small number of planes that were originally produced, and no demand to convert more after the war, of course there's none left today... well except for one of them being restored as a showbird.

Thank you Harry! It makes me very happy when people notice the little bits like that!!! :)

And a gravel kit option. Strong landing gear too. I used to be on the team looking after the TNT fleet here in in the UK.

My only question about the BA146 is are there any airframe restrictions on total hours or cycles. I remember when TNT bought the BA146's. I was working for Skypak at SFO.

@@iannarita9816 They are good for up to 60,000 flight cycles at the present time. No reason why it couldn't be extended again if the interest is there. The UK MoD want to dispose of the 146 fleet in the next couple of years, two of the aircraft are QC versions with a cargo door. I'll put in a good word for ya Mikey!!!