Sprint100
Well-Known Member
Here is a little more to that story. I forgot all about until I saw this. I copied only the first section of the article since I wasn't too sure about posting the link.
It's not exactly a "tangled web" but in the case of a former Navy F/A-18 Hornet advertised on an internet website, the truth about its history and future is somewhere between cloudy and confused.
First, in April, we reported that the Navy had investigated the aircraft and written it off as pretty much of a wreck. According to a report we obtained, the Navy declared the aircraft: "Non-airworthy and stripped of all flight control surfaces, engine bay doors, wiring, instrumentation, avionics, flight control computer, engines and all other associated equipment required for flight,"
Not so fast, declared Hal Reinstra of North Hollywood, operator of a business called Historic Aircraft Locators. Reinstra called in early May to say he was the legal owner of the plane and the Navy report was wrong.
He said the Hornet came complete with the Hughes AN/APG-65 multi-mode digital air-to-air/air-to-ground tracking radar and all its necessary antennas. Moreover, the aircraft also contains the critical digital fly-by-wire flight control system and all the "black boxes" usually installed in the complex $39.5 million airplane.
Reinstra said he also has two GE F404 afterburning engines and boxes of spare parts. He bought it for an undisclosed price from Bob Kilby (not Kirby) of El Dorado Aircraft Supply in Mojave, Calif. several months ago, he said.
He insisted the aircraft is flyable, or could be, given enough time and money. The Navy fed Pacific Flyer the report to keep potential buyers disinterested and, conversely, to raise the price of parts he would need to see it airborne, he added.
"They want to make it impossible for me to get it flying again," he declared. "They're throwing every piece of garbage at me that they can to make it impossible for me to rebuild this thing."
It was originally reported that it would take about $9 million to get the airplane flying again and Reinstra said that was the amount that inspectors from Thornton Aircraft Co. had estimated.
But even that turned out be slightly off-center.
Chuck Thornton, owner of the company that rebuilds F-5s and T-38s, said in an e-mail that although he had not seen the aircraft personally, "I have seen pictures of it. One of our people at Thornton Aircraft Company did, in fact, go out and have a brief look at it."
Based upon the pictures and comments from the person who has seen it, Thornton said, "your description of the feasibility of restoring this incomplete aircraft underestimates the scope of the task involved in my view. While any rebuild project is conceivably possible given enough time and money, this would be a monumental project costing many, many millions of dollars."
Thornton said he would encourage us to look at the project "or at least some pictures of it before characterizing in any way."
Later, we obtained the letter Reinstra got from Thornton's general manager, Robert B. McGregor, who conducted the "brief cursory inspection" of the Hornet.
In it, he tells Reinstra that the wings "appear to be damaged beyond repair but they might be a useful source for parts." Moreover, he said, there were saw cuts through the two forward R/H vertical stabilizer attach fittings."
Since the area is a "major portion of the airframe structure" the entire rear section of the fuselage would have to be removed and a new bulkhead would be required.
When all was said and done, McGregor wrote, "a conservative labor estimate would be 30,000 to 40,000 man-hours to accomplish this project. Depending on the parts sources and suppliers the parts alone could cost five to $10 million."
That would. put rebuilding.of the aircraft in the $20 million range. We call Reinstra back and asked, in light of the letter, he stood by his claim that the plane was rebuildable and worth the money.
Of course, he replied.
And who would pay that kind of money for it.
"Well, (he laughed) Paul Allen could afford it." Allen is co-founder of Microsoft and currently funding Scaled Composites' X-prize entry..
Reinstra said in the first interview that he could get the money (when it was estimated at $9 million). He said he wants to get the aircraft flying and lease it back to the Navy as a chase plane or for testing.
Meanwhile, he said in the second interview, he's been busy answering questions from "just about every agency in the government" about how he got the plane.
"I even had the FBI out here checking up on the guys who were here the first time," he laughed.
It's not exactly a "tangled web" but in the case of a former Navy F/A-18 Hornet advertised on an internet website, the truth about its history and future is somewhere between cloudy and confused.
First, in April, we reported that the Navy had investigated the aircraft and written it off as pretty much of a wreck. According to a report we obtained, the Navy declared the aircraft: "Non-airworthy and stripped of all flight control surfaces, engine bay doors, wiring, instrumentation, avionics, flight control computer, engines and all other associated equipment required for flight,"
Not so fast, declared Hal Reinstra of North Hollywood, operator of a business called Historic Aircraft Locators. Reinstra called in early May to say he was the legal owner of the plane and the Navy report was wrong.
He said the Hornet came complete with the Hughes AN/APG-65 multi-mode digital air-to-air/air-to-ground tracking radar and all its necessary antennas. Moreover, the aircraft also contains the critical digital fly-by-wire flight control system and all the "black boxes" usually installed in the complex $39.5 million airplane.
Reinstra said he also has two GE F404 afterburning engines and boxes of spare parts. He bought it for an undisclosed price from Bob Kilby (not Kirby) of El Dorado Aircraft Supply in Mojave, Calif. several months ago, he said.
He insisted the aircraft is flyable, or could be, given enough time and money. The Navy fed Pacific Flyer the report to keep potential buyers disinterested and, conversely, to raise the price of parts he would need to see it airborne, he added.
"They want to make it impossible for me to get it flying again," he declared. "They're throwing every piece of garbage at me that they can to make it impossible for me to rebuild this thing."
It was originally reported that it would take about $9 million to get the airplane flying again and Reinstra said that was the amount that inspectors from Thornton Aircraft Co. had estimated.
But even that turned out be slightly off-center.
Chuck Thornton, owner of the company that rebuilds F-5s and T-38s, said in an e-mail that although he had not seen the aircraft personally, "I have seen pictures of it. One of our people at Thornton Aircraft Company did, in fact, go out and have a brief look at it."
Based upon the pictures and comments from the person who has seen it, Thornton said, "your description of the feasibility of restoring this incomplete aircraft underestimates the scope of the task involved in my view. While any rebuild project is conceivably possible given enough time and money, this would be a monumental project costing many, many millions of dollars."
Thornton said he would encourage us to look at the project "or at least some pictures of it before characterizing in any way."
Later, we obtained the letter Reinstra got from Thornton's general manager, Robert B. McGregor, who conducted the "brief cursory inspection" of the Hornet.
In it, he tells Reinstra that the wings "appear to be damaged beyond repair but they might be a useful source for parts." Moreover, he said, there were saw cuts through the two forward R/H vertical stabilizer attach fittings."
Since the area is a "major portion of the airframe structure" the entire rear section of the fuselage would have to be removed and a new bulkhead would be required.
When all was said and done, McGregor wrote, "a conservative labor estimate would be 30,000 to 40,000 man-hours to accomplish this project. Depending on the parts sources and suppliers the parts alone could cost five to $10 million."
That would. put rebuilding.of the aircraft in the $20 million range. We call Reinstra back and asked, in light of the letter, he stood by his claim that the plane was rebuildable and worth the money.
Of course, he replied.
And who would pay that kind of money for it.
"Well, (he laughed) Paul Allen could afford it." Allen is co-founder of Microsoft and currently funding Scaled Composites' X-prize entry..
Reinstra said in the first interview that he could get the money (when it was estimated at $9 million). He said he wants to get the aircraft flying and lease it back to the Navy as a chase plane or for testing.
Meanwhile, he said in the second interview, he's been busy answering questions from "just about every agency in the government" about how he got the plane.
"I even had the FBI out here checking up on the guys who were here the first time," he laughed.