Ultimately there is too much to oxidise or otherwise corrode, rubber parts, e.g. those tyres can't avoid oxygen even if they can avoid use. Maybe materials science can come to the rescue with fittings that do not perish, therefore enabling things like jets (cars and other things) to live on a bit longer, or to stretch their metal-fatigue lifetime out longer.
You can keep anything running if you are willing to put in the work. You just fix what you can, replace what you can find, and manufacture what you can't. It becomes much more tricky doing it under the auspices of an FAA airworthiness certificate though.
Most of these jets are registered as Experimental-Exhibition, which has (slightly) relaxed conformance rules vs other multi-engine turbine-powered aircraft.
Single engine turbine (or multi-engine piston) operated under Part 91 (approximately "not-for-hire") was already reasonably relaxed about "owner produced parts".
No mention of airworthy Cold War jets is complete without Thunder City [1] which until a crash in 2009 flew the last English Electric Lightnings [2] in the world.
The Lightning is a fascinating aircraft for two reasons: first, its design, optimised for intercepting Soviet bombers, was highly original and efficient at the job, beating many records, and it remains the only production fighter with vertically stacked jet engines; second, it was the very peak of British military aerospace engineering, the last time British engineers could say they were ahead or at least on par with what came out of America, and its success caused the Americans to put pressure on the British government to cancel the very promising TSR-2 [3] program, destroy the production equipment, the plans and most of the airframes, in order to favour the export market for the F-111 (which the British didn’t even end up buying) and in the longer term to effectively destroy their main competition.
To give you an idea of the importance of the Lightning in the British aerospace community, I spent some time at Rolls-Royce in Derby back in the late 2000s, and the production manager managed to mention the Lightning and the techniques they derived from building the Avon engines that powered it in our first meeting, a half century later! Even Jeremy Clarkson has one in his garden [4]. The Lightning intercepted U-2s, flew as high as 88,000ft (27,000m), and in a NATO exercise in intercepting Concorde, was the only fighter to do so leaving F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages and F-104s behind.
A fun anecdote involves airframe XM135 (which is still preserved at Duxford if you are in the area, as well as an incomplete TSR-2) [5] [6]. A persistent electrical fault that appeared only when accelerating meant that the people working on the jet had to accelerate it. Whilst taxiing, with the ejector seat on safe, no canopy, and wearing only noise guards (so no radio), Wing Commander “Taffy” Holden accidentally went airborne. He had a few hours in a Tiger Moth but nothing comparable to the Lightning (“I had never flown a jet aircraft, no”), so he had to figure out how to fly it, and since he couldn’t eject, how to land it, which he did eventually after three attempts, contacting Air Traffic Control via hand signals.
On another note, the most performant Cold War aircrafts flying in the US today are probably the two FAA-approved brand new SU-37s from Pride Aircraft [7] which were sold by the Ukrainian Air Force with zero hours on either the engines or the airframes and completely Westernised with English language controls and modern electronics.
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnGXerN0tlo (Jeremy's jet fighter garden feature - Speed - BBC) “Do you stock Lightning jet fighters? Oh you do! Could you please leave one aside for me?”
While on summer camp as a university cadet in the early 1980s, I was fortunate to fly (as a passenger, of course) in the training variant of the Lightning from Binbrook, in Lincolnshire, one of their operational bases.
It has always been hard for me to recall cohesive memories of the flight. In the space of about 3 hours, and as a wet-behind-the-ears 18 year old, I was rushed through ejection seat training, sea survival training, flight suit checks, oxygen mask fitting and the flight itself. I think I also had to be squeezed into an immersion suit - the flight was over the North Sea.
As we taxied out to take off, the prevailing wind and the geometry of the airfield meant that we had to pass the rest of my cadet group as they sat outside in the sun in deckchairs, watching flight operations. I gave them a confident thumbs-up and we were off.
It turned out that I would be the only one of us to get a ride in a Lightning during that summer camp (I'd won the draw that made me the first to go) - some combination of weather and aircraft availability.
Heh. We were there in the summer vacation to boost our flying hours on Bulldogs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Aviation_Bulldog. I had joined the cadets relatively recently and so, as it happened, my first solo occurred during that camp also. Because the Lightnings were using the main runway, we were using a parallel grass strip, and flying mirrored circuit patterns. On my solo trip (really just a flight around the airfield) a Lightning passed next to me on its approach and caught me in its wake, flipping me onto my side. Exciting but no drama - I just went around again.
After uni I did sign up as an RAF pilot, but circumstances (and my own fundamental lack of aptitude) conspired against me and I flunked the course (just) before getting my wings. Welcome back to civvy street!
Thunder City was a fascinating operation, one of my enduring memories will always be seeing their four Lightnings performing a formation display in 2006.
I was unfortunately also present at the 2009 crash, which killed the pilot. After that, Thunder City ceased commercial operations.
However, in the past year or so the owner of Thunder City has returned at least one of the Lightnings and one of the Blackburn Buccaneers to flying status, so they're often seen flying over Cape Town and occasionally perform at air shows.
@crdb you must be too young to see these Jets. Back in the late 70's, as a kid I got to see the A4J Skyhawk shown in this article. It was aboard HMAS Melbourne as it docked in Melbourne at Station Pier #1 inbetween a deployment and refit. [0] On the flight deck you could climb up the stairs and peer into the cockpit [1] or move around look. The RAN had about 20 these A4Js in the fixed wing Air Fleet.
Four years later the Melbourne was decommissioned and sold off, the squadron disbanded and the former RAN A4Js were sold to the NZAF. [2] The Aeromachi were moved to the RAAF for jet training. [3]
Yes indeed and too young to live through that amazing era of aeronautics, starting with Kelly Johnson's Shooting Star (I think I read in his bio that he was literally standing in the cockpit, canopy off, during tests), when people using slide rules pushed things like the SR-71 [1] from paper to 80,000 ft in 3 years, and everything was being "discovered" by incredibly creative trial and error. Or the insane USAF pilots taking Thunderchiefs dive-bombing (itself a controversial design certainly not made for THAT) over Vietnam with a 50% survival rate over 100 missions. Or, well, anything to do with the B-58. Yet it was that era that got me to study engineering in the first place and I wasn't alone.
As with [0] I actually sailed in Sydney Harbour in 2012 with a chap who flew Sea Furies into Korea (!!!) - maybe from the same carrier? He was ancient and I never learnt his name, but he was quite a character. Got shot down over water and swam to safety, apparently. As ever those stories were told second hand, as that generation doesn't like showing off.
Today's CAD-designed aircrafts (CAS apart) don't really fly, they just deliver an electronics package somewhere in the general vicinity of the combat zone and hang around until the computer decides what to destroy and gets on with it. And many of them don't even have a pilot anymore... still amazing technology, but not quite the same spirit. Certainly not when they also become covert welfare programs to buy votes in 49 states and international favours in 8 nations. Kelly Johnson claimed he could deliver Oxcarts for $3m per unit...
Those of my friends who stayed in the industry are now building rockets. In some ways, today's space race is yesterday's air - the rules aren't set, the market doesn't exist, and the politicians haven't done a land grab yet.
[1] And as was his habit:
> In 1968, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara canceled the F-12 interceptor program; the specialized tooling used to manufacture both the YF-12 and the SR-71 was also ordered destroyed.
Not possible, HMAS Melbourne was commissioned in October '55 [0] meaning the home of Sea Furies would be HMAS Sydney. The Sydney was in Korea in '51/'52. Same class though. The first A4G passed by a Furie the Nowra front gates in '67. [2] Big leaps in 15 years. Looks like there is a Fury at RAAF Pt.Cook air museum, couple hours drive. [3]
> and its success caused the Americans to put pressure on the British government to cancel the very promising TSR-2 [3] program, destroy the production equipment, the plans and most of the airframes
What's your source for this? The stories I've heard [1,2] all refer to the cost overruns, mismanagement and too much new technology in one airframe.
Just on the cost overrun part, this source [1] disagrees:
> The TSR-2 project was considered to be a Conservative 'prestige project' by the Labour Party, one of the major causes of the UK's economic difficulties. This was unfair as the project had only cost some £125 million up until cancellation, and had in fact, quite a slow rate of spend for a major weapon system of this type.
As for the rest, history is complex and high dimensional and there is rarely just one reason or easy explanation (for example, above link argues for a Labour vs Conservative political fight, rather than international relations and economic warfare motivations). You read a lot of sources (and I doubt the government-controlled BBC would ever criticize past government decisions or admit to US influence) and try and criss-cross a most likely opinion, and mine is that it was a political shot.
As with the Valkyrie, the roles of both nuclear delivery aircraft and the interceptors that would catch them were rapidly being retired by ICBMs, and of course Britain's military might was less and less justified to the taxpayer as decolonisation and economic stagnation progressed, but there was still no justification for setting back the British R&D community by so much (by destroying all the TSR-2 related work, and burning the airframes). That work was relatively cutting edge ([1] claims it set the British back 8 years) and could have been used in a myriad of other projects, thus having relatively high value, even without the option to sell TSR-2s as a ROI.
To me, there is therefore the motive for economic warfare from the American side, especially considering the later purchase of F-111s by Australia when they had expressed their interest in the TSR-2 bringing back the short term international economic interest into the picture. The companies involved were clearly capable of doing this kind of thing - see General Dynamics' continuous fight against Admiral Rickover [2].
> in 1963, the RAAF chose to buy the F-111 instead, having been offered a better price and delivery schedule by the American manufacturer.[84][85] Nonetheless, the RAAF had to wait 10 years before the F-111 was ready to enter service, by which time the anticipated programme cost had tripled.
I am sure this particular tactic is familiar to many in the IT industry...
Why would they do it?
> Among the topics of discussion were the future of the TSR-2, Britain’s purchase of F-111s, and U.S. support for a desperately needed $8.4 billion loan to Britain from the International Monetary Fund.
> Although it has never been proved, some believe the TSR-2’s fate was sealed on that trip by an unofficial deal between Healey and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: Britain would cancel the TSR-2 and buy the F-111, McNamara’s pet fighter-for-all-reasons, in exchange for U.S. backing of the IMF loan. [3]
