Real World Aircraft that have raided the spare parts bin

[Spey_Phantom]

the first Eurofighter prototype flew with the Tornado's Turbo-Union RB199 engines 

even the new Sukhoi PAK-FA has parts from the Su-27/35 (landing gear, cockpit)
and the Su-47 berkut also used the tailplanes, nose, landinggear and engines from the Su-27 

[scooter]

Following that logic you could say that Boeing took 41 years from its incorporation to flying its first jetliner.

There were a lot of fits and starts, and a global war that delayed that, Kit. 

[PR19_Kit]

Following that logic you could say that Boeing took 41 years from its incorporation to flying its first jetliner.

There were a lot of fits and starts, and a global war that delayed that, Kit. 

I don't disagree, but the argument that it took Airbus 26 years to build the A400M is equally invalid.

[MaxHeadroom]

You can't compare apples to pears, PR19_Kit; when Boeing was founded, there were no jet-engines at the horizon, and Airbus was founded 1970, long time before the A400M comes in need, 'cause the Hercules and the Transall were still at it's top.
-the end-

Norbert

[PR19_Kit]

You can't compare apples to pears, PR19_Kit; when Boeing was founded, there were no jet-engines at the horizon, and Airbus was founded 1970, long time before the A400M comes in need, 'cause the Hercules and the Transall were still at it's top.
-the end-

Norbert

PRECISELY!

[NARSES2]

Didn't the Viking pinch A-10 engines and A-7 landing gear/bays?

My memory is saying both the A9 and A10 prototypes used various bits from then production aircraft ?

[kitnut617]

The X-32 used a Harrier GR.5/7/9/AV-8B canopy, and I think some other bits & pieces from other existing aircraft

[Logan Hartke]

There's always the famous "DC-2½".







The Douglas C-38 and C-39 could also be called "DC-2½" for "raiding the spare parts bin".

The C-39 was a mixture of DC-2, DC-3 and military specific parts and assemblies. The plane used a basic DC-2 forward and center fuselage section mated to a DC-3 style aft fuselage and tail. The wing consisted of a DC-3 center section and DC-2 outboard wings. The landing gear was based on the design developed for the Douglas B-18 bomber. Because the C-39 was essentially a hybrid of DC-2 and DC-3 assemblies, it was unofficially known as the DC-2½.

Around the same time, there were also the Curtiss Model H81-A3s that went to China and were used by the famous "Flying Tigers". These are variously referred to as P-40Bs, P-40Cs, Tomahawk Is, Tomahawk IIs, Tomahawk IIAs, or Tomahawk IIBs—none of which are truly correct. If you want to get technical, they can only be correctly called H81-A3s. They really were hybrids with parts from all of those models, oftentimes combined in a way that matched no single type. Likewise, they were not all built to the same standard, so you might get in one with USAAF-style harness and another with an RAF-style harness.

There persist to this day some confusion about which version of the Tomahawk that was actually delivered to China. Was it the Tomahawk IIA (equivalent to P-40B) or Tomahawk IIB (equivalent to P-40C)? Curtiss company records list them as Model H81-A3, which would seem to make them Tomahawk IIBs (equivalent to the P-40C). There are some discrepancies between Curtiss records matching Tomahawk designations to RAF serials and to equivalent US Army P-40 models, so there is confusion on this point. However, the AVG planes couldn't be Tomahawk IIAs, since only 172 of these were built and there is no record of any of them being delivered from the RAF to China. Therefore, many historians have concluded that the AVG planes had to have been Tomahawk IIBs, which would make them equivalent to the USAAF P-40C. However, Erik Shilling, who was a member of the AVG and who was also a flight leader and an engineering officer for the group, maintains that the airplanes with the AVG were actually export models of the P-40B and not the C. After all, he was there and he ought to know! He says that the Flying Tiger airplanes did not have the equipment to carry the external 52-gallon drop tank, nor were they equipped with bomb shackles. In addition all of the fuel tanks had external self-sealing material, not internally-mounted sealing material as in the "C" model. Also the Model "C" had armor plate in the front, ahead of the pilot, installed on the firewall between the two fifties, but the AVG's planes did not.

The resolution of the problem seems to be be in the fact that the AVG Tomahawks were actually built to a special order. The planes were indeed diverted from Tomahawk IIB contracts, which was equivalent to the P-40C, but when the the planes were actually built they were equipped with the externally-sealed fuel tanks that had been used on the Tomahawk IIA. It seems that Curtiss had some surplus externally-sealed fuel tanks lying around that the British did not want, and decided to use them on the Chinese contract. In addition, the Chinese contract did not specifically ask for plumbing or shackles for an external fuel tank, so this was deleted. Consequently, the AVG Tomahawks were functionally equivalent to Tomahawk IIAa, even though they were taken from a Tomahawk IIB production batch. So they are basically P-40Bs and not P-40Cs.

In this case, Curtiss was quite literally raiding the spare parts bin to build the aircraft.





Cheers,

Loga

[Logan Hartke]

Also, if you remember, the whole problem with the MiG-29SMTs for Algeria was that RSK MiG was raiding the spare parts bin to save money.

These should have been upgraded to the SMT/UBT standard, but following shipment of the first batch last year, the Algerian air force found that some "new" equipment actually dated back to the early 1990s, when the aircraft had been manufactured.

Algeria returns 'faulty' MiG-29s

Deliveries of the first aircraft began before the end of 2006, but the Algerians soon noticed that something was very wrong. The "new" fighters weren't that new at all. The SMTs had been assembled using old, unsold airframes from old MiG-29s that had been languishing in open storage at the Lukhovitsy factory.

They may even have used airframes built for Iraq, way back in the late 1980s.

Russia's Fearsome New MiGs Could Be Lemons

Cheers,

Logan

[Logan Hartke]

A LOT of post-WWII aircraft were assembled from the "spare parts bin", but one of my favorites that I think best exemplifies the period was the Avia S-199 "Mule". Originally to have been fairly standard Bf 109G-6s (Avia S-99s), a warehouse fire that destroyed most of the stored DB 605s forced them to use Junkers Jumo 211Fs originally intended for bombers.



The Hispano Aviación HA-1112 Buchóns had a very similar story, as well. The Merlins they used were war surplus.

While I don't know if any actual original FFA P-16 parts were used in it, the original Learjet's wing and landing gear design were basically taken from Swiss attack plane.







Cheers,

Logan

[Logan Hartke]

Sorry, but more and more examples keep coming to mind. I find this funny because one of the world's first business jets nicked parts from a jet attack aircraft prototype and now jet attack aircraft prototypes are nicking parts from business jets.

Textron AirLand Scorpion

Textron's CEO Scott Donnelly said the project sought to deliver an affordable, versatile, tactical aircraft by taking advantage of commercial aviation technologies. Many parts come from aircraft built by Textron subsidiary Cessna. The flap drive mechanism is from the Citation XLS and Mustang; the aileron drive mechanism comes from the Citation X and the dual hydraulic systems are based on the Citation X. The ejection seat was designed around specifications provided by Martin-Baker, rather than having Martin-Baker shoe-horn the US16T ejection seats into the airframe at great cost. Chief engineer Dale Tutt said using existing components shaved a year off development time. Textron AirLand said 70% of the aircraft's parts were from Cessna's inventory, while 21% were commercially available and nine per cent unique to the Scorpion

AFM - See, Sense, Sting

Cheers,

Logan

[kerick]

Then there is the Piper Enforcer.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050324-F-1234P-027.jpg

And the Skyfox.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/other/skyfox/skyfox-1.jpg

Both good ideas that never caught on.

[martinbayer]

The BAC 221, which was converted from a Fairey Delta 2, used the main landing gear from a Lightning.

Martin

[Logan Hartke]

The Saab 21R and Yak-15 are two of my favorite production examples along these lines, too.





While not quite as direct, the Supermarine Attacker and North American FJ-1 Fury had similar heritages based on the Spiteful and Mustang, respectively.





On the bomber side, you have the Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing and the Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster.





Cheers,

Logan

[Logan Hartke]

The AT-6 Texan and its relatives (NA-16/BT-9/SNJ/Harvard/Wirraway) provided a ready source of spares for all sorts of increasingly unusual variants (some of which were more successful than others).


North American A-27


North American NA-50, NA-68/P-64


CAC Boomerang


Bacon Super T-6


CAC Ceres


Bennett Airtruck

Cheers,

Logan