Why can't they make the oldies again?

[machineman9]

So there are a lot of nice old aircraft out there, Spitfires (and everything that wishes it was a spitfire, Oz) and the like...

But, why can't they re-produce them? Even as de-commisioned aircraft, why couldnt they make new Spitfires to sell? They costed about

[pepper_airborne]

It would cost  a lot more then 40.000 pound! But yeah they could make new ones, but there isnt a market to sell them to for the prices they would be produce.

[Hagar]

This is actually happening. I was once told by restorer Charles Church that if I gave him a genuine manufacturer's nameplate he could build me a Spitfire to go with it.

[quote]why couldnt they make new Spitfires to sell? They costed about

[Ivan]

Yakovlev is doing Yak-3M and Yak-9s with the original WW2 tooling... Only difference is that they have a merlin clone at the front instead of the Klimov.

There's only ONE flyable Yak-3 with the original engine left... For some reason that one escaped the decomissioning

[beaky]

There are quite a few classics and antiques being replicated, and even some going back into production, like the Luscombe Silvaire and Aeronca Champ (both of which fall under the new Light Sport rules in the USA).

But to get an idea of what a new Spitfire would cost (including that engine! Not just anybody can whip up a Merlin- even RR would be hard-pressed to do that now), consider this:

The new Aeronca Champ, which is still a very simple 2-seat airplane, even with the addition of an electrical system, goes for about  US$100K. When they first came out in 1945, it sold for about $2000.
An old one in superb condition won't even fetch $50K.

Those figures are about right for the Luscombe, too.

But still- it's great to see these designs resurrected.

[C]

As Doug says, several of the Spitfires flying today are effectively "new build", often with little more than an original data plate remain.