F-86 crash

That's past tense. No one's going to crawl around on that one ever again.

It's a shame that he bought the farm but he also took an irreplaceable warbird with him. Kinda goes back to my earlier point. If folks keep flying and crashing the old historical warbirds, there will come a time when pictures are all that will be left to remember them. Might be better if they were kept on the ground where they'll be safer.

a time when

I have to agree. Not that I think owners should be _forced_ to ground their Warbirds, just that I wish they would _choose_ to once there are only a few of a given type in existence.

certainly anything unique should be protected.

Bill Woodier wrote: (snip)

I tend to agree with you, Bill. One thing that strikes me is that when these aircraft (heck - ANY high performance jet aircraft) were in the inventory, they were supported by so many folks and so much materiel in the pipeline. Not that I think the new owners are fooling themselves into owning and flying them, it's just that they're so much more complex that it's a totally different animal to manage. Maybe that's why we don't see so many jets about.... Godspeed to the pilot.

Frank Kranick

The article mentioned the ejection seat was not used. I did not think the military allowed ejection seats in civilian registered aircraft. Can a civilian purchase a working ejection seat for an aircraft?

Anyways, my understanding is that ejection seats for F86's were very primitive and probably not practicable for zero-zero ejections even if available.

Kaliste Saloom (IPMS #30703) IPMS/Acadiana Plastic Modelers Lafayette, LA USA

a time when

Nah! Some aircraft are sufficiently important as unique historical artifacts that they should not risk destruction by being flown. For instance, the Spirit of St. Louis or the Enola Gay or Guynemer's "Vieux Charles" SPAD VII should remain in the museums where they currently reside.

But some anonymous F-86 Sabre? Nah, fly the thing if it can be done with relative safety. It's certainly more interesting (and educational) in flight than it is on a pole outside some AFB main gate.

When we're down to a dozen or less left, then maybe it's time to think about sticking all the survivors in museums.

Cheers,

Did the Smith ever get it back in one piece?

WmB

Another point of view is that if it were not for these people searching the world's obscure corners for long forgotten wrecks and then rebuilding them, we would not have many of the fine flying examples we see today.

I am sure that the folks who spend the big bucks on recovery and restoration, then more on keeping them in the air are just as interested as we are in keeping examples of rare birds. In most cases I really doubt that they are in it for the money. And I am really sure that since they have lots of money, time and effort into the projects, they do everything they can to ensure they don't even scratch it.

When a tragedy like this happens it is doubly bad. We loose a beautifully restored airplane and we loose a guy who probably thought a lot along the same lines we do. We build models and he builds real airplanes. The size of our airplane projects is different, and probably for most of us, the size of our airplane budget is also a bit different, but I suspect that down deep we would find a lot in common.

But the bottom line is that individual probably spent one hell of a lot of his money and time on that airplane. It is his to do what he wants to with it. If you don't like what he does with it, then figure out a way to write him a check and then you can do what you want with it.

Norm

The Enola Gay is now reassembled and on public display at the Smithsonian's Dulles facility.

It's well worth the visit - and not just for the Enola Gay.

Cheers,

I could swear I said that. ;)

I think we said about the same thing, didn't we?

Yes. The only draw back is the cost of maintaining them. The rocket cartridges are very expensive, you have to have a license to own and maintain them plus they are in short supply. Several jet warbird owners elect not to have the rocket motors installed, they have to jump out. Not practical in many situations.

Your right, the zero zero seats didn't come along until much later...Martin Baker were the first practical ones. Besides you can end your flying career by ejecting. The older seats were so extreme they tended to compress your spine damaging it for the rest of your life. You'd live, but you might never fly again. Tough choice for some pilots.

I have to agree. I'm a volunteer on the staff of the local air museum

and we recently sponsored a visit of the EAA's B-17G "Aluminum Overcast". The EAA tours the USA with this aircraft every year giving people rides and letting people walk through it (for a price of course ;^). This is the second year the Wings Over The Rockies Museum in Denver was involved with the EAA's B-17 visit to Centennial Airport in Englewood, Colorado. Last year's visit turned out to be very popular and an additional day needed to be added to accommodate all the rides sold. This year, an additional day was built into the schedule but another day was needed and there were still dozens of people that were turned away from buying a ride due to schedule constraints. I was really surprised by the popularity of the B-17 visit and indicates to me that people really are interested in aviation and history.

So why do I mention all this? A living, breathing aircraft is much more interesting than one on a pole or behind a rope. An operating aircraft with a significant story behind it, such as a B-17, really makes history come alive for those who only know it from watching The History Channel. The experience is also priceless for those veterans who experienced the aircraft first hand. Watching the old WW II vets during their visits to the B-17 were truly inspirational and moving. To see a 70-year old vet get teary-eyed handling the .50 cal waist gun that he used to man for the first time in over 60 years is a priceless experience. One of the museum volunteers was a B-17 pilot who has lost most of his vision. He got a ride in the '17 and afterwards I talked to him about it. He said he didn't really need to see it - the smell, noise, and vibration vividly brought back the experience, even after 60 years. I was on the ground crew for the B-17 flights so I got up pretty close to the aircraft while it was operating and being that close to a living, breathing, aeronautical dinosaur really is a thrilling and valuable experience. You don't get a good sense of the sound, sensation, and power of these machines if they are just sitting in a museum. You really need to "experience" them in operation to truly understand and appreciate them.

I used to believe that most vintage and warbird aircraft were too historically valuable to be flown and should be placed in museums. However, I have changed my mind on this. It is just as important for people to "experience" these aircraft to help them understand them on a visceral level. So as long as there are other examples of a flying aircraft preserved in museums, then I say let people see, hear, and feel them fly!

Martin

If folks keep

Sorry Bill, the fact that there are already enough birds on static display in museums and at air bases pretty much renders the above argument moot. More historic aircraft have been lost recently in fires ( Musee d'lair, San Diego, Canadian Warplane Heritage and Yankee Air Force to name just a few) There is danger both on the ground and in the air. Most of the pilots that own these birds are very aware of their historic value and consider themselves custodians rather than owners. But shit breaks and sometimes at just the worst moment. There will always be those who think they know best what to do with "your" property let us hope they never get to impose their view. You are entitled to your view, I just don't agree with it in this case. All the best. Hub

will come a time when

Planes or pilots? :o)

(kim)

According to what I was told, it wasn't their spine they were concerned about. The early seats fired a sequence of cartridges and if your harness got caught you took the full force of them across your knackers.

(kim)

Well, I would agree that I wouldn't want to see it on a pole but that isn't what I was talking about. What I said was that these rare and historic warbirds (and they're all historic, not just ones that shot down aircraft, etc, etc) would be better kept on the ground on display such as in a museum environment (like at NASM or the AF Museum) where enthusiasts can enjoy these for the next 50 (or more) years. This particular one may or may not (I don't know its flight history) have been just a nondescript F-86 but then how many are left, nondescript or not? How many P-40s or Spitfires? How many B-17s, etc, etc?

Then, after the next one is lost, how many? And then the next one and, and....? Within not too much time you're out of F-86s (or P-51s, P-47s or whatever aircraft you please) and all you'll have to remember them by is photographs, videos, and the aluminum that was recycled from the wreckage to make your Schlitz beer can. I know no one can keep private owners from flying these rare and valuable birds and it is a macho thing, both that they're "man" enough to fly them and that they have the money to fly them. However, I wish they would forget about the hedonistic rush and think more of the historical value of the continued survival of these historic birds. And that's my 50 cents worth.

Every time I luck out and get a ride in Collings' B-17 and/or B-24 I keep in mind the subject of this discussion. The docents at all of the stops on the yearly tour get to fill in the passenger load if it's short. Those of us that have been doing it for years eventually pass in order for the newer volunteers to get some time in.

No more right seat time, though. Also, no more WWII original crew flying the birds. Full time pilots contracted to Collings nowadays.

The B-24 is the one some of us worry about now. She is the only stock military condition Liberator flying today.

There is something to say about keeping 60 year old warbirds on the ground, but if there are exaples in museums I don't see the problem. The reaction of passengers and visitors is worth every minute of the risk that we take. Talk to an old-timer who just took a ride in the same type of plane that he spent his youth in sixty years ago. For that matter, talk to his kids, grandkids and great-grandkids who, usually for the first time, finally understand what grandpa experienced oh so long ago.

Not limited to aircraft, either. When the Jerremiah O'Brien went to Europe for the 50th anniversary of D-Day the fact that she was the only ship left that was there in 1944 was not lost on the veterans and their families.

Keep 'em Flying!

Tom

kim wrote:

According to this site, hundreds!

I stopped counting at 150 and I was only up to Illinois in the alphabetical listing of the survivors in the US alone.

Peace and justice,