Hawker Hunter lost

Pilot was killed; fortunately (REALLY fortunate, considering) no bystanders were injured. Totalled an empty house though.

--- Stephen

Ah, that's what the newsreader on the local channel was mumbling about. All I could make of it was "a 1951 British jet" crashed into a house. True, that would limit the possibilities some...

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

No idea about the pilot, but it was a gorgeous plane. A fellow Seattle modeler sent a picture.. oh well. Anyhow, here's the link to the article in the Times archives:

--- Stephen Tontoni

I recall an old WINGS article about the Smithsonian's Corsair. The restoration boss talked about going to airshows and looking over restored Corsairs. There was a place in the wheelwells, at a main spar, where his own plane had a dangerous patch of rust, which had taken a lot of work to eradicate; every "restored" Corsair he looked at still had it.

Yikes, was the rust 'camouflaged'? I'd be interested to snoop some..we have an F4Usomething and an F2G here in Seattle. Of course, they don't fly, although the F2G is airworthy.

==begin soapbox==

I love to see the old planes flying, but as I've said so many times... the old planes are irreplaceable, and it makes me nervous to lose the historical artifacts.

Flying is for modern planes, and replicas, in my opinion. (which is a minority opinion here, and yes, if someone wants to buy/restore/invest, it is their prerogative to fly the plane if they want to)

==end soapbox==

... grins

--- Stephen

It has been my oft-stated opinion as well. I also get a charge out of seeing and hearing the warbirds flying but I'd rather enjoy them on the ground in a static display for the next 20-30 years than flying for 2-3 years, then crash and become a pile of worthless junk. Just my 2-cents worth as well.

Bill> It has been my oft-stated opinion as well. I also get a Bill> charge out of seeing and hearing the warbirds flying but I'd Bill> rather enjoy them on the ground in a static display for the Bill> next 20-30 years than flying for 2-3 years, then crash and Bill> become a pile of worthless junk.

Imagination is a powerful thing. It is easy to compromise a little on reality and leave a little more to the imagination. A running engine on a taxying plane can conjure up images of flying hordes in anyone's mind, probably even those disenpowered by years of television anaesthesia.

Trying an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a butterfly...

I agree that it's much safer to run up engines from time to time over actually flying the artifacts. Better still is flying replicas while keeping the artifacts in safe keeping.

As for the butterfly analogy.... sorry, I don't even get it. Is it like pulling the wings off a butterfly or using a magnifying glass on an ant? huh?? Sorry to make fun... just don't even see a parallel here at all.

-- Stephen

Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 07:49:

I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the fully-understandable mentality of the crew who flew the Vulcan on its last season and who I chatted to about this subject.

"You've done your job, thank you very much now off to the scrap heap with you."

The reminiscences come much later and more so probably by those who were never involved with the aircraft or other mechanical beast.

I loved my time as an ATC cadet and have happy days flying in Britannias, Belfasts, Hercules, VC10s and Andovers but being around RAF personnel, one picks up the solely pragmatic approach to the life and future of these flying machines.

When in a museum and seeing those magnificent creatures one can almost say "you want to fly again don't you girl, just once more!"

Richard.

Or further, Richard, let me ask you this.... if the Spirit of St. Louis could be restored to airworthy condition, do you really think that it should be flown? I mean, it was designed to be flown, and modified to be able to cross the Atlantic... it's a crying shame not to. in the Smithsonian, it's really wasted because everyone wants to hear that plane's huge (yes kidding) engine roar again, right?

I would guess, and could be wrong, that you'd say 'no, it's too valuable an airframe to do that'.. and that's correct. So why value all these other artifacts less than that puny Ryan? Because of what it did? What about what these warbirds did? That was pretty remarkable too, or do you not value that?

And another analogy... I don't know if you could find it, but it wouldn't surprise me if you found WWII era K or C rations on ebay. If you won some of these, would you feel like you should eat them? That's what they were designed for..... Or would it not only be destroying a bit of history, while at the same time.. who knows... might be a little dangerous? You'd probably not eat it for those very reasons.

Rich guys will always buy warbirds for restoration, and they will always fly them because they either intended to from the beginning, or needed to recoup some money, or else the temptation is just too strong. They get flown.

And they auger in, frequently taking the rich guy with them. We got lots of rich guys... I don't much care about them...I'm concerned about the airframes, because we are losing our aviation heritage through sheer stupidity. (eg the Boeing 307 that ditched in water in Seattle because the most experienced pilots in he business just ran it out of gas... dumb!!)

--- Stephen

Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:59:

Case in point: the BBMF Lancaster.

Richard.

Now *that* was what I *call* a rant! Articulate, passionate and - above all - factual!

I'm prettty skilled in the art of the rant myself, but I clearly have a long way to go before I reach your level of expertise! ;-)

According to my father C-rations weren't fit to eat when new. ;)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

the cigs were stale, the chocolate turned white and the condoms had leaks.

True, the airframe wasn't lost, but a great example of sheer stupidity. Your point is well taken though.

--snippage--

Ummmmm I think replicas are excellent, and the way to go for these aircraft. It's the originals that we can't afford to fly. I said that earlier...

We've had this discussion umpteen million times (that's just short of a kajillion) and all we've really established is that there are two camps, those who want the warbirds to fly, and those who do not.

I acknowledge that rich guys will always buy aircraft for restoration and will fly them. That's what they do. It's just a sorry shame to lose the airplane when the rich guy does a one point landing.

I am never going to agree that these *ARTIFACTS* should be up in the air; they are museum pieces, just like the Spirit of St. Louis (no one answered my question, did they?) or any other item from antiquity. Similarly, Richard and Rufus (et al) will never agree that they should be kept in museums.

It cannot be disputed, though, that more aircraft are destroyed in flying mishaps than the fabled 'hangar fire' (and yes there have been some). And it cannot be disputed that the vast majority of these mishaps are due to pilot error. Pilots will always crash planes from time to time, and I don't think it's worth the risk just to get a rush from the humm of the engines (which you can hear on the ground if it's run up).

No offense intended, Rufus, but I find your contention remarkably short-sighted: "I'd rather see one crash and burn and remembered in reverence than to see one out of context and tied down, opened up, and put on parade..."

You honestly believe that? Wow.

See, I'd even prefer that B-29 in Greenland to still be on the ice intact than burning in a hare-brained scheme to fly it out of there. I believe that is real reverence. I don't need to see it fly to be in awe.

I got no report on the condoms. ;)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.