Rufus> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >>>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Woodier writes: >> >> 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.
Rufus> Trying an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a Rufus> butterfly...
Like I said, imagination is a powerful thing. But mate, you also need to learn how to control the thing! :lol:
Enzo> Richard Brooks wrote: >> Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:59: >>>> In article , >>>> Richard Brooks wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>> 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? >> >> [tonnage snipped] >> >> Case in point: the BBMF Lancaster.
Enzo> During my last five years in the RAF, I had to buy my own Enzo> boots because the air force couldn't afford to issue me any Enzo> new ones. And it's not as though I take a size 37 or Enzo> something... I take size 8!
Enzo> When the RAF cannot even afford to properly clothe and equip Enzo> its own personnel, I think it is pretty much criminal that Enzo> they spend goodness knows how much money keeping vintage Enzo> non-operational aircraft flying.
Enzo> I do love the aircraft of the BBMF, but I believe very Enzo> strongly that they should be funded from the lottery or Enzo> public subscription, *not* from the defence budget.
There's always that additional group that doesn't care either way and sees room for either approach - static and living commemoration. Nothing lasts forever; whether it dies in a museum fire, in a column of flame and smoke on the edge of an airfield or at the stroke of the pen of a bean counter condemning it to slow decay back into the ground one rivet at a time.
In that context maybe we ought to gripe less and compliment more the folks that keep these birds from the scrap heaps.
Yes. I guess it depends on what you think of as the "value" of an airplane. The ones we are talking about are weapons - pure and simple. Their "value" is as a weapon, and weapons are expendable. Yes, is was tragic to see Geenemyer's efforts result in a burned out hulk, but I got over it.
Maybe it's because I'm an aviation professional, but my take is fly 'em if you're gonna build 'em. I hate watching airplanes break from sitting still. Yes, you're gonna crash some...do it, and move on.
Rufus> Trying an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a Rufus> butterfly... >> >> Like I said, imagination is a powerful thing. But mate, you >> also need to learn how to control the thing! :lol:
Rufus> Heh...then I would just be a control freak...
Rufus> There's a guy down at Mojave that has a Hunter. What a Rufus> beauty in the air.
WE've got a couple down in Cape Town too, painted jet black. Lovely sight indeed! 50's jets rock.
Okay, whatever our backgrounds... but let me ask you this, so as not to twist your words, Rufus. You would agree:
1) Airplanes in museums are destroyed/damaged less than flying aircraft?
2) It is more important to you (not assuming you speak for anyone else) to see the plane in the air, rather than in static display, until the aircraft is eventually destroyed?
If you agree to the two previous statements, you would have to agree that it is more important to you to see (name the plane here) fly than it is to have some kid see the plane at all. Is that correct?
If so, that seems not only short-sighted, but kind of selfish.
I don't mean to say that you are short-sighted or selfish, Rufus; I don't mean to offend. But do you see what I'm getting at?
email@example.com (e) wrote in news:16FFg.505827$ firstname.lastname@example.org:
More reading material... "Hunting Warbirds - The Obsessive Quest for the Lost aircraft of WWII" by Carl Hoffman looks at the 'recovery' of Kee Bird, as well as digging into the minds of the guys who spend millions recovering twisted piles of metal that may fly again one day. Worth looking for.
Depends on your definition of "destroyed". A lot (most?) of aircraft in most museums are not airworthy - and yes, in that case I would consider them "destroyed". It's the same way I feel about cutting those holes in the side of the U-505...disgusted.
It's more important to me to see an airplane in the air. To do that is to risk it's loss, and to me that is a fully acceptable risk. It's just something that is part and parcel of flying - a statement of fact. As a pilot myself, flying is what is important to me. Not so much the aircraft. One respects an aircraft, but accepts the risk.
Yes. Furthermore, I think it's even more important to have that kid see it fly.
Not really. There are many artifacts, items, and trinkets which history loses - that is the nature of history, and the passage of time. Just another statement of fact.
Like I said before, it gets down to what sort of "value" you place on an aircraft. I've been working on and around military aircraft long enough to place more value on what one does with them than on the aircraft itself, and I don't particularly care how old or new that aircraft might be. I've had jets that I've spent years of my life working on end up on a stick, the scrap heap, shot up in testing, or lost due to mechanical failure. I've seen the back end of one wreck grafted onto the front end of another wreck only to watch this Phoenix run off a runway during a landing gear failure and get rebuilt yet again. I get over it, and move on to the next one.
As long as I get my crew back. So far, I've only lost one of "my guys"...and that was in a helo, during on an op that wasn't mine...I've never liked helos. And I've had a friend killed practicing for an airshow - because they didn't let him fly enough before they tapped him. I know guys that won't fly airshows - but I wouldn't try to stop anyone from flying.
Personally, I think that to value the aircraft more than the purpose for which it was built is "selfish and short-sighted". I guess I do even find it a bit "offensive". Military aircraft aren't built just so we can make neat models and visit museums. They exist for one purpose and one purpose only - to fight for a cause. When they fly and/or when they are lost they remind us of that, and in so doing continue in the purpose for which they were built. To relegate that to a secondary status just so the public can have something to gawk at in a display is an offense to that cause and that purpose.