Hawker Hunter lost

.50 cal Desert Eagle.

Reply to
Enzo Matrix
Loading thread data ...

...well, if you're going THERE...gimme a Barrett light .50. No need to get up-close and personal about it.

Reply to
Rufus

Oh to see those Titan II's, scuds, V1s and V2s flying again! Its a shame they sit idly in museums and air parks only to be gazed at on the ground. ;)

Um. Maybe not such a good idea that all things remain in their intended ultimate state for which they were designed. Remember, even airplanes were designed to remain on the ground 99.9% of the time. That's why they had landing gear and a kill engine switch.

There comes an end time to every machine's useful life. I am thankful that there are those out there who see that and have the foresight to preserve such historical if not beautiful machines for future generations to admire. After all, Rome's coliseum is no longer used for gladiator fights and Greece's Parthenon is no longer used as a temple, but I am still glad they were not torn down to make room for other more useful structures and remain for all to admire so long after their useful life ended.

I'd rather see a real P-51 on the ground in a museum than a picture of one in a 10 foot deep burned out hole. I know my future great grand kids would understand my point.

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

Reply to
Kaliste

Okay, we are miles apart here, Rufus. You're a flyer and not a historian. Can't really talk, I guess, because we're not even using similar definitions.

Do let me know next time that B17's hit Bremerhaven, since that is their sole function...

Be well.

--- Stephen

Reply to
Stephen Tontoni

Not their sole function - their intended function. We shouldn't forget that.

Reply to
Rufus

Yesterday and today the Wings over the Wine Country show had eight P-51Ds in the air. Quite a sight. As far as the few and far between there was a FM-2 Wildcat and a P-51H flying, but they just did a circuit or two each.

In the PCAM display area hundreds of people sat in the cockpits, climbed around in the Il-14 and generally enjoyed thoroughly our aircraft, none of which will ever fly again.

So, I think that there is plenty of room for both flying and static arcraft. When they get down to just one or two still flying that should be taken nto consideration. The Collings Foundation B-24 is unique, the only one still flying. Their safety record is astounding, but should the 50+ years old brd continue to fly? I thnk so as there are several more in museums.

Tom

Rufus wrote:

Reply to
maiesm72

I was being kind of sarcastic; all of your posts so far have stressed that their function was to drop bombs, be weapons of destruction, therefore we should see them fly.

Well, if so, we should see them kill as well, don't you think? Yes, my tongue is firmly in cheek, but that is the gyst of your argument.

And with that, I'm done talking about it. I was the one who reported the Hunter lost out of news interest, without any editorial comment, until Richard (I believe) brought it up.

Reply to
Stephen Tontoni

e said the following on 20/08/06 19:51: [snipped]

I'd have to disagree as the term beauty at least used to be based on a reaction of the senses to a visual stimuli and some boffins have worked out that in the human face, it's based somewhat on the evenness of the left and right hand sides.

You might be thinking of the term picked up and used by the hippies now known as 'inner beauty' which is as true a term as when the press used to report things such as "a woman was chased down an alley, mugged, beaten and 'made love to'."

A work of art or design can have no apparent function but be beautiful to the beholder.

Richard.

Reply to
Richard Brooks

Stephen Tontoni said the following on 21/08/06 07:53:

Yours I believe!

Richard.

Reply to
Richard Brooks

snipped-for-privacy@some.domain (e) wrote

Really? Picked mine up new for Au$10 on a markdown sale. If I can find another I'll send you a copy.

Rob

Reply to
AussieRob

" snipped-for-privacy@netscape.com" wrote

Well stated Tom. If you all (y'awl?) want my opinion... If you put your money into it, you're damned well entitled to do with it as you please. If you want to fly it, fly it. If you want to put in a museum, do so. If you want to stunt it until a wing falls off and you auger in, well, that's your choice, too. And until we all manage to own our own vintage airyplanes, we should damn well shut up and just be glad that there are crazy rich men out there who are willing to spend money on pieces of machinery that are well past their use-by date, and are also willing to share their obsession with us!

Just my $.026 worth...

Rob

Reply to
AussieRob

that is a truth. if it's tax payer money, i want a voice, if it's your nickle, it's none of my goddam business. people who own house are a sad example of preservation gone wrong. an easy example would be the this old house in england. they had a $40,000 "correction" they were forced to make by a hyterical, oops, historical society. some of that is obtrusive, the rest is obnoxious.

Reply to
e

thanks, i'll cheerfully send costs or anybooks, music you want i can find. i can find almost any rock music and i can turn your old vinyl into sweet cd format. and i always return the vinyl restored and happy. any reg in this group wants a lp or tape converted to cd, no charge, just ask. even if you have 100. no foolsies....

Reply to
e

WOW!!! That's unusual...I've gotten to walk around them, but not climb in them (unless I was working on 'em - only WWII era fighter I've ever been at the controls of is a P-38). VERY generous of the owners, and something I wouldn't mind seeing more of. What an opportunity.

Reply to
Rufus

Then you've missed my point entirely - we should see them fly because they were built to fly. But we should also never forget that they were designed to be the most efficient means of killing - not for our amusement.

No - not that we should see them kill, but that we should remember that they can. And that this rememberance not only fosters respect, it also helps make their operation safer.

My argument also is that their loss is acceptable becuase they were built to be disposable in the first place, and that the loss of aircraft is simply a fact which is part and parcel of flying. That is all.

Editorials are always welcome.

Reply to
Rufus

I can find beauty in function - I think that's what he was getting at.

Reply to
Rufus

I used to not think much of Harriers until I spent four yearrs working on them and found out what they could do...I could say the same about A-10s too.

Reply to
Rufus

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.