Julian, I understand where you care coming from. I think you may be stating your position not as tactfully as you could.
But we can look at it this way: had we known these pilots, we'd have been directly involved and be grieving their loss. And oh yeah, darn shame about the plane too. Since we don't know them, we don't have that connection.
Had either of those pilots died of natural causes or in a car crash last week, we wouldn't even know about nor would we be discussing their deaths here.
Obviously the connection is around the aircraft for many of us, rather than around the pilots flying them.
That being said, it sounds like this discussion is getting too hot between certain personalities. I'd suggest toning it down a bit; other wise lines of communication will simply close.
IIRC, it looked similar to the way a Spitfire came to grief a few years ago (about the time we lost the Mosquito?): just ran out of air, hit the runway pretty much level and fireballed. The latter didn't seem to happen in the case of the Firefly, there seemed to be large portions of the wreck substantially intact, so it may be it can be restored as a static exhibit. Although having seen what they restored the Blenheim to flying condition after its 1982 crash, I wouldn't rule out ay least bits of it flying again. But that was a unique item, and IIRC there's another airworthy Firefly, albeit not in the U.K.
I normally don't respond to troll lines like this one, but there are some basic facts that some people just can't seem to grasp.
First and foremost it is the fact that MAN made the airplane, not vice versa. Without the very few who do care and restore the old aircraft (or tanks, or ships, or cars...you pick the subject) there would be no preserved anythings out there.
The loss of a rare item is a shame, to be sure; but the loss of the people who spent their time and effort (and money) to restore these things to their former glory and share the experiences with the rest of us is the bigger shame. Without them, nothing else gets restored or rebuilt, period.
As for the loss of the people being irrelevant, I have been working on the Korean Air War now for 12 years and there are still instances of loss there which are saddening due to the circumstances (such as Jesse Brown) or loss to one or another unit.
That's 50 years ago, and I can't get too excited about the loss of a particular BuAer number or "Bortoviy Nomer" from the sheer numbers, but I can about the aircrew.
It's the same way with modelers. I may not care for some of the models people have made, but when we lose the modeler we all are diminished a bit. Same with this subject, and I would like express my condolences to the RNHF for their loss.
I think this is a relevant point. This is a time of competition, of spectacle. Everyone wants to do the lowest, fastest, scariest manoevres to impress the punters. Remember the Lightning at Duxford? Rolls along the runway VERY low. Pilots notes say "...do not roll below 1000 feet..." Splat.... I used to drive an old Merc sports car. In its prime, it was spectacular and hairy. However, as time passed, I realised they were becoming rarer and rarer. IF I had the only working example left, I sure as hell wouldn't be driving it down the A12 at 140mph!
I saw the Firefly recently. Did a circuit, one low-ish fast pass, then a zoom climb with that magical Merlin roar. The sight, the sound, brought a tear to the eye. When will they understand you don't have to fly it like a Zlin to impress people? When the Swordfish putters past, straight, level, proud, it's more than enough that it is just there, flying. When an artefact is precious, unique, irreplaceable, use it, but treat it with care. Now, all of you, lets have a respectful minute's silence for Bill Murton and Neil Rix and thank God for all the pleasure they gave us, and the sacrifice they made.
N (Proud to be a member of the FAASIG, with Steve and all the other guys who understand these things)
What a very curious argument--our works are more important than we are? Well, I guess that's just another scrap of unusual thinking that in time may evolve into yet another religion. I can't wait.
I suppose there are thousands of people, who as they become aware of the loss of the Firefly, will frown, shake their heads, perhaps mutter an imprecation, and then go back to the paper and the coffee, forgetting about it until and unless it comes up in conversation with other aficionados of warbirds. The loved ones of those killed are impacted far more deeply,and whether 45,000 or 4.5 billion people die on a given day, if it's someone you're fond of, the impact is vastly more unpleasant.
As far as flying these machines, and how they are flown, yes, private property rights should be respected, yes, museums occasionally catch fire or otherwise lose valuable exhibits, yes, warbirds can be maintained to very high technical standards, and yes, it is statistically plausible (though unproven) that more people catch a glimpse of warbird if it is flown frequently than if it sits in a static setting. Nothing, nothing, nothing lasts forever, except possibly some of these threads, However...
In the absence of specific actuarial evidence to the contrary (folks assert a lot of things here; they prove very little,) it is my belief that flying warbirds dramatically increases the risk that said warbirds will be destroyed or damaged, and that risk is greater if the warbird is flown in manuvers that are more typical of combat flying than simply straight and level flypasts, or Point A to Point B flights. If they keep flying, we are going to lose them.
So what?
It's just stuff. Fascinating stuff, to be sure. Stuff I love getting close to and daydreaming about. Stuff to consider building. But just stuff. Warbirds are the fifty-year-old cabernets of aviation. They need to be enjoyed, even if the enjoyment consumes them. I think they'll get consumed more efficiently if they aren't flown much, or maybe even at all, but as far as the private warbirds are concerned, it ain't my call and I'm not going to lose even one wink over it. However, I fully ascribe to the notion that the NASM aircraft ought not be flown at all, ever, and that goes for anything else the U.S. government holds as exhibits. The Boeing 307 fiasco tells me all I need to know about flying 'our' warbirds.
Well, I'm all for seeing them airworthy and in flight. Being "Flown" is another issue.
Agreed, but the pilot needs to take exceptional care. I would be the first to hurrah a warbird pilot who avoided aerobatics just to ensure the aircraft would survive.
I'm not criticising aerobatics, however; my personal thoughts are there is too much of it in too rare/significant aircraft.
Yes its sad for the families, but the 2 flying obviously been in aircraft before, knew all about flying and gravity, but they were willing to take the risk, cant condone them for that as i do dangerous sports, or did and knew the risks. All im saying is that there is more people ready and waiting to do the same thing. now when the GR4 was shot down by the patiot missle a few months back i was distraught for the pilots etc, not so on the plane although the plane had recently been modded with tax payers cash.....death by war and pleasure are 2 differant things. I remember when Ratzenberger and Senna were killed, no mentioned of the other driver, its all Senna, but they knew the risks......i hear all the time that 'Tommy died doing what he loved' i feel more for families like the ones killed by car theives recently than the 2 in the Firefly, yes its sad they died, but many more are willing to do it and they knew the risks.
correct
Yes, i like aircraft and having met pilots, some recently they would do anything else.
Yes, would liked to have seent hat plane fly, couldnt have cared who flew it
I have made my point and i stand by it, although written text does not always come accross as its meant
I'd agree - I don't need to see loops and wingovers, the grace of a banked pass is enough for me, but for the 'non-enthusiast' they expect more than a flypast.
I think they would like to see it repaired as it would be a memorial for them. I am sure that the last thing a pilot of a preserved aircraft wants to do is damage it.
The whole episode was shocking and very sad for all concerned!
I think I would amend that comment to "there is too much of it at too low an altitude in too rare/significant aircraft".
As some comments have pointed up, the aerobatics that seem to lead to grief are flown at too low an altitude. This Firefly, the Rolls-Royce Spit 14, someone mentioned a Lightning (I hadn't heard about that one),
Maybe there's the middle ground. I've wondered what's the point of some of the aggressive maneuvers that are performed in these airplanes. Flypasts, simple low-G maneuvers like aileron rolls, pull-ups, wingovers, mock strafing passes are fine and give a good look at the airplane. Any kind of flying involves risk, but eliminating some of the high-G maneuvers will eliminate much of the risk from the low level flying that is the staple at airshows. It will also put less strain on an old airframe.
NASM airplanes are held under a completely different concept than CAF birds and their brethren. NASM's collection holds many unique and historic aircraft as well as examples of more common production types. They are an archival museum if you will.
The 307 fiasco shows that a special set of skills doesn't exempt some people from being amazingly careless. All flights on an airplane like that should be handled like check flights, with a second captain double checking the PIC and looking over his shoulder, especially during pre-flight. Crew costs are a pittance compared to the restoration costs. Fuel load shouldn't need to be calculated to the drop, either. It's flying with a light enough load that the "fuel in the underground tanks is among the three most useless things to an aviator" adage applies.
The Grand Tour for the 307 before it went into the NASM collection and sat on the ground forever was a good one. A victory lap for a great old airplane and for the company that made the restoration possible. I also expected it would be a tighter operation than it apparently was. I'm curious as to whether it's the same pilot flying it. Anyone know?
It looks like there's some agreement emerging on this point. We like to see the old planes flown, but not tossed around. Like Mr. Cheffers-Heard said, a fast pass and a zoom climb can do plenty.
When we used to have the airshow in Georgetown, Texas, my favorite moments were when each aircraft would do several slow passes, banking to show the top of the plane in what was called a "photo pass." It gave much more of a feel than watching it perform high speed twisting and turning out past show center.
You're right, I've been corrected elsewhere. I could only recall some small bits on a trailer at (IIRC) Greenham Common (in 1982?) with a sign saying they'd hoped to have it flying there, and that donations to putting it back in he air would be appreciated. When the second Blenheim flew, I thought they'd managed to do it.
Always good input Bobby; and yes, it's the same crew flying it from Seattle to DC. Cross your fingers.
I heard that the fuel guages in the cockpit were dummies and that to check the gas on the 307 currently took using a stick in the tank. That sounds ludicrous to me; anyone know about that? The thinking is that someone miscommunicated how much fuel was in it and they took off without knowing how much fuel they actually had.
Yep every flight, if necessary, on one of these artifacts should treat it as a NASA launch.
the gas gauges are notoriusly bad, and it is standard practice to stick the tanks. the stick has markings on the sides for what ever tank you are measuring, it is normally accurate enough for use. What the 307 crew did was inexcusable Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA
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.