Safer on ground or in air?? was:: CAF Heinkel destroyed

There were several large collections that were destroyed by fires or storms, while in a museum or hangar, San Diego Air musuem ( arson ), Weeks museum (hurricane), a air museum in france (fire), Canadian Warplanes (fire), Bradley Air Museum (tornado), Air Zoo, (drunk driver). Nothing is safe in this world, but you can take steps to reduce the risk, and flying them responsibly is one way to do this. No pilot says I am going to go fly this plane into the ground and kill myself and destroy the plane, no more than you go out and do the same thing in your car. Accidents happen, that is what happens when humans are involved. Again, I point to the 307 as a example, nothing wrong with the plane, other than the gas tank were full of air instead of 100LL, and that was the pilots responsibility. A great many times, a crash was not caused by the plane, but who was flying the plane. Pilots at times = Faulty control stick actuators, or Faulty control wheel input devices. Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA

Matt,

Thankfully nothing was destroyed by the drunk driver at the Air Zoo. The damage to the P-39 was repaired and it is back on static display.

Jim

Rumor has it that the oil companies are planning to shut down ALL production of leaded gasoline. If that happens, it'll ground all the warbirds forever.

Mike

total gibberish.

I think it's bit premature in this case to be blaming the pilot for this tragic loss, true pilot error does feature in a large number of accidents but as yet the facts aren't known and as the 111 is not to my knowledge fitted with a flight recorder they may never be known. Perhaps the axiom of Innocent until proven guilty should be applied here and the pilot be given the benefit of the doubt until information to the contrary comes to light. Even the best maintained aircraft are subject to mechanical failure.

Great another Internet rumor! Just what we need.

Dave

I'm not trying to dump on the poster who stated the "facts" about Glacier Girl, but I question the last remaining "fact" from his original post.

Does anyone know for sure if the National Geographic was a sponsor for the project? I don't remember hearing that before and I never saw their flag flying over the project.

I don't have the book, so I am simply trying to verify or disprove the statement.

Tom

It's not really a rumor. Fuel producers are talking about it & have been for a few years now. AvGas is such a small part of their production & is a real pain for them as it is. However, warbirds are not the only AvGas users. Many warbird engines actually require the long-gone since early '70s 115/145 octane but they've been using 100/130 or 100LL since. There are still thousands of piston engined a/c out here. Many people thought the world would end when 80/87 octane became unavailable. It didn't. As the talk of stopping leaded fuel production goes on, talk of a suitable replacement goes with it. The fuel has to have some sort of lubricant (lead or a replacement) for the valves. To completely cease any supplies of AvGas of some sort would cripple the nation. Not everyone flies a turbine. Maybe that's it, convert the warbirds to turboprops! Keep 'em flying! :)

I can speak for only one aircraft, Rare Bear.

She runs on 160 octane at $10.70 per gallon provided by VP Racing Fuels at a very good break in price. No idea what it retails for.

If anybody is interested Crystal Springs provides the distilled water, Aero Shell the oil and Champion the spark plugs. Biggest expense is insurance. The support crew runs on Rare Bear at $5 per bottle donation. It's made in Reno by Tom Young (not me, the other one).

BTW, the Bear is back in the air, turning two test laps at 467.32 and

Tom Young (the other other one)