He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:34 pm
I write this in response to a person’s question to me the other day concerning the B-17 loss and the B-25 incident in France. This individual felt that allowing 70-year-old aircraft to fly was reckless and irresponsible and that these planes due to age and fatigue were accidents waiting to happen and they should all be grounded permanently. I am also directing this to the fourth estate, as I am tired of hearing the press emphasizing the age of the aircraft as contributing somehow to these and other similar incidents. It is a little more complicated than that. Below is my rebuttal. I’m not sure it changes any minds but just in case anyone reading WIX might share some of these views here goes.
If you take an airframe manufactured in 1944 inspect and certify the spar and castings then completely replace the hydraulic system, and the fuel system including new modern bladder tanks then completely rewire the airplane, install modern avionics, completely re-build and or re-place all of the control cables and related assemblies, re-build all of the control surfaces and flap assemblies, re-skin most of the fuselage and wing surfaces, replace several formers, replace all of the Plexiglas, and then zero time both engines and props, do you have a 67 year old airplane?
For many years now there has been a discussion in certain circles about the perceived danger of operating vintage aircraft. These issues have been debated ad nausea and I’m sure it will continue to be debated as long as airplanes fly. I am aware of several war birds, a Mustang comes to mind, that for all intents and purposes is probably much newer than that airliner you flew in the other day.
Of course the real issue is not so much the year of manufacture but the quality of the rebuild and the inspection and maintenance of the aircraft. If properly maintained and operated they can fly forever.
In my conversations I always try to emphasize the restoration and maintenance on the aircraft in question. I let them know that structurally these planes were built to carry loads and handle G that are far in excess to what little stress we put on them today. I mention safety considerations and modern upgrades. I also stress that we are very aware of the historic significance of these planes and that our pink little bodies ride in them and that few of us consider ourselves dare devils.
Only a fool would fly in an aircraft that he suspects is not airworthy.
It reminds me of the story about my great, great grandfather’s ax. Over the years we had to replace the handle several times and the blade twice but it is my great, great grandfather’s ax!
I rest my case.
If you take an airframe manufactured in 1944 inspect and certify the spar and castings then completely replace the hydraulic system, and the fuel system including new modern bladder tanks then completely rewire the airplane, install modern avionics, completely re-build and or re-place all of the control cables and related assemblies, re-build all of the control surfaces and flap assemblies, re-skin most of the fuselage and wing surfaces, replace several formers, replace all of the Plexiglas, and then zero time both engines and props, do you have a 67 year old airplane?
For many years now there has been a discussion in certain circles about the perceived danger of operating vintage aircraft. These issues have been debated ad nausea and I’m sure it will continue to be debated as long as airplanes fly. I am aware of several war birds, a Mustang comes to mind, that for all intents and purposes is probably much newer than that airliner you flew in the other day.
Of course the real issue is not so much the year of manufacture but the quality of the rebuild and the inspection and maintenance of the aircraft. If properly maintained and operated they can fly forever.
In my conversations I always try to emphasize the restoration and maintenance on the aircraft in question. I let them know that structurally these planes were built to carry loads and handle G that are far in excess to what little stress we put on them today. I mention safety considerations and modern upgrades. I also stress that we are very aware of the historic significance of these planes and that our pink little bodies ride in them and that few of us consider ourselves dare devils.
Only a fool would fly in an aircraft that he suspects is not airworthy.
It reminds me of the story about my great, great grandfather’s ax. Over the years we had to replace the handle several times and the blade twice but it is my great, great grandfather’s ax!
I rest my case.
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:42 pm
Give 'em he11, Dan-o!
Woman: "Is it safe to fly in that old airplane?"
Pilot: "How do you think it got to be an old airplane?"
Woman: "Is it safe to fly in that old airplane?"
Pilot: "How do you think it got to be an old airplane?"
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:48 pm
I guess I must have a death wish to fly in the Cub by those standards... LOL 
)! If I thought an aircraft was not airworthy, I'd walk away from it.
Ryan
)! If I thought an aircraft was not airworthy, I'd walk away from it.Ryan
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:14 pm
I sent my innocent nephew up in a 85 year old Kinner Bird a short time ago.
I should be caned
I should be caned
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:16 pm
It reminds me of the story about my great, great grandfather’s ax. Over the years we had to replace the handle several times and the blade twice but it is my great, great grandfather’s ax!
Known as the George Washington or Grandpa's Ax conundrum. It lies at the heart of the museum restorers job.
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:34 pm
The dumb a$$ press also runs headlines reading 'Boeing jet has in flight troubles' and, eventually you find somewhere in the article the airframe was an MD-80 that had an engine problem, but I guess 'Pratt and Whitney has inflight problems' doesn't have the potentially dripping with blood and carnage ring of the other headline. the equivallent would be 'Chevrolet experiences failure on freeway' Oh, it was a Goodstone tire on the Chevrolet that went flat making it a tire issue that has nothing to do with the car except the former was mounted on the later.
I'd ask that individual if a 737 or A-320 should be grounded because it experienced a blown tire on landing. But it does no good to try to explain things like regular, planned maintenance to a guy who changes the oil in his car every three years whether it needs it or not. You just shake your head and tell them 'you'd never understand if I took all week to try to explain, so just forget it'. followed by.. "this is me....getting smaller"
I'd ask that individual if a 737 or A-320 should be grounded because it experienced a blown tire on landing. But it does no good to try to explain things like regular, planned maintenance to a guy who changes the oil in his car every three years whether it needs it or not. You just shake your head and tell them 'you'd never understand if I took all week to try to explain, so just forget it'. followed by.. "this is me....getting smaller"
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:55 pm
Ignorance, just palin ignorance. Any aircraft, no matter the age, is not safe to fly in if it is not maintained correctly. Age does have something to do with it, in as much as the required maintenance may be more involved and different than current types. How the older airframes are used has a lot to do with it as well.
Look at the WWII era cargo planes that still safely work for a living, some in very extreme climates. Those aren't pampered warbirds that are treated with TLC by any means ...
Look at our Air Force - The most important bomber asset we have, in terms of numbers, is the B-52, the newest of which has been in service since 1962. The KC-135, some of which have been flying since 1955. The T-38 (which gets used very hard) - some of those still in every day service with training duties were built in 1961.
Conversely, I've flown in 5 year old airliners that scared me to death because they were such rattle traps.
People who rant and rave over their own ignorance should just be ignored. It's easier than trying to fight them, and not nearly as bad for your blood pressure!
Look at the WWII era cargo planes that still safely work for a living, some in very extreme climates. Those aren't pampered warbirds that are treated with TLC by any means ...
Look at our Air Force - The most important bomber asset we have, in terms of numbers, is the B-52, the newest of which has been in service since 1962. The KC-135, some of which have been flying since 1955. The T-38 (which gets used very hard) - some of those still in every day service with training duties were built in 1961.
Conversely, I've flown in 5 year old airliners that scared me to death because they were such rattle traps.
People who rant and rave over their own ignorance should just be ignored. It's easier than trying to fight them, and not nearly as bad for your blood pressure!
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:06 pm
Get 'em Dan, I guess this individual hasn't looked at the age og the B-52's and KC-135's STILL flying combat missions. OOPS!
Scott
Scott
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:17 pm
I think what's misunderstood here is that old airplanes are made (and kept) airworthy through extraordinary efforts motivated by love and appreciation. Owners and pilots alike take pride in them and do their very best to ensure the airplanes will be around forever, but regular WIXers already know that.
For anyone showing up to read about the dangers of old airplanes, understand this: old airplanes aren't really that old at all. Sure the designs may be old but the laws of physics have remained unchanged since the dawn of time so any age applied to a design is only proving its soundness.
Often when people think of old things they think of something like that awful old car the guy down the street drives. You know, the one with all the rust and the missing trim. It's noisy and smokey and leaks a rainbow of various fluids all over whatever it's parked on. Bear in mind, it didn't get that way through age, it was neglect. Imagine if you were so concerned about safety that before every drive you checked the condition of every visible part and function of every system. Not only that, but refused to drive it if anything's status was less than ideal. Imagine there being a recall or mandatory repair for each and every design fault found in the car you drive. Imagine every word of the owners manual must be strictly adhered to and every 50,000 miles you'd have to remove the engine and transmission to send them away for complete dis-assembly, inspection and re-assembly with repair and replacement as needed. Now imagine some branch of government looking over your shoulder to ensure it all gets done. A car treated like that would last forever, and that's my point about airplanes because that's what it takes (and then some) to maintain airworthiness.
Again, I realise I'm preaching to the choir here but I wanted to jot that down for any visitors who wonder how safe these old airplanes really are.
-Tim
For anyone showing up to read about the dangers of old airplanes, understand this: old airplanes aren't really that old at all. Sure the designs may be old but the laws of physics have remained unchanged since the dawn of time so any age applied to a design is only proving its soundness.
Often when people think of old things they think of something like that awful old car the guy down the street drives. You know, the one with all the rust and the missing trim. It's noisy and smokey and leaks a rainbow of various fluids all over whatever it's parked on. Bear in mind, it didn't get that way through age, it was neglect. Imagine if you were so concerned about safety that before every drive you checked the condition of every visible part and function of every system. Not only that, but refused to drive it if anything's status was less than ideal. Imagine there being a recall or mandatory repair for each and every design fault found in the car you drive. Imagine every word of the owners manual must be strictly adhered to and every 50,000 miles you'd have to remove the engine and transmission to send them away for complete dis-assembly, inspection and re-assembly with repair and replacement as needed. Now imagine some branch of government looking over your shoulder to ensure it all gets done. A car treated like that would last forever, and that's my point about airplanes because that's what it takes (and then some) to maintain airworthiness.
Again, I realise I'm preaching to the choir here but I wanted to jot that down for any visitors who wonder how safe these old airplanes really are.
-Tim
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm
RickH wrote:It reminds me of the story about my great, great grandfather’s ax. Over the years we had to replace the handle several times and the blade twice but it is my great, great grandfather’s ax!
Known as the George Washington or Grandpa's Ax conundrum. It lies at the heart of the museum restorers job.
In the UK the variant is Trigger's Broom.
Actually it's no conundrum for museum conservators, but it's interesting that most of us on WIX fall into an equivalent trap of understanding over this, to the one we're castigating the general public. That is the different requirements for operation / flying on the one hand, and preservation on the other.
In the case of the original question, the short rebuttal is that any 'old' aircraft we're talking about gets better TLC and less use and abuse, than your last airliner you flew.
However, at base, is the modern cult for 'the latest thing' (e.g. few enthusiasts for 'old' iPads).
Regards,
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:29 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:I guess I must have a death wish to fly in the Cub by those standards... LOL
Ryan
Ryan.....uhhhh.....I have some documents for you to sign 
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:34 pm
I used to have fun when flying commercial when the data plate was in the entry door frame. I'd always look and remark to the welcoming flight attendant, in a loud voice, "Wow! Built in 1969. Looks in great shape. Boy you should have seen the faces sometimes. 
Boy you should have seen the faces sometimes.
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:49 pm
You're sick! I LIKE YOU!!!!
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:59 pm
With the Chillean Volcano causing problems with jets.Here is a nice sideline
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/supe ... -Crusaders
Newer isn,t alsways better
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/supe ... -Crusaders
Newer isn,t alsways better
Re: He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"
Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm
Jack Cook wrote:I sent my innocent nephew up in a 85 year old Kinner Bird a short time ago.
I should be caned
Oh no, not a Bird