B-17G ~ The Pink Lady ~ 2006 Display Dates

[bomberflight]

I've got an email from Michel Bezy ~ one of the pilots who flys The Pink Lady ~ in response to me asking him for a list of display dates for 2006.

So here we are !

** IWM Duxford for the Flying Legends Airshow 8th / 9th July
( the current plan is to arrive at approx 5 pm on Friday the 7th )

** Troyes ~ France on July 16th

** Jersey ~ UK Channel Islands Sept 6th - 8th

** Nimes and Cholet displays in France ~ over the weekend of Sept 23rd - 25th

Michel tells me that they only able to attend a few shows because of the very big problem over warbird insurance for an aircraft of this size and weight .......

I would add this too ~ given that 44-8846 is a real combat veteran and this could be the last season she flys ( although FULLY AIRWORTHY )

It is a crying shame that either she is grounded by insurance or ~ worse the pending French legislation to seize all "millitary" items from civilian ownership will have the same effect

Anyone out there with a BIG checkbook ?

[Connery]

If the French government is possibly going to TAKE the aircraft from the current owners, wouldn't it be prudent for them to sell it to someone outside the country before that happens?

[Swiss Mustangs]

a few shots of "Pink Lady" in flight are in my webshots album:

http://community.webshots.com/album/146533921eiMGrD

taken in July 2003

Cheers
Martin

[mennie]

Maybe the insurance thingy is the same as with Sally B?
http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/

EU Regulation 785/2004 imposes new minimum third party liability insurance requirements for aircraft operators, with bands according to maximum take-off weight. Other privately operated vintage aircraft come under Band 5, but Sally B, as the only B-17, comes under Band 6, the same as a commercial Boeing 737, requiring a staggering £65 million in third party liability insurance cover (at the moment she carries a prudent £25 million).

I can understand seizing the ball turret guns for example, if still operational. But a whole B-17?
They should repaint it as a fire-fighter, or hang some curtains in the window openings.

Last edited by mennie on Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[RickH]

Why can you understand them siezing the ball turret guns ?

[chico]

EU Regulation 785/2004 imposes new minimum third party liability insurance requirements for aircraft operators, with bands according to maximum take-off weight.

I wonder where they're getting said 'maximum takeoff weight'? Are they using wartime figures (e.g. counting the maximum bomb load towards max. weight) or post war figures.

It's not like Sally B or Pink Lady are going to be carting around a full bomb load, a tank of pesticide, or flame retardant anytime soon. I wonder how hard it would be to get the maximum takeoff weight reclassified?

[mennie]

Why can you understand them siezing the ball turret guns ?

Well because in some European countries like The Netherlands, you are not allowed to have anything that even looks like a weapon. Replica airsoft or bbguns are illegal in my country.
I've had contact with a Dutch person who owns an AA M16 half-track and he has to keep it in Belgium.
It might sound silly to an American but that is the way it is over here.

[bomberflight]

I felt I had to do something positive ...... so I popped out of work an bought a ticket for this weeks Euromillions lottery.

40 millions Pounds ( or approx 75 million USD ) should yield enough to fund it and base it in Switzerland where they are so much more understanding about these things !

With the right training from our cousins in America ~ we could be selling RIDES in it next year .....

Roll on Friday and the winning numbers draw ...... 17, 24, 25, ~ well you get the idea ! ( just put a B in front on the numbers )

[Django]

It might sound silly to an American but that is the way it is over here.

You're right, it does.

Can it be kept in another country but still owned by the current owner? I agree, I think I would rather sell it too than have it seized. That is ridiculous.

The same classification as a huge airliner for insurance purposes is ridiculous too.

[Mike]

The same classification as a huge airliner for insurance purposes is ridiculous too.

And is also factually incorrect.

B-17s have never been classed in the same bracket as Boeing 737s for insurance purposes, but are 2 groups below. The operators still have to pay a huge increase in insurance cover, but why they still promulgate this factual misinformation is beyond me.

[chico]

but why they still promulgate this factual misinformation is beyond me.

You used to write tax law for a living, didn't you?

[Flat 12x2]

................. and base it in Switzerland where they are so much more understanding about these things !.........................

Well....... yes on this front, but not on others. It is legal to own a race car but not to race it as all Motorsport is ILLEGAL/BANNED in Switzerland !

[RickH]

You guys across the pond have had an extra 500 years to write laws to protect yourselves from hurting each other.

Hopefully we can continue to learn how not to do these things for ourselves. However there is a faction in this country who continue to believe that the govt. should take care of us from cradle to grave. There are enough of us so far that continue to resist that notion.

[happymeal]

There is no more threat on Sally B with this new law re. ex-military vehicules, as Sally B as been officially 'demilitarised' by the french MoD. So she is now a fully civilian plane.

[bomberflight]

Bonjour happymeal !

Thanks for the info on Sally-B being classiffied as a civilian plane ~ do you know if the same is true of The Pink Lady ?