Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:05 pm
Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:37 pm
51fixer wrote:It is interesting that other organizations offer ride programs that generate significant revenue. Keeping a small group insured for flying with a ride program would probably generate funds to keep many in the air. Even if you alternated year by year PBY this year, B-25 next year, same with P-40 and P-51, attend some local shows to sell rides. And this way you can have flying days like POF and others do. The ability to have an annual airshow also brings in a big gate to fund things.
I think there is more to this story than has played out.
Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:14 pm
Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:34 pm
Mike wrote:Isn't there still a moratorium on the FAA issuing new exemptions for ride programmes?
Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:01 pm
JFS61 wrote:Didn't take us long to get back to a world with no flying Mosquitoes, did it?
Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:02 am
Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:01 am
lmritger wrote:Y'know, being as how this is an aircraft-centric board and we're all airplane nuts, I get that people will have strong opinions about the planes out at the MAM. But I have to say, there's a fairly strong selfish streak running through a lot of these comments taking shots at Jerry and the museum for parking their fleet for the time being, especially with regards to the Mossie. He just spent a decade and millions of his OWN dollars having this dream realized, and now circumstances dictate that she either be parked or sold... do you think that maybe, that might just be more than a little disappointing to the man? No matter how disappointed you might be that this decision has to be taken, maybe you could take five seconds and think about how Jerry and Elaine feel- or Ray Fowler or Mike Spalding or TK or Jon or all the other fantastic pilots and crew out at the Museum. You think THEY'RE thrilled about it? Here's a hint: No, they are not. The field was assuredly NOT full of smiles on Saturday as Chuckie taxied out and took off into a miserable drizzle- the weather fit the mood.
And for what it's worth, my friend Terry Friar was back out at the museum yesterday, and got more details from one of the docents; that 250K insurance figure was not annual, that was just for six months. It looks like the plan is to let the dust settle over the next six months then see where things are at; there's a strong desire to bring the Biplanes and Triplanes show back for 2014 as it's the 100th anniversary of WWI, so just like I said 10 pages back at the beginning of this thread, give them a little time and space to work out details of how to keep the Museum moving forward. I know that sort of tactful, cautionary approach doesn't drive post counts or allow people to make wildly unfounded statements, but for the sake of the folks who own and run this amazing facility, I would hope that you'll all consider it.
Lynn
Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:03 am
Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:59 am
Dave Homewood wrote:Well said Lynn.
Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:19 am
lmritger wrote:Y'know, being as how this is an aircraft-centric board and we're all airplane nuts, I get that people will have strong opinions about the planes out at the MAM. But I have to say, there's a fairly strong selfish streak running through a lot of these comments taking shots at Jerry and the museum for parking their fleet for the time being, especially with regards to the Mossie. He just spent a decade and millions of his OWN dollars having this dream realized, and now circumstances dictate that she either be parked or sold... do you think that maybe, that might just be more than a little disappointing to the man? No matter how disappointed you might be that this decision has to be taken, maybe you could take five seconds and think about how Jerry and Elaine feel- or Ray Fowler or Mike Spalding or TK or Jon or all the other fantastic pilots and crew out at the Museum. You think THEY'RE thrilled about it? Here's a hint: No, they are not. The field was assuredly NOT full of smiles on Saturday as Chuckie taxied out and took off into a miserable drizzle- the weather fit the mood.
And for what it's worth, my friend Terry Friar was back out at the museum yesterday, and got more details from one of the docents; that 250K insurance figure was not annual, that was just for six months. It looks like the plan is to let the dust settle over the next six months then see where things are at; there's a strong desire to bring the Biplanes and Triplanes show back for 2014 as it's the 100th anniversary of WWI, so just like I said 10 pages back at the beginning of this thread, give them a little time and space to work out details of how to keep the Museum moving forward. I know that sort of tactful, cautionary approach doesn't drive post counts or allow people to make wildly unfounded statements, but for the sake of the folks who own and run this amazing facility, I would hope that you'll all consider it.
Lynn
Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:11 am
The money that was provided to buy and refurbish the planes came from the success of his colleges," Hunt said. "But the way we see things are at the moment, we see frustration with government cutbacks.
Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:54 am
Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:32 pm
Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:50 am
Mike wrote:I'm always saddened when I see hangars full of formerly airworthy aircraft parked lifeless in rows. Evergreen, Tillamook, Kalamazoo, Yanks, now MAM too, it seems.
Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:30 am
T J Johansen wrote:Mike wrote:I'm always saddened when I see hangars full of formerly airworthy aircraft parked lifeless in rows. Evergreen, Tillamook, Kalamazoo, Yanks, now MAM too, it seems.
While I agree that there is no life in a hangar full of static Aircraft, I would have to argue that Yanks hangar was never full of airworthy aircraft though. Nicely restored fighters, but nowhere near airworthy.
T J