Warbird Information Exchange

Well, in all fairness, I can understand their position. Here's the mission of the museum in it's entirety:

The USAF museum's mission is to preserve the aircraft and related artifacts for futurue generations. I don't think the USAF museum SHOULD fly anything in their collection. Can you imagine how we'd feel if one of their very rare or historic planes augered in? I personally would not want to risk "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby," to an airshow performance. Nor would I want to see them risking one of the few P-61s in existence just so a few people could see them in the air a few times as opposed to generations seeing them in a building later on. No, to me, most of their aircraft are far too valuable for that.
I'm pretty sure that the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is run by the RAF and not by any museum. I know that active-duty RAF pilots fly those planes while under official orders to do so. I could easily imagine a British museum saying no to flying their aircraft just like the USAFM has.
Now, that being said, the USAF has obviously worked with warbird owners for their "Heritage Flight" program:
http://www2.acc.af.mil/airdemo/heritage.htm
But that's clearly not the same thing. I too find it sad that future generations will look at an A-10s in a museum and wonder how that thing ever got into the air. But keep in mind, other nations are also balking at keeping early jets in the air. I really doubt even the tradition-minded RAF will have a Canberra or Jaguar in the air in the future for their heritage flights. No, keeping a jet in the air is expensive, way too much so for governments strapped for cash for simple defense spending. And to be honest with ourselves, who but people like us would even care that an F-100 shows up for a show? To even many of the public who attend an airshows, a jet is a jet, and it's easier to get a current training flight to divert to a show for a few passes than to keep an ancient jet in the air. While I hope that civilians are still able to keep warbirds of ALL eras in the sky, I just can't see any governments spending tax dollars on keeping jet warbirds aloft.

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)

p51:

I agree with you, I think personal ownership adds a degree of safety.

Interesting thread. I've read most of it but PLEASE don't post enormous pics. It's a total pain in the a** (US) or a**e (UK) having to scroll across to read every line of each post. Here in the UK, 17" is still considered a pretty good monitor.

As far as I am concerned the BBMF is special. At every airshow I've ever been to, absolutely everybody watches them.
I was born in 1952 so, although I didn't know it then, to me it was recent history. WW2 has always been my main area of interest and I assume my age has a lot to do with it. I like jets up to around 1960 but after that I'm really not bothered.

To get back to the point - I believe the BBMF was created almost by accident and then became officially supported. However, AFAIK, the RAF don't maintain or display anything between WW2 (BBMF) and current service aircraft.

Edit, having re-read the thread.
I think the RAF museum now keeps at least one of every service aircraft. The policy is they are museum aircraft and will never fly.

P-51 brings up the age old question; Do we fly'em or park 'em ?

I can guarantee you that what we spend to keep the F-4 and ultimately the TA-4 in the air on an annual basis the USAF spills on the ground in one day ! If it was about the cost they wouldn't have repainted 6 ea F-4 drones in special paint to be used for Heritage Flights. Granted the drone mission is still supposed to be primary with those aircraft but does anyone here really think that those "fancy" jets will be expended in live fire anytime soon? That's probably as close as we'll get to a BBMF type of operation

On another note, it's true that the USAFM controls USAF museum activities but all of the aircraft demil, teardown, transport, reerection and restoration costs are paid for by the donee entity. The USAFM only pays for aircraft refurb that occurs at the main USAFM facility.

Shoo Shoo Baby HAS flown. It underwent several test flights before finally being FLOWN to Wright Pat. Doc Hospers of Chuckie fame flew left seat. Most of the B-17s at the various base museums were former fire bombers traded to USAF for newer types. They were flown to their respective display sites. Couldn't one have been kept in the air for future generations? Everyone gets excited about 5-6 B-17s getting in the air at one time. USAFM took more than that out of circulation in the last 25 years than accidents.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Shoo Shoo Baby, having met several of the surviving WW2 crew, all of the restoration team at Dover, and having seen her several times (both inside and out) at the USAFM. What I was referring to was the continual flying of such a historic bird. Getting that B-17 to Dayton was easier to fly the thing over there than to take it apart and risk it flying anyway in the hold of a C-5. I discussed this with the Dover museum folks several years ago, and their logic made a lot of sense in that it was going to go by air anyway and since it had to be completely resorted to flyable condition for the museum, why not get it airborne one last time anyway?
To me, something should fly if it can unless it's either irreplaceable for it's specific historical impact (say, "The Spirit of St Louis", or the Wright flyer), or it's rarity overall if it's the last example of it's type. While I'd love to see a P-61 in the air, for example, I feel that there should be an effort to not jeapordize the very few remaining examples of such a craft for the airshow circuit.
Now if you're talking about the USAF or USN having a "hertitage" flight, well, that would cearly have to be done by another department than the museums themselves, in that their charters would not allow them to fly their aircraft. And then, imagine what would happen when the "USN heritage flight" discovered a corsair in a lake and decided to pull it out to fly it. What would happen THEN? You got it, the folks at Pensacola would lay claim to it, say it can't be flown because Pappy Boyington took a whiz near it once, and then demand it remain in the lake.

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)

Hi Rob:

Then are you saying the NHC, not the Navy gave Lex Crawley a hard time?

We have no flights in Canada, the CWH is a museum founded by its members.

The Lanc used alot of corporate sponsorship to get back in the air, such as Air Canada rebuilding the engines.

I don't think/remember that the government helped them.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

Rick,

In my opinion, here would be my answer to your "age old question" of flying them or parking them. The way I look at it is if there are more than one airframe in existance, and the person who decides to operate/own it will take PROPER care and maintenance of it, I do not see the the problem in flying any plane. In the case of B-17's, I don't see a problem with flying the ones around and restoring to airworthy status those that are found and rebuilt as in the case of the one recently pulled from the lake in Newfoundland. However, if in the case of say a P-61 Black Widow, since there seems to be only as many as five airframes known to exist, then I would say that having a flying example is not a bad thing as there others around to see the one fly.

But, let's say for example someone would run across a Vultee Vindicator Torpedo plane, as the USN museum in Pensacola has, or even a Brewster Buffalo with only one example known to exist each I would say do not fly them. Or even a better example would be either a Douglas TBD Devastator , none exist and if one WERE found, then I would say restore and display it if you want, but don't run the risk of flying them because all could be washed away in a single instant.

Just my two cents,

Paul