When to ground a warbird?

[A2C]

think we should ground all the real warbirds, fighter types.most airshows you see the real warbirds doing racetrack patterns and dont push the plane or engine to hard.when was the last time you saw a me-109 and p-51 dog fight?the children at airshows only see old planes flying they dont see planes kicking ###.most warbirds was only to last 100+ hrs.i think we should build replicas so we can yank and bank and fight at airshows and when they see a real plane they know the real work to win the war.
PS i am not with the FAA,but i did help build a replica (262) bill

What makes you think a warbird can't pull g's, and why would they need to be replaced w/ something else?

[A2C]

From an enthusiastic warbird spectator's pov:

Biggest point, and really the only one that matters legally, is when it is no longer safe to fly.

When would that be? What would make a warbird any more unsafe than a Cessna?

Other decision-points beyond that are more a matter of moral decision-making than legal/absolute. First, I'd say that once we're down to the last 2 or 3 of anything, my opinion is that the owners need to step up and stop flying and either donate or sell to an entity that'll display statically. MAAM's Black Widow and Week's Marauder are, imho and morally-speaking, right at the threshold of what can be flown.

On who's authority?

Second, if a specific aircraft is of specific and unique historic value in its own right. Memphis Belle (the real one), Enola Gay, Bockscar, Flak Bait, Swoose (which also falls into the first category as the last Shark Fin Fortress), etc should never fall into consideration for flying. Since they are all publicly held, they won't be. But imagine a situation (HYPOTHETICAL) where, lo and behold, some private warbird collector discovers Ski's B-25B in-tact in a barn outside of Vladivostok and buys it. He has ownership rights (USAF Lawyers nothwithstanding, I'd guess), but he'd have a moral obligation to safeguard the aircraft

A moral obligation to what? If something is old and it's an airplane what rules state that it must be saved. If I have an old car and decide to cut it up, I'll do it.

Are you suggesting government should step in and control more of what people do? Wasn't America founded on the principle of freedom of choice? What kind of precident are you trying to set?

[A2C]

I've read and re-read this thread and changed my mind about every other post but Randy Haskins best sums up the way I feel.
If the individual airframe has major historic value, preserve it, don't risk it. Otherwise, fly it as long as it can be flown. I'm thankful that I live in a free country where we can still do this.
I also have to think of all the only-flying examples or only one or two that I'd have never seen fly or even seen at all if it were'nt for warbirders. Well said Randy.

Doug

No, if I owned the last of it's kind, it's my choice. You are setting a dangerous precident that some government agency should regulate a warbird owners choice to make their own decision with their own property.

[A2C]

The aircraft of vital historical value (one of a kind, or specific aircraft that were flown by notable individuals or participated in notable events) should be preserved and not risked.

On who's authority? I don't want the TSA, Navy, FAA or anyone else telling me a free American what I can fly. I'm amazed at the amount of people who think this way. This sort of mentality assumes that people are not to be trusted, and that government agencies should dictate who does what. Isn't this a central planning type of attitude?

[A2C]

I think the question of when to ground a warbird depends mostly on the intrinsic historical value of the aircraft as an artifact. No one could seriously expect the NASM to fly the Arado 234 or Flak Bait just to allow several million more people to see it each year than see it now. The risk of destruction is just too great. That risk could be mitigated by "improving the aircraft in terms of safety" but now you have destroyed a great deal of its actual historic significance and ruined it as an artifact.

Again, what's unsafe about it? If an owner is financially well off enough to own a warbird, then as the owner it's theirs nobody has any say on what that person does with their own property.

The rarity of an aircraft in terms of number of survivors is not as strong a determination as historical significance. The Bearcat and Sea Fury does not survive in anything like the numbers of the Mustang and Spitfire, yet clearly the two inline types are far more important historically than either radial type despite those being perhaps the ultimate in radial engine naval fighters. Grounding the last flying Spitfire would be more important than grounding the last flying Bearcat.

Again by who's authority do you tell me to stop flying my last of it's kind? It's mine, so I do what I want with it.

Then there is the case of "data plate restorations". As beautiful as some of the recent Spitfires, Mustangs and Hurricanes are many of them are no more "original" than the data plate itself. If one day the B model "Old Crow" becomes the last flyable Mustang it wouldn't as much of a loss if it was destroyed when compared to "Eupapa Epops" which despite being significantly restored is at heart a genuine combat veteran.

It's a moot point if I own epops, I can do what I want with it.

The decision is the owners above all. We cannot forget that one of the things the men who flew these aircraft fought for was the right to own property unencumbered by demands of government. I wouldn't be surprised if someone faced with the demands of the USAF or USN wouldn't take his property to a paddock and torch it rather than surrender to unreasonable demands of government.

Now you're making sense.

[262]

i know they can pull gs,but some will not stress the plane like combat,or push a engine that hard $.60+ years on a airplane only to last 100+ hrs i will like to save a real war vet,and push a replica to the limit.bill

[262]

a2c,
if you had a war vet plane and put it in the ground,you will lose all the history and the pilot.you might own the plane but we the people own the history.bill

[A2C]

a2c,
if you had a war vet plane and put it in the ground,you will lose all the history and the pilot.you might own the plane but we the people own the history.bill

Yes, but the pilot loses his or her life too. A plane on the ground is suseptible to fire, tornado, and vandalism.

You may own the history in your heart, but you don't own somebody else's property. If that property is lost, you can remember it in the history books, photos, and stories.

[Randy Haskin]

when was the last time you saw a me-109 and p-51 dog fight?the children at airshows only see old planes flying they dont see planes kicking ###.most warbirds was only to last 100+ hrs.i think we should build replicas so we can yank and bank and fight at airshows and when they see a real plane they know the real work to win the war.

Do you have any idea what "real dogfighting" even looks like? The dangers associated with doing that low enough so spectators could see would be phenomenal. There's a reason that the US military has a 5,000' AGL floor for "unlimited maneuvering" dogfights!

PLUS, "real dogfights" don't stay static over one geographic location on the ground. Really twisting it up would mean that the fight might start over the field, but certainly during the course of the fight it would leave the area where spectators could see it.

It's not a spectator sport -- any measures to make it into one would essentially castrate the fights into the "parades" that you see now and are complaining about.

Sorry, dumb idea with ANY aircraft.

[A2C]

i know they can pull gs,but some will not stress the plane like combat,or push a engine that hard $.60+ years on a airplane only to last 100+ hrs i will like to save a real war vet,and push a replica to the limit.bill

Bill with all due respect, you clearly don't know. Warbirds fly routinely for thousands of hours, and plenty of pilots fly them to their operating limitations. There are no other limitations other than the operating limitations. This is established by the aircraft builder and the FAA.

[Randy Haskin]

i know they can pull gs,but some will not stress the plane like combat,or push a engine that hard $.60+ years on a airplane only to last 100+ hrs i will like to save a real war vet,and push a replica to the limit.bill

Bill with all due respect, you clearly don't know. Warbirds fly routinely for thousands of hours, and plenty of pilots fly them to their operating limitations. There are no other limitations other than the operating limitations. This is established by the aircraft builder and the FAA.

I think you'll find that many warbird owners put self-imposed G limits on their airplanes that are well inside the design limits of the airplane.

Part of the problem has been that many warbirds have been routinely overstressed earlier in their lives, and it's impossible to know how much.

So, for the safety of their own pink butts (not to mention the airplane, too) many owners/pilots keep it to 4G and under.

[A2C]

I think you'll find that many -- most -- warbird owners put self-imposed G limits on their airplanes that are well inside the design limits of the airplane.

They don't have to. If the plane has been restored properly, and is maintained properly it can be flown to the operating limitations. That's a thoroughly documented fact.

[JDK]

I don't think I've read quite as much utter rot in a single thread for a long time.

[A2C]

I don't think I've read quite as much utter rot in a single thread for a long time.

Exactly, I was trying to act as a disinfectant, but you certainly cut the rot out at the roots.

[JDK]

I don't think I've read quite as much utter rot in a single thread for a long time.

Exactly, I was trying to act as a disinfectant, but you certainly cut the rot out at the roots.

Don't think for a moment you and I are in agreement.