Glacier Girl

[k5083]

WOW...August...Aren't you being a bit cavalier with the "losses" there. Seems to me there'd probably be some loss of life.

Just trying to meet the fly-it folks half way. I wouldn't fly any of it over the pond personally, but it seems to me anyone who did fly even a B-17 or B-25 would be being quite cavalier about it. But that's just me.

As for the loss of life, well, I would classify this undertaking as a stunt and that limits my sympathy for anyone who voluntarily assumes the risk of doing it.

A film of the P-38 flight would be fandamtabulous. Can you imagine what
History/Discovery/Learning channel(s) would pay for that?
If they'll pay millions for that lame "Dog, The Bounty Hunter", I'd say "GO FOR IT".

Would you trade the plane for the film?

F7F, close call. I would favor shipping but the engines are reliable and I wouldn't be overly upset if one were lost.

Yes, common as dirt. There must be, what, a whole three or four of them that still fly!

Like I said, I'd ship. I guess if I thought the Tigercat was an especially significant type or just liked it more, I'd feel more strongly about it.

I think people are forgetting that freight ships can be at risk too!

Please. The risk levels are not comparable.

August

[Mudge]

Mike...Forgot who did the original. Excluding National Geographic was an omission of the aged brain, not one of disfavor.
When you get to be my age, the brain is the SECOND thing to go.

Mudge the geezer

[King]

There is just no reason to argue about this, because I just don't think there is a trip overseas in the cards for GG.

[Yak 11 Fan]

So what was the last single engined fighter that flew across the pond? N232J going to England?

Oh and I vote shipping, btw.

Jim

Most likely the Flying A Services Hellcat about 10 years ago (now back in the US by boat).
As I see it both are equally risky, however as its not my aircraft I won't get all bent out of shape over it. Good luck with whatever happens to Glacier Girl.

[Jack Cook]

Has I recall a couple of years ago a PBY was being flown in great fanfare from the US of A to Aussieland but went down plumb smack dab in the big deep blue sea. Whereapon the dawgon thing had the audacity to sink leaving a bunch of people bobbing in their liferaft waiting and hoping to be picked up

Last edited by Jack Cook on Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[DaveM2]

That was to N.Z. Jack, the Catalina Club eventually secured another which flies regularly here.

Dave

[corsair166b]

I'm loving Scott's 'Bluto' from Animal House response....got a BIG laugh from me....LOL...

I come out on the side that says GO FOR IT also...and aren't there supposed to be a COUPLE of camps set up at the Greenland P-38/B-17 dig site? How HUGE of a morale boost would it be to them if the P-38 was able to do a couple of passes over these guys while they endeavour to get the other airframes out of the ice...not to mention how phenomenal that would look on film the -38 flying over its old ice paced tomb, once again FLYING! TAKE the bird to the UK, one way or another, as safely as possible, but GET 'ER DONE!!

Mark

[phil65]

I think it comes down to money like always. If you can make some money by flying it over through movie rights or that ever,go for it.
If not,ship it for safety and even to save some money And you can make some money later at air shows or that ever.

[mustangdriver]

That was to N.Z. Jack, the Catalina Club eventually secured another which flies regularly here.

Dave

Is the other PBY lost for good?

[DaveM2]

Yep, at the bottom of a very deep Pacific

[k5083]

Has I recall a couple of years ago a PBY was being flown in great fanfare from the US of A to Aussieland but went down plumb smack dab in the big deep blue sea. Whereapon the dawgon thing had the audacity to sink leaving a bunch of people bobbing in their liferaft waiting and hoping to be picked up

Yes, that would be Canso N5404J ex-RCAF-9793, one of the more interesting PBYs extant at that time. It flew ASW ops with the RCAF during the war, later was used by the CIA as an aerial communications platform during the Bay of Pigs invasion, appeared in the film "Tora Tora Tora", and was registered at various times in numerous Central American countries. I grabbed the picture below on Jan. 2, 1994 at Santa Monica when she was being readied for her final trip. She sank 13 days later.



August

[JDK]

Home of the brave, or home of the aquaphobic? It's notable that all the faint-hearts are US based (albeit with some Americans up for flying overseas...)

A lightly laden properly maintained P-38 flight isn't a big deal - taking the great circle route has reasonable length legs - some of which would be comparative to long-range flights in the USA, certainly flights that people in NZ and Australia, and some of Europe regard as part of the deal.

I'd hazard a bet that non-US enthusiasts (and more importantly) owners would be a lot more bullish about long distance transit flying. Why? Because they reckon it's worth it. The owners have put money behind it.

I'm reading behind this thread two subliminal messages - the famed US aversion to travelling overseas, and a lack of belief in 21st century W.W.II era aircraft maintenance standard. The days of the 1960s chewing-gum, car-part, and take-a-chance restorations are gone (well, in the rest of the warbird world). Now we've been running Merlins, Alisons and the famous round-engine lobby favourites for over half a century; to say the engine and essential flight system performance and time-between-failure expectation in 2007 isn't better than in W.W.II is gut not fact based.

As seems to have been missed, Mike's point that a multi-engine aircraft isn't cheap to containerise, costs (more) and risks damage or loss when shipped and is quite viable to fly due to not needing to travel at war loads under wartime conditions. It's cheaper, and yes, probably a better risk to fly multis, in many cases.

Another example. Excalibur III - I think Charles Blair rated his skin greater than the value of a 'war-weary' Mustang - but he did what he should. He assessed the risks; ensured he had a well serviced, tested and maintained aircraft; with all the navigation and communication tools available, and he went for it.

Warbirds aren't history, they can still make history. See the modern Vimy records. (And don't wiffle about it being a replica - the blokes are as real as anyone else, and die just the same.) A W.W.I era bomber flew from the UK to Australia, the UK to South Africa, and across the Atlantic, no messing about with hops in the last one either. And I'd rather fly with well rebuilt W.W.II era engines than the modern hybrids they used.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm ... raphic.com

Note that's National Geographic again. They aren't going to cotton-wool warbirds, they know that it's about achievement. National Geographic aren't going to throw cash at you to sit in a hangar or do a couple of local shows.

I'm being mildly provocative, but I'm also interested in evident lack of faith in modern warbird safety and standards from some US members. It's good to fly in reach of an airfield. It's better to do everything to ensure your aircraft won't need it.

Thoughts welcome, but what counts is the funder's go-no-go.

[mustangdriver]

JDK remember the PBY talked about above is a twin engine warbird that is now at the bottom of the ocean. And that was not in the 60's, but the 90's! Home of the Brave, not Home of the "BOy this will make a good picture". People want to do all of this for a movie or a picture? Shouldn't the raising of this aricraft form the ice be enough? If it makes it it wil be great footage? Hey I know it would be great to catch them doing a crash landiing as well, I am sure that it would look great on DVD. I just don't think that the risk is worth the pay off in this case.

[Jack Cook]

I've made a few long over water flights while in the Navy (P-3s) and more than once we've arrived with fewer motors making wind
than when we started. I love the just do it crowd who say we have the technology. Well then you do it. The risk is not just the a/c it's life and limb. Can you image if FG-1D pilot was ferrying the P-47N over when than horrible fire occured Or if Mike George's Corsair fire has occured over the pond

[T33driver]

Home of the brave, or home of the aquaphobic? It's notable that all the faint-hearts are US based (albeit with some Americans up for flying overseas...)

A lightly laden properly maintained P-38 flight isn't a big deal - taking the great circle route has reasonable length legs - some of which would be comparative to long-range flights in the USA, certainly flights that people in NZ and Australia, and some of Europe regard as part of the deal.

I'd hazard a bet that non-US enthusiasts (and more importantly) owners would be a lot more bullish about long distance transit flying. Why? Because they reckon it's worth it. The owners have put money behind it.

I'm reading behind this thread two subliminal messages - the famed US aversion to travelling overseas, and a lack of belief in 21st century W.W.II era aircraft maintenance standard. The days of the 1960s chewing-gum, car-part, and take-a-chance restorations are gone (well, in the rest of the warbird world). Now we've been running Merlins, Alisons and the famous round-engine lobby favourites for over half a century; to say the engine and essential flight system performance and time-between-failure expectation in 2007 isn't better than in W.W.II is gut not fact based.

As seems to have been missed, Mike's point that a multi-engine aircraft isn't cheap to containerise, costs (more) and risks damage or loss when shipped and is quite viable to fly due to not needing to travel at war loads under wartime conditions. It's cheaper, and yes, probably a better risk to fly multis, in many cases.

Another example. Excalibur III - I think Charles Blair rated his skin greater than the value of a 'war-weary' Mustang - but he did what he should. He assessed the risks; ensured he had a well serviced, tested and maintained aircraft; with all the navigation and communication tools available, and he went for it.

Warbirds aren't history, they can still make history. See the modern Vimy records. (And don't wiffle about it being a replica - the blokes are as real as anyone else, and die just the same.) A W.W.I era bomber flew from the UK to Australia, the UK to South Africa, and across the Atlantic, no messing about with hops in the last one either. And I'd rather fly with well rebuilt W.W.II era engines than the modern hybrids they used.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm ... raphic.com

Note that's National Geographic again. They aren't going to cotton-wool warbirds, they know that it's about achievement. National Geographic aren't going to throw cash at you to sit in a hangar or do a couple of local shows.

I'm being mildly provocative, but I'm also interested in evident lack of faith in modern warbird safety and standards from some US members. It's good to fly in reach of an airfield. It's better to do everything to ensure your aircraft won't need it.

Thoughts welcome, but what counts is the funder's go-no-go.

You're risk management analysis of deploying historical artifacts (worth millions) on a transoceanic flying stunt to amuse a small number of warbird/airshow enthusiasts and give Nat'l Geographic documentary fodder is flawed. The reward gained for the risk incurred isn't worth it no matter how good the maintenance and preparation on these machines. Yes, modern maintenance careful operation has made them more reliable than they were back in the day, but not reliable enough to cross an ocean...and not worth the risk for something less than war. WWII warbirds are too valuable as historical artifacts and flying any of them with less than four engines for extended periods over open water is a foolish stunt and not evidence that some lack bravery as much as that would scratch the itch of one of your prejudices. Outside Reno, there have been several piston warbird engine failures on well-maintained airplanes in the last few years. This isn't 1944 where faint-hearted, aquaphobic Yanks are urgently pressing to get as many aircraft to Europe and the Pacific as possible to help fight and win a war...well, two really. Like my former race car driver/mechanic buddy Scott says, "sometimes there's a fine line between bravery and stupidity". Here, there's not. Just because someone funded it, got away with it in the past, doesn't make it "worth it" or a good idea. It's a stunt, an adventure, great footage for television, and to you, a litmus test for courage. I own a warbird and I pilot transoceanic flights over the Atlantic and Pacific for a living--d*mn near every week so I have some perspective on the vintage airplanes and flying across the ocean. Modern jet airliner engines and maintenance are some of the most reliable in aviation, yet they fail occasionally. Piston engines aren't nearly as reliable as turbines--that's why modern airliners are allowed by regulatory agencies to cross the ocean with two engines. All it takes is one unlucky problem over the ocean in that warbird and it really will be "history" along with it's pilot.