Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:39 pm
Thanks for the feedback.
I was aware that the US didn't have a monopoly of courage...
Don't worry, there's brave folks and cowards everywhere; and a good friend whose sense I respect (except with a guitar) recently flew in a twin engined warbird from the UK to the USA. He went, if I'd been invited, I'd go.
I'm mildly disappointed that several people are answering what they think I said, rather than the points I was trying to make.
It notably remains that only (mainland) Americans have posted against flying to Europe. (Yes, it's a mainly US based forum, but the silence from the rest of the world is, so far, notable, too.)
No one's come up with any cost-risk analysis of where the break point between a large multi-engined aircraft is better to fly than to send by ship. Certainly if it doesn't fit in a container, the cost and risk of transit damage goes up a good deal. How much? At what point is it better to fly? Despite the protestations here, the fact remains some owners do think it worthwhile to fly their multi-engined warbirds across oceans.
Jack - IMHO, the comparison to military (and, Paul, airline) flying is as irrelevant as airliner ones - I'm taking about a private owner or a volunteer group making a go-no-go decision with an aircraft they own, not people doing what they are paid to do with other people's aircraft. Australia's coast is currently protected by P-3s, and it's a lot of water. For the Kiwis it's a lot further to anywhere else, too.
Paul also said:
Paul says
Seems reasonable, but there's two assumptions, cost and size/engines that bear examination. Let's take the Catalina for instance. Wingspan is the same as a B-17. There are more Catalinas out there than there's demand for them - far from priceless. We seem to agree that four engines is maybe ok, and to ship it is going to cost a mint, because it's B-17 sized. But it's got only two engines... What to do? Hey, let's go... (It's lost, thankfully without loss of life) so what do they do? They get another one and succeed. Foolish? Perhaps. Are there a lot of happy Kiwis as a result? Yes.
Paul said:
Not my 'risk analysis' Paul; a bunch of Kiwis put their cash and lives on the line 'to amuse a small number of warbird/airshow enthusiasts' back home. That's the attitude difference I'm talking about, not cowardice, or bravery, just what people think is worthwhile varies depending on where you stand.
Incidentally, I'm not anti-American; I was recently delighted to see the NC-4 at Pensacola, first aircraft across the Atlantic, and I tip my hat. But in W.W.II it was Don Bennett, an Australian working with the British who created the air bridge from North America to Europe, starting with Lockeed Hudsons the British had paid cash on the barrel for. The US ferrying was following a beaten path. The first flight across the Pacific was by an Australian called Charles Kingsford Smith- with two Americans in the crew. Smithy went onto girdle the world, and he would be the first to thank the US for the help he received. Better aircraft, smaller dreams today?
Perhaps it's unfair but it could be read that the American view espoused above is it's worth going overseas for a war. Most of the rest of the world find it worthwhile to travel in peacetime too.
I'm being slightly awkward to challenge and ask for some thought and an open mind. Let's evaluate facts (not many so far) rather than going 'scary, oh no' or 'hell it's just water'. ) If you disagree, please don't post in the red mist - I'm interested in feedback with some evidence or quantification about it - genuinely.
Cheers
I was aware that the US didn't have a monopoly of courage...
Don't worry, there's brave folks and cowards everywhere; and a good friend whose sense I respect (except with a guitar) recently flew in a twin engined warbird from the UK to the USA. He went, if I'd been invited, I'd go.
I'm mildly disappointed that several people are answering what they think I said, rather than the points I was trying to make.
It notably remains that only (mainland) Americans have posted against flying to Europe. (Yes, it's a mainly US based forum, but the silence from the rest of the world is, so far, notable, too.)
No one's come up with any cost-risk analysis of where the break point between a large multi-engined aircraft is better to fly than to send by ship. Certainly if it doesn't fit in a container, the cost and risk of transit damage goes up a good deal. How much? At what point is it better to fly? Despite the protestations here, the fact remains some owners do think it worthwhile to fly their multi-engined warbirds across oceans.
Jack - IMHO, the comparison to military (and, Paul, airline) flying is as irrelevant as airliner ones - I'm taking about a private owner or a volunteer group making a go-no-go decision with an aircraft they own, not people doing what they are paid to do with other people's aircraft. Australia's coast is currently protected by P-3s, and it's a lot of water. For the Kiwis it's a lot further to anywhere else, too.
Paul also said:
Fair point. But no one's come up with the P-38s safety / engine out load performance data - it's 'just not on' apparently. Yet the 'plane was designed for long range ops.All it takes is one unlucky problem over the ocean in that warbird and it really will be "history" along with it's pilot.
Paul says
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.
Seems reasonable, but there's two assumptions, cost and size/engines that bear examination. Let's take the Catalina for instance. Wingspan is the same as a B-17. There are more Catalinas out there than there's demand for them - far from priceless. We seem to agree that four engines is maybe ok, and to ship it is going to cost a mint, because it's B-17 sized. But it's got only two engines... What to do? Hey, let's go... (It's lost, thankfully without loss of life) so what do they do? They get another one and succeed. Foolish? Perhaps. Are there a lot of happy Kiwis as a result? Yes.
Paul said:
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.
Not my 'risk analysis' Paul; a bunch of Kiwis put their cash and lives on the line 'to amuse a small number of warbird/airshow enthusiasts' back home. That's the attitude difference I'm talking about, not cowardice, or bravery, just what people think is worthwhile varies depending on where you stand.
Incidentally, I'm not anti-American; I was recently delighted to see the NC-4 at Pensacola, first aircraft across the Atlantic, and I tip my hat. But in W.W.II it was Don Bennett, an Australian working with the British who created the air bridge from North America to Europe, starting with Lockeed Hudsons the British had paid cash on the barrel for. The US ferrying was following a beaten path. The first flight across the Pacific was by an Australian called Charles Kingsford Smith- with two Americans in the crew. Smithy went onto girdle the world, and he would be the first to thank the US for the help he received. Better aircraft, smaller dreams today?
Perhaps it's unfair but it could be read that the American view espoused above is it's worth going overseas for a war. Most of the rest of the world find it worthwhile to travel in peacetime too.
I'm being slightly awkward to challenge and ask for some thought and an open mind. Let's evaluate facts (not many so far) rather than going 'scary, oh no' or 'hell it's just water'.
) If you disagree, please don't post in the red mist - I'm interested in feedback with some evidence or quantification about it - genuinely.
Cheers
Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:53 pm
You have to look at it this way, Just becuase it has two engines doesnot mean that if you lose an engine you are fine. The Twin engine aircraft is designed to fly on two engines. If you loose an engine, you are actually loosing 75% of your power. Not 50% The ariframe is desinged to have both engines, and now that dead engine is just weight and drag. God forbid you can't get the prop feathered. This aircraft was designed as a Long range aircraft 60 years ago when there were thousands of them built. When it was brand new, they were put on a ship tp get them places. I don't even want to ship it, There is no reason for Glacier Girl TO leave the U.S.
Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:59 pm
If we are still talking about a multi-engine (2) WW II aircraft like the P-38, ok lets use the P-38.
This aircraft is probably valued (in today prices) at somewhere in the 4 to 5 million range. Insurance, dunno what it is valued at. Now, how many are left flying in the world?
Thats a pretty big risk to fly or even ship this aircraft overseas for a little trip and return. If it is purchased by a European and going to stay in Europe, then the risk is a 50% less, and obviously would have to get there somehow if the new owner wants it at home.
If I owned GG, I would never take that risk of a over and back trip on a 60 year old airframe and engines.
Maybe Sparrow would want to chime in on what he thinks about the reliability of Merlins and Allisons for a trip like this?
This aircraft is probably valued (in today prices) at somewhere in the 4 to 5 million range. Insurance, dunno what it is valued at. Now, how many are left flying in the world?
Thats a pretty big risk to fly or even ship this aircraft overseas for a little trip and return. If it is purchased by a European and going to stay in Europe, then the risk is a 50% less, and obviously would have to get there somehow if the new owner wants it at home.
If I owned GG, I would never take that risk of a over and back trip on a 60 year old airframe and engines.
Maybe Sparrow would want to chime in on what he thinks about the reliability of Merlins and Allisons for a trip like this?
Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:02 pm
Good points re engine-out performance. But not P-38, specifically. Anyone?
You own it? I'm amazed. I think that's the owner's call, not yours. I also think it would be a remarkable 'adventure' if undertaken, and it would get a tremendous reception in the UK by the aviation enthusiast community.
mustangdriver wrote:There is no reason for Glacier Girl TO leave the U.S.
You own it? I'm amazed. I think that's the owner's call, not yours.
I also think it would be a remarkable 'adventure' if undertaken, and it would get a tremendous reception in the UK by the aviation enthusiast community.
Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:06 pm
King wrote:This aircraft is probably valued (in today prices) at somewhere in the 4 to 5 million range. Insurance, dunno what it is valued at. Now, how many are left flying in the world?
Thats a pretty big risk to fly or even ship this aircraft overseas for a little trip and return.
Sorry, valid points, but not connected, as you imply. Risk isn't a measurement of rarity, rarity's part of an evaluation of the worth of undertaking that risk, not the chance of something going wrong.
???
Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:13 pm
For the Kiwis it's a lot further to anywhere else, too.
I don't know NAS Moffet to Misawa, Japan seemed like a long ways
Everything else aside, is it worth the risk
Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:21 pm
Hi Jack, I was just pointing out our (Aus & NZ) neighbours aren't across a land border, or a channel. Kiwis are pretty remote folks, Australia's got a lots of islands going north, so you can hop across (as you can in the Gt Circle route, N. Atlantic) it's just, as you say, a question of what risk's worth it?
Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:30 pm
With all due respect, it doesn't have to be P-38 specific, that is basic aerodynamics and multi engine classroom. That applies for any twin engine aircraft. I learned that when I went to college to fly them, and use that premise daily. I do not own of course, but if it was mine, I would not do it. I see what you meant abou tthe adventure, and it would be a great one, just not one to take in a 60 year old fighter.
Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:44 pm
Not to change the subject (I wouldn't want to ferry it either) but has anybody been making any serious noise about going after the other ones still in the ice, or has that all died down?
I used to think sea cans (which I hate as they just barely fit in the Herc) were a comparatively safe way to ship things and then I saw "The Perfect Storm" where that freighter gets a bunch of them swept overboard.
(No thanks.)
Dan
I used to think sea cans (which I hate as they just barely fit in the Herc) were a comparatively safe way to ship things and then I saw "The Perfect Storm" where that freighter gets a bunch of them swept overboard.
(No thanks.)
Dan
Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:54 pm
mustangdriver wrote: I see what you meant abou tthe adventure, and it would be a great one, just not one to take in a 60 year old fighter.
Ah, but is it really 60 years old?
Cheers
Paul
Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
IF I owned GG and someone wanted me to take the chances, I hire one of the pilots who ferried the O2-A's across the pacific. It was quite a parade. Almost the only lost 1 of the 400 or so that flew the Pacific. They would pump oil into the engines at set intevals. They followed a C-130 navigation plane. It was quite an adventure.
I have to vote that GG stays home. As if it matters!
I have to vote that GG stays home. As if it matters!
Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:57 pm
Remember that B-25 that flew Downunder? It was shipped back to Yanks in the US and was heavily damaged in transport. Ocean freight is not without its risks either, most of it having to do with the container handling in port.
Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:40 pm
No one's come up with any cost-risk analysis of where the break point between a large multi-engined aircraft is better to fly than to send by ship. Certainly if it doesn't fit in a container, the cost and risk of transit damage goes up a good deal. How much? At what point is it better to fly? Despite the protestations here, the fact remains some owners do think it worthwhile to fly their multi-engined warbirds across oceans.
I'm saying it's not an economic calculus that determines "go/no-go" of the transoceanic flight, it's safety and risk to the pilot and a valuable artifact. You keep coming back to the fact that because others have flown transoceanic with vintage aircraft and made it, and still others would do it today, that it's a sound decision...and I'm saying it doesn't matter if others do it, it's still a bad idea, unsafe, and not a mere difference in attitude or opinion.
Paul also said:
Yes, in the '40s when it was an implement of war. What was considered acceptable risk in 1940s aviation, especially wartime 1940s aviation, was much higher than it is today. Crashing airplanes at the alarming rate of the wartime '40s was merely the cost of doing business. If that kind of risk was accepted regulary today, there'd be a lot more aircraft crashes.
Paul says
Seems reasonable, but there's two assumptions, cost and size/engines that bear examination. Let's take the Catalina for instance. Wingspan is the same as a B-17. There are more Catalinas out there than there's demand for them - far from priceless. We seem to agree that four engines is maybe ok, and to ship it is going to cost a mint, because it's B-17 sized. But it's got only two engines... What to do? Hey, let's go... (It's lost, thankfully without loss of life) so what do they do? They get another one and succeed. Foolish? Perhaps. Are there a lot of happy Kiwis as a result? Yes.
Foolish? Yes! Risking lives to make a few aviation enthusiasts happy is hardly worth it no matter how many willing participants undertake such flights.
Not [i]my 'risk analysis' Paul; a bunch of Kiwis put their cash and lives on the line 'to amuse a small number of warbird/airshow enthusiasts' back home. That's the attitude difference I'm talking about, not cowardice, or bravery, just what people think is worthwhile varies depending on where you stand. [/i]
I stand for safety first. My life's worth more to me than the entertainment of a few wing nuts. Good for them--they're still imprudent regardless of their nerve and willingness to throw money at the endeavour. It makes for great stories on TV or in the bar, but unnecessarily risky as a practice in flight operations.
Perhaps it's unfair but it could be read that the American view espoused above is it's worth going overseas for a war. Most of the rest of the world find it worthwhile to travel in peacetime too.
Yes it is unfair. I'm saying war was worth the risk of flying piston warplanes overseas across vast stretches of ocean, but not in modern peacetime. Frankly I enjoy travelling all over the world via jetliner in peacetime (though I've done it for wars when I flew in the USAF), but am always glad to to come home to the USA.
I'm being slightly awkward to challenge and ask for some thought and an open mind. Let's evaluate facts (not many so far) rather than going 'scary, oh no' or 'heck it's just water'. ) If you disagree, please don't post in the red mist - I'm interested in feedback with some evidence or quantification about it - genuinely.
I don't have ready-made data on radial, Allison and Merlin MTBF in the modern era, but your Catalina story makes my point exactly. The fact that they tried it a second time is confirmation they should have their heads examined. Perhaps my military and airline flying backround has made me a hopeless safety nut and I'm just incapable of having an open mind about great adventures such as these. I will sit in the Barcalounger and watch any ocean crossings of WWII planes on Nat'l Geographic should there ever be such a show.
I'm saying it's not an economic calculus that determines "go/no-go" of the transoceanic flight, it's safety and risk to the pilot and a valuable artifact. You keep coming back to the fact that because others have flown transoceanic with vintage aircraft and made it, and still others would do it today, that it's a sound decision...and I'm saying it doesn't matter if others do it, it's still a bad idea, unsafe, and not a mere difference in attitude or opinion.
Paul also said:
Fair point. But no one's come up with the P-38s safety / engine out load performance data - it's 'just not on' apparently. Yet the 'plane was designed for long range ops.All it takes is one unlucky problem over the ocean in that warbird and it really will be "history" along with it's pilot.
Yes, in the '40s when it was an implement of war. What was considered acceptable risk in 1940s aviation, especially wartime 1940s aviation, was much higher than it is today. Crashing airplanes at the alarming rate of the wartime '40s was merely the cost of doing business. If that kind of risk was accepted regulary today, there'd be a lot more aircraft crashes.
Paul says
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.
Seems reasonable, but there's two assumptions, cost and size/engines that bear examination. Let's take the Catalina for instance. Wingspan is the same as a B-17. There are more Catalinas out there than there's demand for them - far from priceless. We seem to agree that four engines is maybe ok, and to ship it is going to cost a mint, because it's B-17 sized. But it's got only two engines... What to do? Hey, let's go... (It's lost, thankfully without loss of life) so what do they do? They get another one and succeed. Foolish? Perhaps. Are there a lot of happy Kiwis as a result? Yes.
Foolish? Yes! Risking lives to make a few aviation enthusiasts happy is hardly worth it no matter how many willing participants undertake such flights.
Not [i]my 'risk analysis' Paul; a bunch of Kiwis put their cash and lives on the line 'to amuse a small number of warbird/airshow enthusiasts' back home. That's the attitude difference I'm talking about, not cowardice, or bravery, just what people think is worthwhile varies depending on where you stand. [/i]
I stand for safety first. My life's worth more to me than the entertainment of a few wing nuts. Good for them--they're still imprudent regardless of their nerve and willingness to throw money at the endeavour. It makes for great stories on TV or in the bar, but unnecessarily risky as a practice in flight operations.
Perhaps it's unfair but it could be read that the American view espoused above is it's worth going overseas for a war. Most of the rest of the world find it worthwhile to travel in peacetime too.
Yes it is unfair. I'm saying war was worth the risk of flying piston warplanes overseas across vast stretches of ocean, but not in modern peacetime. Frankly I enjoy travelling all over the world via jetliner in peacetime (though I've done it for wars when I flew in the USAF), but am always glad to to come home to the USA.
I'm being slightly awkward to challenge and ask for some thought and an open mind. Let's evaluate facts (not many so far) rather than going 'scary, oh no' or 'heck it's just water'.
) If you disagree, please don't post in the red mist - I'm interested in feedback with some evidence or quantification about it - genuinely.
I don't have ready-made data on radial, Allison and Merlin MTBF in the modern era, but your Catalina story makes my point exactly. The fact that they tried it a second time is confirmation they should have their heads examined. Perhaps my military and airline flying backround has made me a hopeless safety nut and I'm just incapable of having an open mind about great adventures such as these. I will sit in the Barcalounger and watch any ocean crossings of WWII planes on Nat'l Geographic should there ever be such a show.
Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:05 am
Hi BDK,
Good point. Of course no aircrew were at risk in the container. There is a newly created risk flying it after shipping and reassembly, so you get it checked out very carefully after reassembly. More cost.
Hi Mustangdriver,
True. But we discuss specific warbirds here - not just general aviation ops. In this case an evaluation of the specific risk - for a paper exercise as here, or if it were a project (IMHO) does need to be P-38 specific, otherwise I could get my answers on any aviation forum.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your response.
No-where have I said, or implied, 'because it's been done it's OK'; that's your assumption of my position. I'm 'just' asking the question. (I've also learned not to take the pilot's first answer...
)
I'm a journalist, not a pilot, and I'm seeing a lot of squirted ink from opinion, and no evaluation of risk beyond 'it's a bad idea' based on generic experience or personal preference. Your experience is respected, but like my doctor, I want you to enumerate a specific assessment, not a general one based on 'I'm experienced, I've decided not.' Sure, banging your head against the wall's a bad idea, but we can both provide data as to why that is if we need to convince a skeptic. No-one's provided any analysed data.
Unlike banging your head against the proverbial brick wall, intercontinental multi-engine W.W.II era aircraft ferrying has been done, and will continue to happen, by and for wealthy owners - hardly foolish people or 'wingnuts'. Flying the A-26 to Australia from Canada late last year was organised by the owner, a man who when we were discussing aviation was clear he takes aviation safety very seriously. The Pacific hops to Australia are longer than the Atlantic ones to Europe, I understand.
No place like home? I agree. I'm also very interested in seeing how other people do things, and what the universal rules are. One seems to be 'foreigners do things wrong'. If I'm making a point (as opposed to being awkward) it's that sometimes different people do things differently for perfectly good reasons - and their different risk analysis might be valid too. Several people have said they wouldn't do it. Fine. Others will, and they aren't necessarily foolish - the evaluation preparation and precautions might make it worthwhile for them.
We aren't operating W.W.II aircraft to W.W.II standards - safety is better, systems and training, capability is all better. You don't need to carry guns and W.W.II radios; your immersion suit will be better. Things do go wrong, but as we all know we take risks every day, little and sometimes big. Some people think the ferrying risk is worth it.
It's a pity that so many Americans feel that it's not worth a risk (size to be debated) to promote, in Europe, America's wartime achievement with the P-38, as mentioned here several times by those same Americans.
It's also interesting that the anti-ferry position sounds exactly the same as the FAA / CAA / CASA 'old aeroplanes crash sometimes, so let's not allow them.' How ironic. That position was beaten down by hard work in the USA, Britain and Australia by hard work by warbird enthusiasts - they didn't take the general opinion (shared by many pilots) that old aircraft are dangerous, they evaluated it, analysed it, and agreed what was and what was not reasonable risk - and they went out and proved it worthwhile.
It's notable that there's still no non-US 'anti-ferry' poster appeared...
Thanks for the thoughts...
Remember that B-25 that flew Downunder? It was shipped back to Yanks in the US and was heavily damaged in transport. Ocean freight is not without its risks either, most of it having to do with the container handling in port.
Good point. Of course no aircrew were at risk in the container. There is a newly created risk flying it after shipping and reassembly, so you get it checked out very carefully after reassembly. More cost.
Hi Mustangdriver,
With all due respect, it doesn't have to be P-38 specific, that is basic aerodynamics and multi engine classroom. That applies for any twin engine aircraft. I learned that when I went to college to fly them, and use that premise daily.
True. But we discuss specific warbirds here - not just general aviation ops.
In this case an evaluation of the specific risk - for a paper exercise as here, or if it were a project (IMHO) does need to be P-38 specific, otherwise I could get my answers on any aviation forum.Hi Paul,
Thanks for your response.
T33driver wrote: You keep coming back to the fact that because others have flown transoceanic with vintage aircraft and made it, and still others would do it today, that it's a sound decision...and I'm saying it doesn't matter if others do it, it's still a bad idea, unsafe, and not a mere difference in attitude or opinion.
No-where have I said, or implied, 'because it's been done it's OK'; that's your assumption of my position. I'm 'just' asking the question. (I've also learned not to take the pilot's first answer...
)I'm a journalist, not a pilot, and I'm seeing a lot of squirted ink from opinion, and no evaluation of risk beyond 'it's a bad idea' based on generic experience or personal preference. Your experience is respected, but like my doctor, I want you to enumerate a specific assessment, not a general one based on 'I'm experienced, I've decided not.' Sure, banging your head against the wall's a bad idea, but we can both provide data as to why that is if we need to convince a skeptic. No-one's provided any analysed data.
Unlike banging your head against the proverbial brick wall, intercontinental multi-engine W.W.II era aircraft ferrying has been done, and will continue to happen, by and for wealthy owners - hardly foolish people or 'wingnuts'. Flying the A-26 to Australia from Canada late last year was organised by the owner, a man who when we were discussing aviation was clear he takes aviation safety very seriously. The Pacific hops to Australia are longer than the Atlantic ones to Europe, I understand.
Yes it is unfair. I'm saying war was worth the risk of flying piston warplanes overseas across vast stretches of ocean, but not in modern peacetime. Frankly I enjoy travelling all over the world via jetliner in peacetime (though I've done it for wars when I flew in the USAF), but am always glad to to come home to the USA.
No place like home? I agree. I'm also very interested in seeing how other people do things, and what the universal rules are. One seems to be 'foreigners do things wrong'. If I'm making a point (as opposed to being awkward) it's that sometimes different people do things differently for perfectly good reasons - and their different risk analysis might be valid too. Several people have said they wouldn't do it. Fine. Others will, and they aren't necessarily foolish - the evaluation preparation and precautions might make it worthwhile for them.
Yes, in the '40s when it was an implement of war. What was considered acceptable risk in 1940s aviation, especially wartime 1940s aviation, was much higher than it is today. Crashing airplanes at the alarming rate of the wartime '40s was merely the cost of doing business. If that kind of risk was accepted regulary today, there'd be a lot more aircraft crashes.
We aren't operating W.W.II aircraft to W.W.II standards - safety is better, systems and training, capability is all better. You don't need to carry guns and W.W.II radios; your immersion suit will be better. Things do go wrong, but as we all know we take risks every day, little and sometimes big. Some people think the ferrying risk is worth it.
It's a pity that so many Americans feel that it's not worth a risk (size to be debated) to promote, in Europe, America's wartime achievement with the P-38, as mentioned here several times by those same Americans.
It's also interesting that the anti-ferry position sounds exactly the same as the FAA / CAA / CASA 'old aeroplanes crash sometimes, so let's not allow them.' How ironic. That position was beaten down by hard work in the USA, Britain and Australia by hard work by warbird enthusiasts - they didn't take the general opinion (shared by many pilots) that old aircraft are dangerous, they evaluated it, analysed it, and agreed what was and what was not reasonable risk - and they went out and proved it worthwhile.
It's notable that there's still no non-US 'anti-ferry' poster appeared...
Thanks for the thoughts...
Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:09 am
I'm in Canada - does that count? I wouldn't want to see someone ferry it over the pond either, especially just for a tour. If it was purchased and being ferried to it's new home in, say, Duxford I think that's a different proposition, but I still wouldn't want to see it flown over. I think (for what it's worth) that the best way to get it overseas would be to pack it up in a sea can, put it in (not ON but IN) a ship, and then hope like h-ll nothing bad happens at sea. Makes the logistics a lot simpler too.
A P-38 (or F7F or whatever) isn't built for long, transoceanic flying. They're single pilot, probably no autopilot, no de-ice capability, OLD airplanes being hauled around by equally OLD engines. Steel and structure gets old - it's called "fatigue" and it exists no matter who overhauled it. And I'd bet a shiny new penny that Glacier Girl is not even remotely set up for modern IFR flying. Flying that airplane across the pond would be, in a word, (and in my humble opinion) stupid. I fly a civvy C-130 for a living, and transoceanic work with four engines, four guys (plus a sleeping mechanic farting on the bunk), two HF radios, a good autopilot, the best de-ice/ant-ice system known to man, weather radar, and three GPS systems, is still not a proposition to undertake lightly. Yes it was done in the war and yes they lost some too. That's why Glacier Girl is with us today.
Being a multi-engined airplane doesn't automatically make it a good overwater machine, all it means is that you now have twice the chance of having an engine failure, or a coolant leak, or a fuel pump quit, or an exhaust stack fire, or...(ad nauseum). These airplanes are antiques and should be treated as such, and if they are they'll be around for a long time. That's not saying that they're "dangerous, old airplanes held together with spit and baling wire" it's just that they're old, and precious and rare, and the most conservative approach that places the least ammount of strain on the machine and the crew is usually always the best way to go.
Take her apart, can it, insure the h-ll out of it, and if it gets a little bent enroute then just fix it afterwards and carry on. Personally though I'd rather see her live out her days in the warm California sunshine being operated and cared for by the people with the knowledge, skill, and good sense to look after her properly and pick and choose the days when it's safe to fire her up and blow the dust off of her.
Post Rant checklist complete.
Dan
A P-38 (or F7F or whatever) isn't built for long, transoceanic flying. They're single pilot, probably no autopilot, no de-ice capability, OLD airplanes being hauled around by equally OLD engines. Steel and structure gets old - it's called "fatigue" and it exists no matter who overhauled it. And I'd bet a shiny new penny that Glacier Girl is not even remotely set up for modern IFR flying. Flying that airplane across the pond would be, in a word, (and in my humble opinion) stupid. I fly a civvy C-130 for a living, and transoceanic work with four engines, four guys (plus a sleeping mechanic farting on the bunk), two HF radios, a good autopilot, the best de-ice/ant-ice system known to man, weather radar, and three GPS systems, is still not a proposition to undertake lightly. Yes it was done in the war and yes they lost some too. That's why Glacier Girl is with us today.
Being a multi-engined airplane doesn't automatically make it a good overwater machine, all it means is that you now have twice the chance of having an engine failure, or a coolant leak, or a fuel pump quit, or an exhaust stack fire, or...(ad nauseum). These airplanes are antiques and should be treated as such, and if they are they'll be around for a long time. That's not saying that they're "dangerous, old airplanes held together with spit and baling wire" it's just that they're old, and precious and rare, and the most conservative approach that places the least ammount of strain on the machine and the crew is usually always the best way to go.
Take her apart, can it, insure the h-ll out of it, and if it gets a little bent enroute then just fix it afterwards and carry on. Personally though I'd rather see her live out her days in the warm California sunshine being operated and cared for by the people with the knowledge, skill, and good sense to look after her properly and pick and choose the days when it's safe to fire her up and blow the dust off of her.
Post Rant checklist complete.
Dan
Last edited by Dan Jones on Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am, edited 4 times in total.