Quick A-25 Move. Hurry, Hurry, Chop, Chop.

[Moonlight]

It is the last of it's type there fore it shouldn't be flown.

I'm SO glad that this mentality doesn't infect everyone in the warbird community. The fact that something is the last remaining example of it's kind SHOULD mean that it belongs in the air, IMO. Doc Sugden's FJ-4B, for example.

I wonder what those who own one-of-a-kind machines would think...

[mustangdriver]

Most of the people on here sort of come together on the fact that if there is only a sole surviving example left, that it should not be flown. Not just me.

[6trn4brn]

With regards to taking away the accredidation for the NMUSAF based on a one-time bad move...ummmm sir, should the FAA take away your license and your beloved aircraft because you busted one of their rules? Maybe failed an annual or did not have the correct air pressure in one of your tires???

Cut off the head because the hand got caught in the cookie jar...that type of thinking is so bizarre!

One mistake doth not a trend make...

[Mark_Pilkington]

It is the last of it's type there fore it shouldn't be flown.

I'm SO glad that this mentality doesn't infect everyone in the warbird community. The fact that something is the last remaining example of it's kind SHOULD mean that it belongs in the air, IMO. Doc Sugden's FJ-4B, for example.

I wonder what those who own one-of-a-kind machines would think...

I suggest you ask the English forumites about a Bristol Bulldog? and hear their opinion.

I am actually glad this "mentality" DOES infect most people involved in aviation heritage.

Ideally, we should be trying to retain at least one example (and ideally at least two) of each of these aircraft to be preserved for posterity, that cannot easily be achieved via a sole flying example, as there is the constant risk of damage:

Ground engine fire - B-29 "Kee Bird"
Air to Air Collision - Meteor/Vampire "Vintage Pair"
mid air breakup - Jet Provost (Australia)
ground impact- Bulldog & numerous others.
Fatigue / wear and tear - replacement/substitution of original parts.

That is not to say we shouldnt fly "rare" examples, but when they are the "sole" survivor we are risking loss of an irreplaceble artefact and making a type "extinct".

Of course if we loose a "sole survivor" the remains could simply be "rebuilt" with enough drawings and new metal, but then it wouldnt really be authentic and orginal, it would be a "recreation", and if that can be done, why not build a "recreation" or short run production of flying "recreations" and avoid damaging the "sole" survivor?

In fact that approach has already successfully been undertaken and has seen F3F's , FW190's, Me 262's and Oscars return to our skies without the need to withdraw a rare survivor from a museum and risk it back in the air.

Flying Warbirds do have an important role to play in the demonstration, education, commemoration and preservation of aviation heritage, but so too do static examples conserved or preserved for future generations, and collections of static examples gathered into a major museum for current and future generations is something to be supported, celebrated and appreciated, not denigrated.

In regards to the recent A-25 dis-assembly and transport, it is clear that activity could have been achieved with less risk of damage and destruction of structure, however the apparant "errors" of some individuals should not be used to undermine the achievements and worth of the whole organisation or its collection.

I am sure if we are all have concerns over this situation following review of these pictures, so too do senior management at the museum, an I am confident some corrective action will be taken.

In anycase I suspect the museum will "pay" for the mistake in the form of additional restoration and repair over an above the work yet uncompleted, and that the finished product will be to their usual high standard.

I also cringe when similar critisism is levelled at the CAF for their losses and mistakes over the years, without commentry and acknowledgement of their successes and achievements over that same very long time, and the major role they have played in developing the Warbird environment we all enjoy today.

I admire and applaud the efforts and achievements of both organisations.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Taylor Stevenson]

With regards to taking away the accredidation for the NMUSAF based on a one-time bad move...ummmm sir, should the FAA take away your license and your beloved aircraft because you busted one of their rules? Maybe failed an annual or did not have the correct air pressure in one of your tires???

Cut off the head because the hand got caught in the cookie jar...that type of thinking is so bizarre!

One mistake doth not a trend make...

This is not the only move the NMUSAF has made with their head up somewhere... They are the stewards of the rare historic artifacts WE, the people of the USA, have given them to protect. When they harm the integrity of those artifacts or those in the community that strive to preserve them, I have a problem with it.

By the way, I don't think the FAA will bust my mechanics annuals... he's good!

But whatever... this is an argument where both sides on this forum are firmly entrenched... we might as well stop.

[Moonlight]

I am actually glad this "mentality" DOES infect most people involved in aviation heritage.

Ideally, we should be trying to retain at least one example (and ideally at least two) of each of these aircraft to be preserved for posterity, that cannot easily be achieved via a sole flying example, as there is the constant risk of damage:

Agreed...if a non-airworthy plane is available, make it a static. I think it's a shame that a plane with airworthiness potential was hacked apart with the intent of making it non-airworthy.

As far as the examples you listed, I'd remove the Jet Provost from the list...the thing looks like a T-33 that ran into a wall, and their is lots of them around. Volkswagons with wings, I say.

[aussiepby]

quote, mr moonlight
As far as the examples you listed, I'd remove the Jet Provost from the list...the thing looks like a T-33 that ran into a wall, and their is lots of them around. Volkswagons with wings, I say.

i would like to remind you that a fine pilot and paying passenger lost their lives in the crash of the Jet Provost that has changed the warbird joyflight industry forever in Australia.

having said that the Jet Provost may not be the best looking jet arround but in the context it was mentioned i think some respect is due.

but that is just my two cents.

[Chuck Gardner]

Most of the people on here sort of come together on the fact that if there is only a sole surviving example left, that it should not be flown. Not just me.

I completely disagree with you. Completely, Absolutely, 100%, as usual.

I completely disagree with you. Completely, Absolutely, 100%, as usual.

I completely concur with you. Completely, Absolutely, 100%, as usual as well.

[mustangdriver]

Most of the people on here sort of come together on the fact that if there is only a sole surviving example left, that it should not be flown. Not just me.

I completely disagree with you. Completely, Absolutely, 100%, as usual.

Good for you.

[Jack Cook]

JCW on this board recovered, rebuilt and flew the only surviving Spartan NP-1 for years. It's a special plane and lots of fun. Jeff figured he'd probably trade to a museum some day but was in no hurry. On his behalf I contacted the Navy and let me tell you what a bunch of jerks. After comments like we should just take it from you he was offered the gutted fuselage shell of a Fokker F-27 lated out at D-M. Well, he kept it and finally made his deal. The Spartan's back home in Tulsa where Jeff will fly it for them a couple more times before it's retired for good. Has for Jeff, he plans on having his new Staggerwing and his Eaglerock flying by next summer.

[Canso42]

I'd like to know the differences between and SB2C and an A-25. Did the A-25 have non-folding wings? Obviously it would lack a tail hook.

Doug

[Jack Cook]

Probably about the same has the difference between the JD-1 and the A-26.

[Canso42]

Jack, sounds like a valid comparison but I don't know much about a JD-1 other than the fact of its existence.
How 'bout SBD vs. A-24. Presence/absence of tail hook and green or blue paint?
Doug

[Second Air Force]

A-25s and A-24s also have a larger pneumatic tailwheel tire and modified strut to accomodate the tire. The same combo could be used on the SBD for non-carrier ops. Only the first few A-25s had folding wings, the balance had the wing fold deleted in production.

Here are a couple photos of 42-97892 after a belly landing at Grand Island Army Air Field, Nebraska on 13 May, 1944. Every larger 2AF field had a couple of A-25s assigned to the base unit for target towing, general utility, and pilot proficiency at one time or another.

Notice that there isn't a tailwheel fairing like most SB2Cs had, and the tailwheel strut is somewhat shorter than the naval version:



The hangar in this photo was built before the war, used by the AAF when the base was built over the municipal airport, and now is home to an FBO.

Scott